• 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

jallman said:
One thing I have never understood is why we don't have more daycare assistance programs for mothers with young children and more "workfare" type programs that could be used to boost income for families on public assistance while simultaneously creating a source of labor for infrastructure projects.
Click to expand...

Most states have what your speaking of and you can also deduct child care expenses on your federal taxes.
So far and this is just my observation, it only helps those who want to improve their station in live.

Most of my problems with hand out programs is, there is no guarantee that it isn't being used to increase the parents discretionary income.
That it's actually needed by the parents.
 
jallman said:
Fine. reported. And every post off topic will subsequently be reported. I am not going to tolerate this upstairs. Do whatever you want in the other forums, but you will not **** all over the debate forums.
Click to expand...

You will tolerate different opinions & you'll like it....;)
I never report anyone, FYI......;)
 
jallman said:
I said nothing about not giving them food. Were you making a point?
Click to expand...

Doing the drug test costs as much as just providing the food to ten people. You'll end up spending more money this way, even after you disqualify the drug users, so why bother?
 
Partisan said:
You will tolerate different opinions & you'll like it....;)
I never report anyone, FYI......;)
Click to expand...

I dont have any problem with different opinions. I have a problem with clear attempts to flame and troll.

I did report. And I will continue to do so each and every time you step off topic. Now would you like to comment on the topic at hand?
 
Deuce said:
Doing the drug test costs as much as just providing the food to ten people. You'll end up spending more money this way, even after you disqualify the drug users, so why bother?
Click to expand...

Thank you for seeing my point, I thought it was obvious.....:)
 
jallman said:
I dont have any problem with different opinions. I have a problem with clear attempts to flame and troll.

I did report. And I will continue to do so each and every time you step off topic. Now would you like to comment on the topic at hand?
Click to expand...

I already have, you are too busy to read that part.....Try again.....;)
 
Moderator's Warning:
If you think somethings violating a rule, report it. Don't try and derail a thread with posts focusing on complaining about said rule.

Beyond that, if there's any further trolling of this thread action will be taken. Stay on topic
 
Deuce said:
Doing the drug test costs as much as just providing the food to ten people. You'll end up spending more money this way, even after you disqualify the drug users, so why bother?
Click to expand...

Deterrence to keep people from even applying. Wipe out the ones who are abusing. And to have an impetus for removing kids from homes where drug abuse leads to neglect and financial distress. :shrug:
 
Deuce said:
Doing the drug test costs as much as just providing the food to ten people. You'll end up spending more money this way, even after you disqualify the drug users, so why bother?
Click to expand...

Instead of drug testing which makes little to no sense, use that money at the State level and provide it to DYFS to bolster their overworked/under funded issues. DYFS in some cases is not so bad, especially if putting the kids temporarily in a home where they can get food, shelter, etc., while the parents clean up (if it's drugs) or can get a job, and get themselves back on their feet.

The whole purpose would be to get folks off the government teat and function as a useful part of society.
 
jallman said:
Deterrence to keep people from even applying. Wipe out the ones who are abusing. And to have an impetus for removing kids from homes where drug abuse leads to neglect and financial distress. :shrug:
Click to expand...

They will waste time & resources denying that they are 'dirty', claiming false positives, & demanding retests .......
I don't think it is worth the resources to create another bureauacracy to deal with it that way....
However, if it is obvious that someone has a problem, I would image that this is/should be covered by child services anyway...;)
 
jallman said:
Yeah for about a month. And then who solves the problem of mom not having money next month because she cant get to work?
Click to expand...

Mom can take the bus. Or get a bicycle.

You guys act like the answer is so simple. "Oh well...derrrrrr...just stop being poor."

It's asinine fantasy approach to a real problem.
Click to expand...

The answer is simple. If you can care for you kids, then you need to care for your kids. If you can't care for your kids, then you need to not have kids.
 
Panache said:
Mom can take the bus. Or get a bicycle.
Click to expand...

Many of them can barely get off the couch....;)

The answer is simple. If you can care for you kids, then you need to care for your kids. If you can't care for your kids, then you need to not have kids
Click to expand...

"Don't breed 'em if you can't feed them....;)
When you get divorced, you have to have a parenting plan...
Too bad you don't need one before having kids....:doh
Click to expand...
 
well, my mother married a no good alcoholic man, and had five kids. we are catholic. she finally divorced him before he killed her. we were then poor and needed assistance for a time.

i guess she should have known better.
Click to expand...

So she screwed up in picking a mate, and then screwed up in having more kids than she could afford, and then screwed up in picking the wrong religion, and then rushed into a divorce with no plan on how she was going to care for her kids?

Yeah. She should have known better. If she had gotten to know the dude before rushing into a marriage, she wouldn't have been in that situation. If she had limited the quantity of her offspring to a more manageable number, she wouldn't have been in that situation. If she had figured out a plan for how to take care of her children before getting a divorce, she wouldn't have been in that situation.

Seems to me she just wasn't ready to handle the responsibility of parenthood.
 
Ockham said:
And only and ignorant ass assumes a definition of a term used generically, hence you didn't answer my question or provide the definition.
Click to expand...

So you infer I am an "ignorant ass" because you need a definition of "nutrition?" Interesting.

Ockham said:
Are you the spokesperson for all poor people? No.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said I was?

Ockham said:
You're the spokesperson for you. You're argument is so generalized as to be meaningless.
Click to expand...

Maybe to someone who does not understand blanket generalizations of poor people don't cut it.

Ockham said:
Some poor people live off the system and some work hard. Differentiating the two and helping those who work to make things better, and cutting off the parasites is the issue.
Click to expand...

That's great, and a far cry from the post I responded to. Here let me refresh your memory...

"185 days without lunch sounds like child abuse to me. Where's the state's division of youth in this and why aren't these kids being taken away from their parents and being put in homes where they can get 3 meals a day again?" - Ockham Post #101

No place do you mention anything about anyone abusing the system etc.

Ockham said:
Perhaps you should stop attempting to be snarky and address the problems with potential solutions.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer, but I do know the blanket statements you made that I addressed are incorrect.

Throwing out the baby with the bath water as you have suggested is not an answer.
 
Last edited:
Panache said:
So she screwed up in picking a mate, and then screwed up in having more kids than she could afford, and then screwed up in picking the wrong religion, and then rushed into a divorce with no plan on how she was going to care for her kids?

Yeah. She should have known better. If she had gotten to know the dude before rushing into a marriage, she wouldn't have been in that situation. If she had limited the quantity of her offspring to a more manageable number, she wouldn't have been in that situation. If she had figured out a plan for how to take care of her children before getting a divorce, she wouldn't have been in that situation.

Seems to me she just wasn't ready to handle the responsibility of parenthood.
Click to expand...
you're so right. that would be the reason she raised 5 contributing, successful children, she wasn't ready to handle responsibility.

thanks for your input, pissant.
 
Panache said:
So she screwed up in picking a mate, and then screwed up in having more kids than she could afford, and then screwed up in picking the wrong religion, and then rushed into a divorce with no plan on how she was going to care for her kids?

Yeah. She should have known better. If she had gotten to know the dude before rushing into a marriage, she wouldn't have been in that situation. If she had limited the quantity of her offspring to a more manageable number, she wouldn't have been in that situation. If she had figured out a plan for how to take care of her children before getting a divorce, she wouldn't have been in that situation.

Seems to me she just wasn't ready to handle the responsibility of parenthood.
Click to expand...

That's not really fair to liblady though.

She and her bothers and sisters did not choose their lot as children.
That was the hand they were dealt.

Hind sight is always 20/20 but not everyone can have excellent predictive skills in what their mate will turn out to be.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's not really fair to liblady though.

She and her bothers and sisters did not choose their lot as children.
That was the hand they were dealt.

Hind sight is always 20/20 but not everyone can have excellent predictive skills in what their mate will turn out to be.
Click to expand...

While he could express it a bit more diplomatically, Panache is right though. In a just society, we all accept responsibility for the choices we make and accept the consequences for the choices we make. There is no better system in place to provide incentive for making good choices.

Yes, if they are in a position to do so, most moral people will offer a helping hand to those who need it. And sooner or later all of us need a helping hand in some way or another. Certainly where children are concerned, we must give priority to these most defenseless in our society, but that should NEVER include enabling or encouraging irresponsibility or bad choices in their parents.

The minute you FORCE people to assume the responsibility and consequences for the stupid choices others make, you make the responsible in society subservient to the irresponsible. And that never turns out well.
 
liblady said:
you're so right. that would be the reason she raised 5 contributing, successful children, she wasn't ready to handle responsibility.
Click to expand...

Well, if she had raised 5 contributing, successful children, that would indicate that she could handle the responsibility. Unfortunately, she wasn't able to. Part of raising children is providing them with things like food. Since she wasn't able to, us taxpayers were forced to do so.

thanks for your input, pissant.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.:2wave:
 
AlbqOwl said:
While he could express it a bit more diplomatically, Panache is right though. In a just society, we all accept responsibility for the choices we make and accept the consequences for the choices we make. There is no better system in place to provide incentive for making good choices.

Yes, if they are in a position to do so, most moral people will offer a helping hand to those who need it. And sooner or later all of us need a helping hand in some way or another. Certainly where children are concerned, we must give priority to these most defenseless in our society, but that should NEVER include enabling or encouraging irresponsibility or bad choices in their parents.

The minute you FORCE people to assume the responsibility and consequences for the stupid choices others make, you make the responsible in society subservient to the irresponsible. And that never turns out well.
Click to expand...

I understand that but children do not have the power to choose how they are brought up.
They have no choice of who their parents are.

If I had things my way, I would horse whip ****ty parents with no remorse.
 
That's not really fair to liblady though.

She and her bothers and sisters did not choose their lot as children.
That was the hand they were dealt.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest it was her fault or the fault of her siblings. Her mom and dad are to blame. They produced far too many offspring before they were ready to produce any.

Hind sight is always 20/20 but not everyone can have excellent predictive skills in what their mate will turn out to be.
Click to expand...

People should take as long as they need to know who they are marrying before they do so. Certainly they should figure out that someone is a no-good alcoholic abuser-type before having five kids with him.
 
it's also not fair to my mother....who raised us, with gov't assistance for a relatively short period of time, (about 2 years).

now, i pay my taxes and expect them to be used as a hand up to those who need it. i sincerely hope those of you who belittle people who receive assistance someday find yourselves begging for help, and some ****ed up self righteous asshole kicks you in the gut and tells YOU that you made poor choices, too bad.
 
Panache said:
I didn't suggest it was her fault or the fault of her siblings. Her mom and dad are to blame. They produced far too many offspring before they were ready to produce any.



People should take as long as they need to know who they are marrying before they do so. Certainly they should figure out that someone is a no-good alcoholic abuser-type before having five kids with him.
Click to expand...

Question: What if the mentioned husband goes off to war, has some trauma, and then becomes an alcoholic?
 
Panache said:
I didn't suggest it was her fault or the fault of her siblings. Her mom and dad are to blame. They produced far too many offspring before they were ready to produce any.
Click to expand...

That's fine but being so inflammatory towards a person who had no control is wrong.
Being a libertarian also includes having ethics and is not just about being resistant to all forms of government welfare.

It is unethical to punish those who did nothing wrong.

Panache said:
People should take as long as they need to know who they are marrying before they do so. Certainly they should figure out that someone is a no-good alcoholic abuser-type before having five kids with him.
Click to expand...

Like I said hindsight is 20/20, sometimes people change or mask their true identity.
It's not always so cut and dry.
 
Question: What if the mentioned husband goes off to war, has some trauma, and then becomes an alcoholic?
Click to expand...

Then that particular aspect would be much more understandable.

That wasn't what she said though.

my mother married a no good alcoholic man
Click to expand...

This implies that he was already a scumbag when she married him.
 
Blackdog said:
So you infer I am an "ignorant ass" because you need a definition of "nutrition?" Interesting.
Click to expand...
If you dish it out, you should be able to take it. And yes, we need to agree on what is and is not "nutritious" and making an assumption that this is common knowledge not needing to be defined is disingenuous at best.

To remind you - you said:

Blackdog said:
Only an idiot does not know the difference between nutritious and junk.
Click to expand...

....


Blackdog said:
Please point out where I said I was?
Click to expand...

Sure... you made a blanket statement:

Backdog said:
Poor people trying to provide for the children, who are making an effort should not lose them because they need a little help.
Click to expand...

You didn't say "some Poor people" you stated as fact... and therefore you placed yourself in the position of speaking for all poor people. I'm just saying you're not so don't assume and generalize all poor people. Some poor people may not be making an effort, and some poor people don't care about their kids at all.


Backdog said:
Maybe to someone who does not understand blanket generalizations of poor people don't cut it.
Click to expand...
Generalizations are a bad idea in all cases.


Backdog said:
That's great, and a far cry from the post I responded to. Here let me refresh your memory...

"185 days without lunch sounds like child abuse to me. Where's the state's division of youth in this and why aren't these kids being taken away from their parents and being put in homes where they can get 3 meals a day again?" - Ockham Post #101

No place do you mention anything about anyone abusing the system etc.
Click to expand...

Correct. I mention that in post #104 and #105.


Backdog said:
Throwing out the baby with the bath water as you have suggested is not an answer.
Click to expand...

I don't see DYFS as being a throw the baby out scenario. I find it an alternative method to allow parents time to get on their feet, and puts the children in a temporary home where they can get all the necessities they deserve. However, I also stated in this thread how tools must be provided so the poor can help themselves. Those who do not want to help themselves are parasites and should, after a period of time (I mentioned a cap on the amount of time assistance should be provided) should be cut off from getting any State assistance.

My overall view is welfare and this type of assistance at a Federal level is un-Constitutional, which I discussed and disagreed with SouthernDemocrat who felt that the courts have upheld it so far, therefore it's Constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom