• 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!

Republicans block child nutrition bill

Because you elected representatives to speak for you. That's the way our system works. So, you did have a choice.

the guy I voted for didn't win...I don't have a choice. the collective "we" may have a choice...but I don't
 
The chidlren didn't decide. Sorry, but I can't punish children for the parent.

but by teaching them to grow up dependent on the charity of others...you ARE punishing them and their children and their children's children
 
but by teaching them to grow up dependent on the charity of others...you ARE punishing them and their children and their children's children

I disagree that is the lesson. I grew up on welfare, and have never been on welfare as an adult. I was helped when I needed it, and educated to be more than I thought I could be. So, the they will never learn mantra is simply wrong. But people you abandon will sooner our later enter your world in a way you won't like.
 
the guy I voted for didn't win...I don't have a choice. the collective "we" may have a choice...but I don't

No, you had a choice. He was your representative any way you look at it. Sorry.
 
That's actually more a misreading on your part than anything else. And you misread more than one thing. Throwing people away isn't limited to either liberasl or republicans. Too many people do that, period. And no serious person here suggests that you don't also help people learn and educate and try to change mindsets, something easier said than done. Making things too simplistic is often quite equal to lying.

My guess is you havent got clue one as to what you are talking about, whereas I see them every day of the week. I see the system every day of the week. I also see what happens when psych units label them as malingerers as opposed to disordered and pull the free ride rug from under them. You have this idealized pretend version that in no way reflects actual reality. But stick with that.
 
Do people make bad choices? Yes. Are we free in this country to do so? So far.


j-mac

We should hope that somehow people learn from their bad choices, but as long as we don't hold them accountable, they don't learn much...
 
why don't I get a choice on whether or not I get to pay to support them?

But you do have a choice, don't pay your taxes.
Doing so will open up a lot of new choices later on...:2razz:
 
But you do have a choice, don't pay your taxes.
Doing so will open up a lot of new choices later on...:2razz:

yeah, but then you would have to pay more to support my kids once I was in jail. afterall, you can't let my kids go hungry because I made a bad decision. :lamo
 
Well, I never saw that, but no, it isn't better, and yours are not being punished when we help them. It's just silly to say they are. And we, people, have always handled hard time better when they come together than when they divide. You have alot wrong my friend. Sadly.

Let's put it this way. I think most rich, or tax payers would ahve no trouble funding programs for the very poor, provided that we meet in the middle. What I mean, is, if we're going to pay for the capable, but yet unwilling (for whatever reason) then why not demand some reciprocation. Meaning, work for your hand outs. Whether it be day care services in da hood, sweeping up the roads, garbage pick up, window washing, you name it folks, there are a ton of jobs that we pay unionized workers an incredibly high wage for that requires no skill set, only effort. That is the kind of compromise that I could go for, but it is the hard thing to do. Why is it hard? Well, it's not really, but politically, we lack leaders that have the conviction to make it happen, and we lack judges that see the virtue in implementing programs such as work for hand outs.

The truth is that no one opposes halping the truly unable, and needy, but the reality is that most that are taking out without putting in, and not truly needy, they are just unwilling. It's the fault of decades of entitlement spending, and we reap what we have sewn.

As a matter of fact, I see no downside at all to work for welfare, or food stamps, or medicaid, or what have you. If you take, you should do what is within your power to pay back. It's as simple as that.

The lib's should be all for this kind fo thing, as it answers their main argument. "What about the children". Well the children are still taken care of, we are now just asking that those parents are giving something back.


Tim-
 
Let's put it this way. I think most rich, or tax payers would ahve no trouble funding programs for the very poor, provided that we meet in the middle. What I mean, is, if we're going to pay for the capable, but yet unwilling (for whatever reason) then why not demand some reciprocation. Meaning, work for your hand outs. Whether it be day care services in da hood, sweeping up the roads, garbage pick up, window washing, you name it folks, there are a ton of jobs that we pay unionized workers an incredibly high wage for that requires no skill set, only effort. That is the kind of compromise that I could go for, but it is the hard thing to do. Why is it hard? Well, it's not really, but politically, we lack leaders that have the conviction to make it happen, and we lack judges that see the virtue in implementing programs such as work for hand outs.

The truth is that no one opposes halping the truly unable, and needy, but the reality is that most that are taking out without putting in, and not truly needy, they are just unwilling. It's the fault of decades of entitlement spending, and we reap what we have sewn.

As a matter of fact, I see no downside at all to work for welfare, or food stamps, or medicaid, or what have you. If you take, you should do what is within your power to pay back. It's as simple as that.

The lib's should be all for this kind fo thing, as it answers their main argument. "What about the children". Well the children are still taken care of, we are now just asking that those parents are giving something back.
Tim-


well said, my friend
 
yeah, but then you would have to pay more to support my kids once I was in jail. afterall, you can't let my kids go hungry because I made a bad decision. :lamo
Supporting children is OK, supporting adults who act like children, tho, is not OK..
 
Supporting children is OK, supporting adults who act like children, tho, is not OK..

but, but, but....we have to support the adults so that the children don't starve
 
Let's put it this way. I think most rich, or tax payers would ahve no trouble funding programs for the very poor, provided that we meet in the middle. What I mean, is, if we're going to pay for the capable, but yet unwilling (for whatever reason) then why not demand some reciprocation. Meaning, work for your hand outs. Whether it be day care services in da hood, sweeping up the roads, garbage pick up, window washing, you name it folks, there are a ton of jobs that we pay unionized workers an incredibly high wage for that requires no skill set, only effort. That is the kind of compromise that I could go for, but it is the hard thing to do. Why is it hard? Well, it's not really, but politically, we lack leaders that have the conviction to make it happen, and we lack judges that see the virtue in implementing programs such as work for hand outs.

The truth is that no one opposes halping the truly unable, and needy, but the reality is that most that are taking out without putting in, and not truly needy, they are just unwilling. It's the fault of decades of entitlement spending, and we reap what we have sewn.

As a matter of fact, I see no downside at all to work for welfare, or food stamps, or medicaid, or what have you. If you take, you should do what is within your power to pay back. It's as simple as that.

The lib's should be all for this kind fo thing, as it answers their main argument. "What about the children". Well the children are still taken care of, we are now just asking that those parents are giving something back.


Tim-

IF they really are "very poor"....
Some I know manage to have cell phones, cable TV, internet, etc. and claim to be poor.
 
but, but, but....we have to support the adults so that the children don't starve
I know that was sarcasm, otherwise it would sound sort of liberal....:2razz:
 
IF they really are "very poor"....
Some I know manage to have cell phones, cable TV, internet, etc. and claim to be poor.

I have relatives like that. claim to be poor and can't afford medical insurance, blah, blah, blah. but they can afford a case of beer every friday night and 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day, cell phones and drive a nicer/newer car than I do.

but they are poor.
 
I know that was sarcasm, otherwise it would sound sort of liberal....:2razz:

seriously, if these parents are so incapable of supporting their kids that the govt must raise them for them... why not just go all the way? let the govt confiscate the kids and raise them? or put em in foster homes? that way the money will go directly to supporting the kids and the dirtbag parents won't have the opportunity to skim off the top to fund their laziness.
 
Let's put it this way. I think most rich, or tax payers would ahve no trouble funding programs for the very poor, provided that we meet in the middle. What I mean, is, if we're going to pay for the capable, but yet unwilling (for whatever reason) then why not demand some reciprocation. Meaning, work for your hand outs. Whether it be day care services in da hood, sweeping up the roads, garbage pick up, window washing, you name it folks, there are a ton of jobs that we pay unionized workers an incredibly high wage for that requires no skill set, only effort. That is the kind of compromise that I could go for, but it is the hard thing to do. Why is it hard? Well, it's not really, but politically, we lack leaders that have the conviction to make it happen, and we lack judges that see the virtue in implementing programs such as work for hand outs.

The truth is that no one opposes halping the truly unable, and needy, but the reality is that most that are taking out without putting in, and not truly needy, they are just unwilling. It's the fault of decades of entitlement spending, and we reap what we have sewn.

As a matter of fact, I see no downside at all to work for welfare, or food stamps, or medicaid, or what have you. If you take, you should do what is within your power to pay back. It's as simple as that.

The lib's should be all for this kind fo thing, as it answers their main argument. "What about the children". Well the children are still taken care of, we are now just asking that those parents are giving something back.


Tim-

Not much I disagree with. But, that would not include children. I think this is where I differ with many of those I am discussing this with.
 
My guess is you havent got clue one as to what you are talking about, whereas I see them every day of the week. I see the system every day of the week. I also see what happens when psych units label them as malingerers as opposed to disordered and pull the free ride rug from under them. You have this idealized pretend version that in no way reflects actual reality. But stick with that.

Well, we could argue as to who does and doesn't have a clue, but I've been around a few blocks myself. And I'm quite sure you have no idea what my view is of reality. I suggest it is quite possible that you color how you see me and others with your mistaken view of the world around you.
 
I have relatives like that. claim to be poor and can't afford medical insurance, blah, blah, blah. but they can afford a case of beer every friday night and 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day, cell phones and drive a nicer/newer car than I do.

but they are poor.

Sounds like my sister, long time ago. She was opening a fresh carton of cigs and complaining that she doesn't have money for milk for her kids...
 
Sounds like my sister, long time ago. She was opening a fresh carton of cigs and complaining that she doesn't have money for milk for her kids...

I have a cousin who can't afford to send his kids to the doctor, but he can afford to go deer hunting in south alabama every other weekend.
 
Well, we could argue as to who does and doesn't have a clue, but I've been around a few blocks myself. And I'm quite sure you have no idea what my view is of reality. I suggest it is quite possible that you color how you see me and others with your mistaken view of the world around you.

It'd be the shortest argument you ever saw. If you actually have ANY experience you would know it to be 100% accurate...and from what Ive seen pretty much a universal truth from state to state. Perhaps YOUR state and great experience has led you to the provider that educates, informs, trains, teaches, and helps. I assume they have free unicorn rides in the back yard and schedule the annual summer exodus to Atlantis as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is a profit game. People bid for those contract dollars and are awarded a finite amount. Services are limited to the available resources (after owners, administrative costs, 'emergency funds' etc are extracted). The cheapest answer is to meet with a case worker every other week or so, the psych for 10 minutes to renew meds, and schedule groups that arent attended, classes that arent attended, etc. 40 years later they are still on assistance, their kids are on assistance and their grandkids are being seen at the pedpsych unit. Its so much easier throwing a pill at a problem. their life still sucks, but if you dope em up enough, about 60% of the time they dont CARE that it sucks...the rest of the time...well...it can get ugly...

But of course...most people dont know that because after all, they have done their part. They have offered their blind support for those programs and filled in the little squares on their feel good check list. Out of sight...CERTAINLY out of mind...someone elses problem.
 
Last edited:
It'd be the shortest argument you ever saw. If you actually have ANY experience you would know it to be 100% accurate...and from what Ive seen pretty much a universal truth from state to state. Perhaps YOUR state and great experience has led you to the provider that educates, informs, trains, teaches, and helps. I assume they have free unicorn rides in the back yard and schedule the annual summer exodus to Atlantis as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is a profit game. People bid for those contract dollars and are awarded a finite amount. Services are limited to the available resources (after owners, administrative costs, 'emergency funds' etc are extracted). The cheapest answer is to meet with a case worker every other week or so, the psych for 10 minutes to renew meds, and schedule groups that arent attended, classes that arent attended, etc. 40 years later they are still on assistance, their kids are on assistance and their grandkids are being seen at the pedpsych unit. Its so much easier throwing a pill at a problem. their life still sucks, but if you dope em up enough, about 60% of the time they dont CARE that it sucks...the rest of the time...well...it can get ugly...

But of course...most people dont know that because after all, they have done their part. They have offered their blind support for those programs and filled in the little squares on their feel good check list. Out of sight...CERTAINLY out of mind...someone elses problem.

A much longer argunment than youn think. You make sweepting generalizations, but don't specifiy what people, where, who? Welfare doesn't give out pills. Pills are not a part of food stamps. There is much you're leaping over and bundling far too many people up in one bundle. You have no idea where I've worked and what I know, but get more specific and let's see where it goes.
 
Sounds like my sister, long time ago. She was opening a fresh carton of cigs and complaining that she doesn't have money for milk for her kids...

Sounds like the argument my relatives used for why they wouldn't help us when I was a child. As you can imagine, I think well of them as people.
 
Sounds like the argument my relatives used for why they wouldn't help us when I was a child. As you can imagine, I think well of them as people.

well if your mother was buying cartons of cigarettes instead of milk, I don't really blame them. that's the trouble with giving money to help the kids of people like that...the vast majority of the time they don't spend the money on the kids.

you have wasted your money
the parents are still dirtbags
and the kids still go hungry


friend of mine's exwife always complaining that her kids need this and her kids need that but yet she spends the child support money he gives her on new clothes for herself. then she whines that he needs to give her more money.
 
Last edited:
A much longer argunment than youn think. You make sweepting generalizations, but don't specifiy what people, where, who? Welfare doesn't give out pills. Pills are not a part of food stamps. There is much you're leaping over and bundling far too many people up in one bundle. You have no idea where I've worked and what I know, but get more specific and let's see where it goes.

My point is pretty straight up. Liberals love to pretend about how much they care. This thread is a prime example. You 'care' about these poor starving children...so much that you are REALLY upset when all of a sudden it became an issue that republicans blocked a bill that would spend OTHER PEOPLES money on a problem. Ive been pretty specific about medicaid providers and behavioral health units. It would blow peoples minds if they knew how many people in their own county were being 'helped' (such a relative term).

Thats the point. Throwing other peoples money at a problem doesnt FIX anything. It creates a greater problem. Doing FOR people creates MORE problems.

That being said...I FULL ON support your right to put your money where your mouth is and VOLUNTARILY...out of YOUR pocket...your resources and your time actually ACT on all those causes.
 
Back
Top Bottom