• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snow days mean less food for many students

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I guess the Nanny State needs to go home with these people an live their lives for them, because they must be utterly incapable of even feeding their kids, right? The kiddos are missing out on their 'one nutritious meal' of the day (that's laughable, has anyone taken a look at those school lunches lately?) because of they are missing an extra day of school from the snow.

I guess the parents count on the kids eating free lunch at school to keep them in beer money, is that it? Maybe Obama can start a program to keep free lunches going 7 days a week, eh?

Snow days deprive many kids of food - Weather- msnbc.com

TAKOMA PARK, Md. - As back-to-back snowstorms shuttered schools for the week across the mid-Atlantic states, parents fretted about lost learning time, administrators scheduled makeup days and teachers posted assignments online. But Marla Caplon worried about a more fundamental problem: How would students eat?

The two snowstorms that pummeled the region, leaving more than 3 feet of snow in some areas, deprived tens of thousands of children from Virginia to Pennsylvania of the free or reduced-price school lunch that may be their only nutritious meal of the day. The nonprofits that try to meet the need when school is not in session also closed their doors for much of the week, leaving many families looking at bare cupboards. And many parents working hourly jobs were unable to earn any money during the week, as the snow forced businesses to close.

Caplon is a food services supervisor for Montgomery County Public Schools, where about 43,000 children are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Some also get breakfast, dinner and bags of staple foods to take home for the weekend. The snow days meant children would get none of that until Tuesday, because schools are closed Monday for Presidents Day.
 
P.S. I thought today was the 15th, this article is dated the 13th, so I thought it was within 48 hrs, however I see I'm off by a day, perhaps a moderator can please move it.
 
I guess the Nanny State needs to go home with these people an live their lives for them, because they must be utterly incapable of even feeding their kids, right? The kiddos are missing out on their 'one nutritious meal' of the day (that's laughable, has anyone taken a look at those school lunches lately?) because of they are missing an extra day of school from the snow.

I guess the parents count on the kids eating free lunch at school to keep them in beer money, is that it? Maybe Obama can start a program to keep free lunches going 7 days a week, eh?

Snow days deprive many kids of food - Weather- msnbc.com

You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
 
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?

You know there's poor people in every country right? You know there's been poor people since people came into existence right?

You know if a person has enough to own a car, they're required to insure it and if they don't have 5$ for gas, they can take a bus, train, or they can walk right? So if it's down to the last 5$ and there's no food of any kind anywhere, you know they can go to a homeless shelter or a Church and get food right? And children who don't have food get to be wards of the state and taken away from parents who cannot feed them, you know that right?

:roll:

How many bloated little naked children running around with flies on their eyes are there exactly today Hatuey? Got an accurate count do you? There's always a choice isn't there...this being one of the countries in the world where opporutinity still abounds for those willing to work for it. There's always an alternative and there's always a helping hand for those in real need through charity and the local community.

People make mistakes, bad choices ... and they pay for those bad choices. It's not the state or the government's job to feed and clothe them. I can see a helping hand for a temporary amount of time when and if it's needed. Then the poor need to apply themselves and become a functioning part of society, not a leech living off it's host.
 
I guess the Nanny State needs to go home with these people an live their lives for them, because they must be utterly incapable of even feeding their kids, right?

Truer words were never spoken.
 
This is truly a shame that these kids aren't being fed at home. I would venture to say it's mainly due to the laziness and sheer lack of care on the parents side. It's probably due to the nanny nature of the welfare system that these parent's are not disciplined enough to feed their kids. I am not bashing people on welfare nor do I judge them or say all are like this. But we can't ignore the fact that some are simply lazy and mooch off the system. My family has been dirt poor before, we gave up things like TV and had one car, we rented out a cheap townhouse and never went out to eat. We learned to live within our means and we always had food because we budgeted properly. My dad used to work cleaning up project housing... He would tell me stories of how the people living there wouldn't open the door for them because they are asleep (at 2pm in the afternoon), he would say how disgusting and run down they let the place get, and that this was typical for almost every unit. The welfare system promotes laziness and that laziness in turn reaps destructive consequences.
 
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
So they stay home to feed their kids right?
 
How do they get fed in the summertime when there is no school?
 
How do they get fed in the summertime when there is no school?
That lady drives around and delivers food to these children.
 
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?

Maybe they should give up their iPods & iPhones. Maybe they should use their food stamps for ... hmmmmm...... I dunno ...... maybe food for the kids?
 
You know what gets me about this article is the attitude expressed that seems based on the assumption that the poor are utterly incompetent without the intervention of the government, and that one extra day out of school is an incredible hardship on the halfwits.

This liberal mentality is incredibly patronizing to people.

Was this a slow news day story? Is this the best MSNBC can come up with?

Personally, I don't begrudge the school lunch program, but I do think the attitude expressed in this pathetic example of journalism is counterproductive.
 
The school lunch program, just like the food stamp program, is not really a welfare program, its a farm subsidy.
 
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?

A pack of ramen is about 25 cents a pack or less and a box of mac and cheese is 35 cents or less and a pack of hotdogs is less than a dollar.They do not need the Kraft,Oscar Mayer, or any other name brand. Besides if they are getting food stamps they can't use food stamps to buy gas.
 
Last edited:
OK, so there are a lot of poor kids in the US. It sucks that they are missing out on a meal, but what sucks more is the government deciding that they should take money out of MY pocket to feed them. If I am charitable, and I am, then I donate money freely, of my own free will. If the government takes my money, for whatever cause they believe is right, then they are thieves, because what they are doing is stealing.
 
OK, so there are a lot of poor kids in the US. It sucks that they are missing out on a meal, but what sucks more is the government deciding that they should take money out of MY pocket to feed them. If I am charitable, and I am, then I donate money freely, of my own free will. If the government takes my money, for whatever cause they believe is right, then they are thieves, because what they are doing is stealing.

Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.
 
Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.

The first is done against one's will and without consent, the second is done freely using one's free will.

The end result may be the same, but they are totally different.
 
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?

Just how many are there? And further more, how many of these people are in this position due to piss poor life choices? Or does that not matter, the possibility one child might be in a home situation that needs help DEMANDS WE ACT!!! (cue dramatic muzak)
 
The first is done against one's will and without consent, the second is done freely using one's free will.

The end result may be the same, but they are totally different.

Interesting perspective. This might highlight one of the main differences between conservatives (and I mean the rare nonloony ones on this forum like Dan or Ockham) and liberals. As a liberal, I am more concerned that the ends are served, now necessarily how it is done (in this situation, different situations will create different approaches from different groups, of course.) But good, more charity means less need for welfare, as long as the charity goes to the right place and doesn't end up supporting something useless like a community symphony.
 
Last edited:
The first is done against one's will and without consent, the second is done freely using one's free will.

The end result may be the same, but they are totally different.

This man gets it - Free will vs. coercion. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

A cigar to you, Ockham. :)
 
Interesting perspective. This might highlight one of the main differences between conservatives (and I mean the rare nonloony ones on this forum like Dan or Ockham) and liberals. As a liberal, I am more concerned that the ends are served, now necessarily how it is done (in this situation, different situations will create different approaches from different groups, of course.) But good, more charity means less need for welfare, as long as the charity goes to the right place and doesn't end up supporting something useless like a community symphony.

But, if someone supports a community symphony, that is his choice. Other than that, good post. :)
 
This man gets it - Free will vs. coercion. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

A cigar to you, Ockham. :)

Whether you agree with the school lunch program or not, anyone with even a elementary understanding of civics knows that allocating part of your tax dollars towards it does not constitute theft, but rather its social contract. There is 195 nations in the "market of nations" to choose from. If someone does not like the social contract in the United States, there are 194 different nations on the menu - all with their own social contracts that residents live under.

My point is that calling anything your tax dollars goes to "theft" is an argument for people that are a lot less intelligent than you are.
 
OK, so there are a lot of poor kids in the US. It sucks that they are missing out on a meal, but what sucks more is the government deciding that they should take money out of MY pocket to feed them. If I am charitable, and I am, then I donate money freely, of my own free will. If the government takes my money, for whatever cause they believe is right, then they are thieves, because what they are doing is stealing.

So...take money out of my pocket to say.....uh....oh.......have civilian trials for enemy combatants that require security, facilitation, and risk assessment and of course...feeding them as you're arguing in another thread....but....it's stealing to feed American Schoolchildren with that same tax money?

Priorities are a little upside down don't ya think?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.
It's the difference between voluntary cooperation and coercive cooperation. The Constitution does not provide this explicit or implied power to the fed govt.
 
Whether you agree with the school lunch program or not, anyone with even a elementary understanding of civics knows that allocating part of your tax dollars towards it does not constitute theft, but rather its social contract. There is 195 nations in the "market of nations" to choose from. If someone does not like the social contract in the United States, there are 194 different nations on the menu - all with their own social contracts that residents live under.

My point is that calling anything your tax dollars goes to "theft" is an argument for people that are a lot less intelligent than you are.
There is no social contract in the US to support a school lunch program under the Constitution. If you contend there is, please show me the clause and background.
 
Interesting perspective. This might highlight one of the main differences between conservatives (and I mean the rare nonloony ones on this forum like Dan or Ockham) and liberals. As a liberal, I am more concerned that the ends are served, now necessarily how it is done (in this situation, different situations will create different approaches from different groups, of course.) But good, more charity means less need for welfare, as long as the charity goes to the right place and doesn't end up supporting something useless like a community symphony.

Yet conservatives are more likely to give to charity.
 
Back
Top Bottom