• 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

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.
\

No they don't, and we, as part of the social contract we have adopted, are committed and obligated to see that children are not abused or neglected. So, all 50 states have laws defining criminal abuse and neglect and all 50 states have provisions to remove children from homes where they are criminally abused or neglected. And anybody who would willfully allow children to remain in such a home is as bad as those who criminally abuse or neglect their kids.

Again, I have no problem offering a helping hand to parents who, through no fault of their own, need temporary help or who want to break an irresponsible cycle. I've devoted a good portion of my life doing exactly that. But kids should grow up watching their parents earning their income, managing a household, balancing a budget, and paying their bills. If they grow up seeing mom and dad subsist on a government check, they are far more likely to accept that as a normal way of life and perpetuate that cycle.
 
Then that particular aspect would be much more understandable.

That wasn't what she said though.



This implies that he was already a scumbag when she married him.

Its not cut and dry even then though. For example, many women who marry abusive husbands have very real self esteem problems or other issues. Telling them they are a bad person will do nothing to help them resolve this. All one would be doing by reacting and saying "its your fault" is making the problem worse by giving that person yet another reason to continue self destructive behavior.
 
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).

You may think that if you like. The fact remains that she needed government assistance because she was not capable of taking care of you. Not being able to take care of your children is the very definition of incompetent parenting.

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.

It's cute that you want me to experience poverty so that I will "finally know what its like" but I have already done the poverty thing. I just wasn't foolish enough to produce offspring and expect everyone else to pick up the slack.

I am sorry that you and your siblings were born into such unfortunate circumstances. You certainly can't help who your parents are.
 
Wow. I hate to say it Panache, but the opinions you are expressing are pretty much meeting one of my personal definitions of evil. This is a simply stunning conversation to witness.
 
Its not cut and dry even then though. For example, many women who marry abusive husbands have very real self esteem problems or other issues. Telling them they are a bad person will do nothing to help them resolve this. All one would be doing by reacting and saying "its your fault" is making the problem worse by giving that person yet another reason to continue self destructive behavior.

Ok, but having self esteem problems and other issues doesn't magically make them fit to be a parent.

You can tell them that they aren't a bad person and that they just need to get their life in order before they can take responsibility for their children again.
 
Wow. I hate to say it Panache, but the opinions you are expressing are pretty much meeting one of my personal definitions of evil. This is a simply stunning conversation to witness.

Why? Again, I wish Panache was putting it more diplomatically, but how is he wrong? Do you disagree that if you're going to have kids, you should prepare yourself to feed, clothe, house, and educate them? I'm sure your mom was a wonderful woman and she in fact may have been in circumstances she never anticipated and which she was unable to deal with. But she did make the choices that she made. Who to marry. Whether to have kids. How she would prepare herself to support those kids. I neither judge her nor condemn her, but where do you draw the line in where it becomes your job to assume responsibility for the choices I make?
 
Why? Again, I wish Panache was putting it more diplomatically, but how is he wrong? Do you disagree that if you're going to have kids, you should prepare yourself to feed, clothe, house, and educate them? I'm sure your mom was a wonderful woman and she in fact may have been in circumstances she never anticipated and which she was unable to deal with. But she did make the choices that she made. Who to marry. Whether to have kids. How she would prepare herself to support those kids. I neither judge her nor condemn her, but where do you draw the line in where it becomes your job to assume responsibility for the choices I make?

I certainly support expecting people to be personally responsible. But expecting them to be personally responsible, when they cannot help themselves, whether or not it is their fault (when you are helpless, fault no longer matters, at least in domestic situations like this), is an evil act. Personal responsibility and societal welfare are two sides of the same coin, to go totally one way or the other way is wrong.

However to answer your question where to draw the line. I think it is impossible to answer because every situation has different details. This is one of the reasons its so easy to fight about welfare. It allows everyone to project their own personal views onto someone they have seen on society because that is what they are already sensitive too.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I hate to say it Panache, but the opinions you are expressing are pretty much meeting one of my personal definitions of evil. This is a simply stunning conversation to witness.

Glad I could entertain. Which opinions specifically do you find the most evil?

I find the opinion that irresponsible parents need to be coddled to be evil. I understand that there is no sense punishing the children for their parents' irresponsibility, but when you pick up the slack for parents who can't cut it and incentivize them to continue being irresponsible, you really aren't doing the kids any favours.

If parents can feed their kids, they need to feed their kids. If they can't feed their kids, the kids need to be taken away. The parents can get them back once they are ready to take care of them.

The vast majority of parents will find ways to take care of their kids before it ever comes to that. The vast majority of the remainder will get their lives in order in a hurry.
 
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?




Or $3000 bucks for a large screen or 24" spinners yo..... :doh
 
Glad I could entertain. Which opinions specifically do you find the most evil?

I find the opinion that irresponsible parents need to be coddled to be evil. I understand that there is no sense punishing the children for their parents' irresponsibility, but when you pick up the slack for parents who can't cut it and incentivize them to continue being irresponsible, you really aren't doing the kids any favours.

If parents can feed their kids, they need to feed their kids. If they can't feed their kids, the kids need to be taken away. The parents can get them back once they are ready to take care of them.

The vast majority of parents will find ways to take care of their kids before it ever comes to that. The vast majority of the remainder will get their lives in order in a hurry.

It is the expectation of perfection that I mostly have an issue with. Everyone is going to make some stupid bonehead decision in their life, usually several, but to condemn them for it when they are helpless is appalling. Everyone needs forgiveness from time to time.
 
I certainly support expecting people to be personally responsible. But expecting them to be personally responsible, when they cannot help themselves, whether or not it is their fault (when you are helpless, fault no longer matters, at least in domestic situations like this), is an evil act. Personal responsibility and societal welfare are two sides of the same coin, to go totally one way or the other way is wrong.

Why is it evil to say that people need to be able to take care of their children if they are going to be parents? Even if it isn't their fault at all, if a parent can't care for their children the children need someone else to take care of them.

If their mom gets hit by a truck running a red light and is in a coma, that is certainly not her fault or theirs, but she is no longer able to do the job, so the children need someone else to take care of them. Giving government assistance to the mother in the coma isn't going to magically make her able to do the job. The same goes for parents who can't get their act together for their children's sake.
 
Liblady--Thanks for sharing that information because it was a great example of how the safety nets we have in place work.

Your mom used that safety net in exactly the way it was meant to be used....as a helping hand over a rough period. You provided a prime example of why these types of safety nets are necessary.

Here's something else to chew on: Women of a certain age were taught to make the bed they had made (some still are). Contraception wasn't even on the market not too long ago! The June Cleavers who were brought up to make the world bright and cheery on the outside while suffering a horrible personal life still exist in 2010.

And, people change. The darling you married can evolve into an alcoholic abuser no matter how long you've known them prior to marrying. Life is nothing but constant change.

I'm sorry that some posters took your example of how the system can work perfectly and turned it into something ugly.
 
Why is it evil to say that people need to be able to take care of their children if they are going to be parents? Even if it isn't their fault at all, if a parent can't care for their children the children need someone else to take care of them.

If their mom gets hit by a truck running a red light and is in a coma, that is certainly not her fault or theirs, but she is no longer able to do the job, so the children need someone else to take care of them. Giving government assistance to the mother in the coma isn't going to magically make her able to do the job. The same goes for parents who can't get their act together for their children's sake.

That's what child services is for, to take kids out of unfit homes and there is nothing wrong with it, but this wasn't what I was reacting to. It was the assumption that if the parent was unable to do something, it was automatically their fault when sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. You need to be careful with statements like "she should have known he was a drunk" when people's personal situations change all the time. My wife is a wonderful person, but she might change for some reason and not be one tomorrow, next month, or next year , I have no way of knowing or controlling that. She might have lied or concealed something from me before we got married, people do that all the time. No one has perfect knowledge over any situation. And to condemn them for it is evil because it is assuming moral superiority.

Having a kid is a 20 year long process. If the requirement was the complete ability to predict all future situations before birth, the human race would die out in a generation.
 
Liblady--Thanks for sharing that information because it was a great example of how the safety nets we have in place work.

Your mom used that safety net in exactly the way it was meant to be used....as a helping hand over a rough period. You provided a prime example of why these types of safety nets are necessary.

Here's something else to chew on: Women of a certain age were taught to make the bed they had made (some still are). Contraception wasn't even on the market not too long ago! The June Cleavers who were brought up to make the world bright and cheery on the outside while suffering a horrible personal life still exist in 2010.

And, people change. The darling you married can evolve into an alcoholic abuser no matter how long you've known them prior to marrying. Life is nothing but constant change.

I'm sorry that some posters took your example of how the system can work perfectly and turned it into something ugly.
thanks, i appreciate it. now i need to go cash in my food stamps and buy a flat screen for my bathroom....;-)
 
It is the expectation of perfection that I mostly have an issue with. Everyone is going to make some stupid bonehead decision in their life, usually several, but to condemn them for it when they are helpless is appalling. Everyone needs forgiveness from time to time.

I don't have an expectation of perfection. A stupid boneheaded decision results in having to cut back and make some sacrifices.

Sometimes it means not paying off your entire credit card balance one month and having to make it up the next. Sometimes it means living on pasta, and eggs, and bread and rice and other inexpensive foods for a little while. Sometimes it means drinking water for a while instead of soda. Sometimes it means selling the car and taking the bus.

In very very extreme cases, a stupid bonehead decision results in swallowing your pride and asking your friends and family to help you while you get your life straightened out.

Once you get to the point where you have maxed out all your credit cards, ruined your credit score so badly that you can't get a loan, don't have a car or any other nonessential assets to sell, get get a payday advance from moneytree, have alienated everyone you know to the point where no one will help you, and have to rely on the government to force taxpayers to help you out so that your kids can have something to eat, you have passed the point of making a boneheaded decision.

At that point you have demonstrated a pattern of irresponsibility, and are not fit to be rearing children until you get your life in order.
 
Why is it evil to say that people need to be able to take care of their children if they are going to be parents? Even if it isn't their fault at all, if a parent can't care for their children the children need someone else to take care of them.

If their mom gets hit by a truck running a red light and is in a coma, that is certainly not her fault or theirs, but she is no longer able to do the job, so the children need someone else to take care of them. Giving government assistance to the mother in the coma isn't going to magically make her able to do the job. The same goes for parents who can't get their act together for their children's sake.

Technically, she would be at fault......;)
 
IMO, this thread is riddled with willful ignorance and callous indifference --

I guess the parents count on the kids eating free lunch at school to keep them in beer money, is that it?

And they say the liberal-Dems are elitist?:roll:

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.

Ockham: Please explain exactly how children make 'choices' that land them below the poverty line.

Just how many are there? And further more, how many of these people are in this position due to piss poor life choices?

Again, exactly how do the children make these 'choices'?

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.

Overgeneralize much? Every unemployed person is 'lazy'?

But alas, there is one person who gets why we feed children when their parents can't:

maybe the parents are at fault, but i still want to see these kids get fed. their birth circumstances aren't their fault.

Thank you.
 
That's what child services is for, to take kids out of unfit homes and there is nothing wrong with it, but this wasn't what I was reacting to. It was the assumption that if the parent was unable to do something, it was automatically their fault when sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. You need to be careful with statements like "she should have known he was a drunk" when people's personal situations change all the time. My wife is a wonderful person, but she might change for some reason and not be one tomorrow, next month, or next year , I have no way of knowing or controlling that. She might have lied or concealed something from me before we got married, people do that all the time. No one has perfect knowledge over any situation. And to condemn them for it is evil because it is assuming moral superiority.

Having a kid is a 20 year long process. If the requirement was the complete ability to predict all future situations before birth, the human race would die out in a generation.

You don't end up being unable to take care of your children because of one poor decision or unforeseen circumstance. (aside from extreme cases such as deciding to kill them and chop them up into little pieces, or getting hit by a truck.)

So maybe he wasn't drunk when she married him. That happens to plenty of people who manage to take care of their children anyway. Not being able to take care of your children is generally the result of a pattern of irresponsibility. Marrying a bad catch was just one link in the chain.
 
Technically, she would be at fault......;)
I meant that the truck was running a red light, and she got hit by it. If she got hit by a truck because she was jaywalking, that would still be her fault.
 
I don't have an expectation of perfection. A stupid boneheaded decision results in having to cut back and make some sacrifices.

Sometimes it means not paying off your entire credit card balance one month and having to make it up the next. Sometimes it means living on pasta, and eggs, and bread and rice and other inexpensive foods for a little while. Sometimes it means drinking water for a while instead of soda. Sometimes it means selling the car and taking the bus.

In very very extreme cases, a stupid bonehead decision results in swallowing your pride and asking your friends and family to help you while you get your life straightened out.

Once you get to the point where you have maxed out all your credit cards, ruined your credit score so badly that you can't get a loan, don't have a car or any other nonessential assets to sell, get get a payday advance from moneytree, have alienated everyone you know to the point where no one will help you, and have to rely on the government to force taxpayers to help you out so that your kids can have something to eat, you have passed the point of making a boneheaded decision.

At that point you have demonstrated a pattern of irresponsibility, and are not fit to be rearing children until you get your life in order.

That is one possibility. Another is that a person was laid off and cannot find a job that doesn't bankrupt them, this is a very real possibility right now with the economy the way it is. Again, it is those assumptions.
 
That is one possibility. Another is that a person was laid off and cannot find a job that doesn't bankrupt them, this is a very real possibility right now with the economy the way it is. Again, it is those assumptions.

If someone gets laid off, and can't find a job in the time it takes them to go through all of their credit, the proceeds of the sale of all their non-essential assets, and all the assistance they can get from friends and family, and can find no way to take care of their kids, then the kids need to go somewhere else until they are able to be a parent again.

Also, the fact that there is only one parent providing for the kid in this scenario suggests that things have already gone horribly wrong.
 
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.

Okay:

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Thomas Jefferson:“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

SCOTUS:

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national—as opposed to local—interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

To sum up: SCOTUS has interpreted the Tax and Spend Clause (Article I, Section 8) as allowing Congress to tax and spend public monies for a variety of purposes, including educational research and instructional programs such as special education, science and math, vocational education, school lunches etc.
 
That is all neither here nor there. The Federal Judiciary are the ultimate arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. No one has ever successfully changed the constitutionality of the school lunch program, or any of the other safety-nets out there. Therefore, they are constitutional. Thats how it works, Civics 101 here.

An appeal to authority is beneath you, not to mention quite boring...
 
I agree with all that. I am just pointing out that its a stupid argument to say that the school lunch program is unconstitutional. If its unconstitutional then someone would have easily challenged it in the federal judiciary by now.

Cuz we all know the SCOTUS has never been wrong before...
 
Back
Top Bottom