• 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

Oh man this makes me really sad...

To you folks who don't care about the poor, the economy has been bad for a lot of people for a lot longer than just going back to 2008. The only reason it turned into such a big deal then is because a few rich people found out that their house wasn't worth as much as they thought and started whinning about it.

So 'f' you, you 'f'ing' richie 'f'-bags. Do you even realize how bad this economy is and has been for millions of people since 2001?

Ah, so you say, "F You" and then turn around and ask for a handout? How telling...
 
Oh man this makes me really sad...

To you folks who don't care about the poor, the economy has been bad for a lot of people for a lot longer than just going back to 2008. The only reason it turned into such a big deal then is because a few rich people found out that their house wasn't worth as much as they thought and started whinning about it.

So 'f' you, you 'f'ing' richie 'f'-bags. Do you even realize how bad this economy is and has been for millions of people since 2001?





what do you do for the poor, specifically?
 
Oh man this makes me really sad...

To you folks who don't care about the poor, the economy has been bad for a lot of people for a lot longer than just going back to 2008. The only reason it turned into such a big deal then is because a few rich people found out that their house wasn't worth as much as they thought and started whinning about it.

So 'f' you, you 'f'ing' richie 'f'-bags. Do you even realize how bad this economy is and has been for millions of people since 2001?

What you do for a living, sport?!?
 
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:

I know what I said and I stand by it as correct. It has nothing to do with dishing out anything. Your statement was not well thought out.

I am pretty certain 99.9% of the people posting here don't need good nutrition defined for them.

Sure... you made a blanket statement:

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.

"The article did not say they were not getting feed, it did say the only "nutritious " meal of the day.

Someone mentioned the price of Mac & Cheese and Raman. The sodium content alone should scare people away from that. Not to mention very little if any nutritional value for a growing child.

The problem here is not about a lack of food, but nutritional food. I know from experiance nutrtious food is freaking exspencive.

My doctor put me on the South Beach Diet. Before that diet we spent about $400.00 a month to feed ourselves. After the diet started or food budget ballooned to almost double. I can't even imagine in this economy and being poor trying to feed a child a healthy diet.

More is at play here than just irresponsible parents.
- Blackdog Post #103

Please feel free to point out where I made this statement that I am speaking for all poor people? :2wave:


Generalizations are a bad idea in all cases.

And yet you did it anyway.

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

You were not responding to me, you were responding to people who brought up your statements as well. So what? Has nothing to do with my original reply to you.

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.

I agree with you here, but again you did not mention this the first time.

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.

I think it is unconstitutional as well.
 
I know what I said and I stand by it as correct. It has nothing to do with dishing out anything. Your statement was not well thought out.

I am pretty certain 99.9% of the people posting here don't need good nutrition defined for them.

No they don't. Hence nutritional facts printed on packaged foods by law.


"The article did not say they were not getting feed, it did say the only "nutritious " meal of the day.

Someone mentioned the price of Mac & Cheese and Raman. The sodium content alone should scare people away from that. Not to mention very little if any nutritional value for a growing child.

The problem here is not about a lack of food, but nutritional food. I know from experiance nutrtious food is freaking exspencive.

My doctor put me on the South Beach Diet. Before that diet we spent about $400.00 a month to feed ourselves. After the diet started or food budget ballooned to almost double. I can't even imagine in this economy and being poor trying to feed a child a healthy diet.

More is at play here than just irresponsible parents.
- Blackdog Post #103

Please feel free to point out where I made this statement that I am speaking for all poor people?

Sure it's the part you cut out of the post which I pointed out to you. Want me to post it again? Apparently you DON'T know what you said...

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

Blackdog said:
You were not responding to me, you were responding to people who brought up your statements as well. So what? Has nothing to do with my original reply to you.

Try reading the entire post and not just one's where you're insulting others. Believe it or not, all my comments don't all come out at once - discussion sometimes makes us think more, and we add comments after the original comments.

Blackdog said:
I agree with you here, but again you did not mention this the first time.
Next time, you need to read more than just your replies. Other people have had good points in this thread...


Blackdog said:
I think it is unconstitutional as well.
Excellent - we leave this discussion on a positive note!
 
"Snow days mean less food for many students "

And yet we keep hearing people say there's no upside to global warming.

Global warming means less snow, and thus better fed kids.

Clearly the people opposed to global warming hate children.
 
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.

As I previously said, I have devoted a great deal of my life to working with disadvantaged persons and families either as a direct vocation or as an avocation. And I am convinced that public welfare is among the worst evils that this country has ever inflicted upon its citizens even as I have happily provided assistance to people like your mom.

It is from that up close and personal experience that I oppose ANY form of Federal welfare and would support us slowly, carefully and methodically easing out of all Federal entitlement programs in a way that does not create severe hardship for those we have made dependent on such programs. I support all public assistance being handled by the private sector or when it can be done intelligently and constructively by the states and local communities.

I am not saying that your mom deserved no help or that she should not have received it.

I am saying that it should never be an entitlement that creates dependencies that never should be encouraged or tolerated. The government should never be allowed to force one person to be responsible for another that he or she did not marry or who is not their own minor child.
 
IMO, this thread is riddled with willful ignorance and callous indifference --

Nothing wrong with callous indifference when your own government is shoving a machine gun in your face and telling you the cost of your sympathetic concern for your neighbor's well being has increased and you have to pay more money.

Or else.

Start whining about callous indifference when the callous socialists stop pointing their machine guns at hard working responsible citizens.

It might mean something then.
 
Nothing wrong with callous indifference when your own government is shoving a machine gun in your face and telling you the cost of your sympathetic concern for your neighbor's well being has increased and you have to pay more money.

Machine gun?

Hyperbole much?
:roll:

Re: Concern for your neighbor's well being...

1)I'm pretty sure we're talking about your neighbor's children.

2)And even if we weren't...
 
Does it not concern you people that the public schools are only feeding these starving children at the most one, maybe two meals a day for 180 days per year? It doesn't bother you that if their parents can't afford to feed them on snow days, they are going hungry on the 185 days that they aren't scheduled to be in school?

That's what I never understood about the school passing out condoms to school kids as if they only had sex during the school week and who dutifully abstained on the weekends and holidays and over the summer vacation.

Maybe, just maybe, there is room to demand that parents take care of their kids or arrange for somebody else to do so? I would rather kids be fed every day and not just when they are in school.
 
Last edited:
Does it not concern you people that the public schools are only feeding these starving children at the most one, maybe two meals a day for 180 days per year? It doesn't bother you that if their parents can't afford to feed them on snow days, they are going hungry on the 185 days that they aren't scheduled to be in school?

That's what I never understood about the school passing out condoms to school kids as if they only had sex during the school week and who dutifully abstained on the weekends and holidays and over the summer vacation.

Maybe, just maybe, there is room to demand that parents take care of their kids or arrange for somebody else to do so? I would rather kids be fed every day and not just when they are in school.

I agree with this but your not going to find anyone that will support the position.

That's what sucks about any of our similar beliefs, no one will seriously support it once they get in their congressional seats.
 
Well, we're talking about State funding here, not Federal funding. States do not directly fund the U.S. military so I'll disagree to your reasoning of "foreign wars". States are not funded by the Federal Government for DYFS, that's part of the States responsibility, so if they are overworked and underfunded - the reason is not because of foreign wars but because of State prioritization of funds or lack thereof.

But I agree they ARE overworked and under funded at the State level. So why is that and what are we the people going to do about it? My view is to actually CUT lunch, food stamp and welfare services --- take some of that money and put it towards DYFS at the State levels or allow any federal funding of welfare programs to be used by the States as they see fit. Not cut entirely but put caps on the length of time and put oversight on them to curb abuse. Family's who live off the government must be motivated to become part of society and not a parasite living off the government host.

You don't know much about how state and federal funding are intertwined do you? Let's just say less is coming from the federal level which means less to available at the state level. That's one of the main reasons costs are going up for the states. Eisenhower has a famous quote on what military spending does for the average American. You might want to look it up. But I'll bet even he didn't think we'd be stupid enough to spend a trillion dollars on some sandbox war we didn't need to be in.

BTW there's already all kinds of caps and the length of time people can be on welfare, unemployment etc. You really need to get out there and educate yourself. In my state you have to apply for jobs every week or you don't collect unemployment. End of story. And welfare isn't a free ride. There's a time limit.
 
I agree with this but your not going to find anyone that will support the position.

That's what sucks about any of our similar beliefs, no one will seriously support it once they get in their congressional seats.

Yup. They would be accused of being cruel and wanting to starve children just as some of us on this thread have been accused.

God forbid that we put an emphasis on parents being responsible to actually make sure that their kids are fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, protected, disciplined, and loved, and if you aren't up to the job, don't have kids. That was once the societal norm in this country. And it's sure more humane than thinking the government serving as part time parent is making everything just hunky dory.
 
You don't know much about how state and federal funding are intertwined do you? Let's just say less is coming from the federal level which means less to available at the state level. That's one of the main reasons costs are going up for the states. Eisenhower has a famous quote on what military spending does for the average American. You might want to look it up. But I'll bet even he didn't think we'd be stupid enough to spend a trillion dollars on some sandbox war we didn't need to be in.

BTW there's already all kinds of caps and the length of time people can be on welfare, unemployment etc. You really need to get out there and educate yourself. In my state you have to apply for jobs every week or you don't collect unemployment. End of story. And welfare isn't a free ride. There's a time limit.

Tell me what the cap is for welfare in your state and what the are the steps for extending it. I can tell you from experience, from as you say "getting out there", that extending welfare benefits especially in urban areas is easy to do, requires no meeting or questionnaires. I can also tell you that there are very smart people taking advantage of the system and have found ways to navigate the "free ride". In fact, they have no job to distract them from manipulating the system and continuing on that free ride. What you seem to not take into account is, not all people are like you or me. We would not think of trying to bilk the system and we'd follow the rules or like you said, we'd get cut off. Not so with everyone... I think I've lived and experienced enough of "out there" to know better, and while each state is different, I know that each state has their fair share of folks who have lived off welfare, food stamps, jumped from worksmans comp, to insurance, to unemployment back to welfare, and around and around for decades. That IS their job - to manipulate the system and to get a free ride.
 
No they don't. Hence nutritional facts printed on packaged foods by law.

Yes by law and yet you think people don't know an apple is more nutritious than a Twinkie? :lol:

Sure it's the part you cut out of the post which I pointed out to you. Want me to post it again? Apparently you DON'T know what you said...

No that is a lie. I posted the entire post I made to YOU. I replied specifically to your response.

Try reading the entire post and not just one's where you're insulting others.

You mean "thread" not post. I am only reading the ones responding to me or I have responded to. If you don't like it, don't make false generalizations initially.

Believe it or not, all my comments don't all come out at once - discussion sometimes makes us think more, and we add comments after the original comments.

If you had admitted your blanket statements earlier and stated clearly your intention all your dishonesty and trying to project onto me could have been avoided.

"Poor people trying to provide for the children, who are making an effort should not lose them because they need a little help." - Blackdog

#1 This was not cut out of my initial response to you. Hence your accusing me of cutting anything out is a lie.
#2 Notice the part in red. Damn, not a blanket statement.
#3 Still waiting for you to show me the blanket statements I made about the poor.

Next time, you need to read more than just your replies. Other people have had good points in this thread...

Because I am so interested in your replies to others that had literally nothing to do with my initial statement to you, or what I pointed out.

Excellent - we leave this discussion on a positive note!

As soon as you answer what I have submitted to you.
 
It's broader than just food... kids won the lunch program are a symptom of a larger issue which is the level of poverty. I suggest cutting the lunch program but the support for getting the family on their feet must be part of that cut or else we'll just be kicking poor people when they're down. Give them tools to better themselves so kids food or foodstamps no longer is the issue and will no longer be needed.

Cuts and identifying parasites shouldn't be carried out unless we can help those who want the help, out of their predicament.

If Obama would do something for jobs instead of grow government many of these parents would be back to work and able to buy food.
 
It is very sad and in some states they do have programs set up where kids can go get a free meal on Sat. I feel we need more programs like this as I am all for helping children.

No child should go to bed hungry in the U.S.A. Our kids should get three meals a day plus snacks!
 
Guess you best get ready to give up 911, your Fire Dept., etc. if you feel there should not no social programs.

In your world everybody would simply fend for themselves! Who needs the police, right? Who needs their roads paved, who needs someone to go to if your home is burning down from a fire!

It would be so nice to get to pick what our money goes to and social programs be damned cause we are all just looking out for #1! While we are at? Lets just get rid of public schools and make kids of our country go back to doing slave labor back in the cotton pickin days.

Jebus Frigging Christ at some of you people. :roll:
 
Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.

It kinda reminds me of the "if I do not have kids I should not have to pay for public schools" argument. It simply comes off as heartless to me.

I know Dan is a good and cool dude though.
 
Yet conservatives are more likely to give to charity.

Because conservatives tend to be more dogmatic and will give more as It is their pass into the great blue sky:)

But for the record-there are plenty of Pagan Based org too. It is not like the right owns the right to help people and find those on the left do it for more of the right reasons.;)
 
Because conservatives tend to be more dogmatic and will give more as It is their pass into the great blue sky:)

But for the record-there are plenty of Pagan Based org too. It is not like the right owns the right to help people and find those on the left do it for more of the right reasons.;)

The left wants government to do it as seen on this thread.

You might want to get ready to tighten the belt China has started selling off our debt they hold.
 
What happens to people who don't pay their taxes?

1)Nothing.

2)They pay a penalty and work out payment plan with the IRS.

3)If they try to hide money and mislead authorities, they may be looking at some time.

Where's the machine gun again?:confused::roll:
 
Last edited:
If they try to hide money and mislead authorities, they may be looking at some time.

Exactly. If I refuse to pay my taxes then guys with guns will come after me...
 
Back
Top Bottom