• 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!

All Detroit Schoolkids To Get Free Meals

Many see the check their mom got for every kid she popped out and those kids follow her example.



When you can afford it, why should we not expect their parents to be the one investing in their kid?


Hmm, I agree with you again. When a parents income is at a certian level, say over $50,000. a year, they should be taxed to provide the lunches for their own children. Say $520. for each child annualy. No one will know who is paying for the lunches.

We can also use that philosophy with corporations who have us investing subsidies, bail outs, bonuses, etc. that they should pay themselves, since they are mega-rich bastards.
 
Last edited:
When the government subsidizes things, that only grows. Once you pay for the lunches for the kids of those who can certainly afford it themselves, then they expect it forever.

Unsubstantiated bullcrap

Really? Look at what's been happening in England lately.
 
But your point is kind of moot since they are all receiving free education, relying on the government.

No they aren't. That's what my property tax is paying for.
 
That's really for them to decide. Though I can't think of anyone who wouldn't sell something of that kind of value if they needed to - I've known a couple people who have sold heirlooms worth a few thousand. It hurt to do, but the value of the item monetarily outweighed its sentimental value to them. In the real world, I don't think there are a ton of people who wouldn't sell it.

But a piece of jewelry worth a hundred bucks? Maybe a few hundred? Why should they? If they are in a position of poverty with no immediate solution available, selling it will buy them, what, maybe a month? At best? And then they'll be back in the same position the next month. Something worth triple digits, or even a thousand, isn't going to help you much in the long term, or even the mid-term.

When someone applies for some kind of welfare, they aren't doing it because they had a hard month. They're doing it because they're having a hard mid-to-long-term.

Let me add some mathematics, in particular commutativity. Suppose person X and person Y each have $100. The end result of person X buying $100 jewelry and the government giving them $100 in food stamps is equivalent to person Y buying $100 in food and the government giving them a piece of jewelry worth $100. Since latter case would be easily opposed, the former case should be as well. The former case is even the case of poor decision on the beneficiary's part, unlike the latter.
 
Last edited:
Let me add some mathematics, in particular commutativity. Suppose person X and person Y each have $100. The end result of person X buying $100 jewelry and the government giving them $100 in food stamps is equivalent to person Y buying $100 in food and the government giving them a piece of jewelry worth $100. Since latter case would be easily opposed, the former case should be as well. The former case is even the case of poor decision on the beneficiary's part, unlike the latter.

You're talking about someone buying something like that while already on welfare. Not selling something they already own. These two things are not equivalent. You're simply moving the goal post.
 
Let me add some mathematics, in particular commutativity. Suppose person X and person Y each have $100. The end result of person X buying $100 jewelry and the government giving them $100 in food stamps is equivalent to person Y buying $100 in food and the government giving them a piece of jewelry worth $100. Since latter case would be easily opposed, the former case should be as well. The former case is even the case of poor decision on the beneficiary's part, unlike the latter.

Hmm, I like math. Lets say we give 100,000 lunches at $2.50 a lunch for 336 days, and we give $3 billion to 12 people at a bank one time annually,.......which cost the taxpayer more? How much did each person at the school get compared to each person at the bank?
 
Last edited:
I don't really think you understand poverty very well, based on your comments.

Who wants to grow up to be poor?

Perhaps because my comments made no mention of that?

That expectation still exists, but if the need is not meeting reality then support is required. How hard is that to understand?

Nowhere does it state that the need isn't being met.

Without support systems, we end up in third world conditions. Our country has the money to help children in this way and I for one support it.

You're just against entitlements across the board, and that's not very realistic.

Why is it so difficult for some to discuss things honestly? I said more than once that I have no problem providing free meals for poor kids. Can we continue in an honest way?
 
No they aren't. That's what my property tax is paying for.

While your property taxes pay for their education, someone elses taxes paid for your education, so it is a fair deal huh?
 
I certainly agree with you. Oil companies refuse to explore or drill for oil unless we subsidize them.

I do not believe this is true. It's way off topic so this is all I'll say about this. We subsidize things like this because politicians are reliant on their political donations.

Casinos and ski lodges refuse to operate unless they get free subsidized electricity. They were all once kids getting free government box lunches at schools. Same way with those bankers, wallstreet freaks, rich that avoid taxation. It was the subsidized school lunches that killed America and made them socially dependent on hand outs.:lamo

Again, please, let discuss things honestly.
 
Hmm, I agree with you again. When a parents income is at a certian level, say over $50,000. a year, they should be taxed to provide the lunches for their own children. Say $520. for each child annualy. No one will know who is paying for the lunches.

I get a bill every month and pay it.

We can also use that philosophy with corporations who have us investing subsidies, bail outs, bonuses, etc. that they should pay themselves, since they are mega-rich bastards.

Nobody has complained more about the bail outs than I, for many of the very same reasons.
 
While your property taxes pay for their education, someone elses taxes paid for your education, so it is a fair deal huh?

Sure, my parents with their property taxes. Funny how we learn from the actions of our parents.
 
You're talking about someone buying something like that while already on welfare. Not selling something they already own. These two things are not equivalent. You're simply moving the goal post.

Would you at least agree this issue exists?

If you include the property of associativity, my argument generalizes to suggest that when a purchase is made is insignificant with respect to their current financial situation. Furthermore, additive inverses (ignoring items may change in value) suggest we can sell to erase unnecessary purchases. I could generalize further, but I doubt many of you follow and agree up to this point.
 
Last edited:
Would you at least agree this issue exists?

If you include the properties of associativity, my argument generalizes to suggest that when a purchase is made is insignificant with respect to their current financial situation. Furthermore, additive inverses (ignoring items may change in value) suggest we can sell to erase unnecessary purchases. I could generalize further, but I doubt many of you follow and agree up to this point.

Of course. There's no doubt there are people abusing the system. Often in ways much more insidious than buying stuff, though.

I am simply saying the pre-existing ownership of stuff is a poor indicator of someone's current financial position and that the selling of stuff is often not sufficient to deal with their position.
 
Hmm, I like math. Lets say we give 100,000 lunches at $2.50 a lunch for 336 days, and we give $3 billion to 12 people at a bank one time annually,.......which cost the taxpayer more? How much did each person at the school get compared to each person at the bank?

We are not comparing spending instances, but analyzing one. The reduction of spending waste on any one thing clearly reduces the total spending waste.
 
You can deny it is true but that doesn't make you right, only wrong. And it is the same subject, getting something for nothing that you are paying for. I am just using an anology that runs true through our entire system.

"According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began. "

So annually, which do you think costs the taxpayer more (I assume it is the money with you.), school lunches or the Deepwater Horizon subsidies?
 
We are not comparing spending instances, but analyzing one. The reduction of spending waste on any one thing clearly reduces the total spending waste.

So we would have to prioritize which is more wasteful and which is more important. Care to venture a guess as to the overwhelming possibilites towards a conclusion?
 
Sure, my parents with their property taxes. Funny how we learn from the actions of our parents.

Didn't you get those free lunches? I remember way back there each child brought a mat to school, and ate graham crackers and had a carton of milk, then we took a nap. Did you get your free crackers and milk? Or maybe, just maybe, you have a hidden resentful hatred still festering in your subconscious because you didn't get the crackers and milk.
 
Last edited:
So we would have to prioritize which is more wasteful and which is more important. Care to venture a guess as to the overwhelming possibilites towards a conclusion?

Since waste is additive, minimizing waste within each application of tax dollars will minimize total waste. It is clearly wise, since time is ticking, to prioritize.
 
When I lived in the US, I got free luch. Everyone knew, since we paid in cash. Oh.. I was so embarrased, NOT! No one cares.

This is Detroit, as said previously, most people get free lunch. Why would anyone care if you get free lunch? And if it is a problem, a code system would work much better. Maybe they should have a pilot program to educate the politicans in Detroit.
 
Didn't you get those free lunches? I remember way back there each child brought a mat to school, and ate graham crackers and had a carton of milk, then we took a nap. Did you get your free crackers and milk? Or maybe, just maybe, you have a hidden resentful hatred still festering in your subconscious because you didn't get the crackers and milk.

So I guess you are left with inane personal attacks. Brilliant.
 
When the government subsidizes things, that only grows. Once you pay for the lunches for the kids of those who can certainly afford it themselves, then they expect it forever.

And this children, is a perfect example of a non-sequitur. There is absolutely no reason for kids to expect anything forever once they grow up to be adults. However, blind Libertarianism says they will without a gram of evidence to back up such an assertion.
 
Last edited:

No - if I was a democrat in heart I'd be on reduced or free *right now* - via lies or some sort of bizarre marital arrangement. . . .instead of spending thousands out of pocket every year just on school lunches. :)
 
Sure, my parents with their property taxes. Funny how we learn from the actions of our parents.

Schools are funded by more than just property taxes. You asked that people debate honestly. I suggest you start doing the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom