• 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!

In Baltimore schools, free meals for all

Yes the lower class gets help and subsidies, no I don't like handouts, but you people only look at one small spec of the debate. The middle class gets subsidies and handouts. Look at the home interest tax deductions and student loans and aid. All the middle class welfare adds up to about 1 trillion dollars, yet nobody talks about it. You guys should check it out: The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy, Mettler And don't get me started about the deductions and subsidies that large corporations get. If we are going to be a welfare state, don't leave the most vulnerable population out of it. Its sad that people will holler and yell about somebody getting food but not when the government is giving people money to own a home or have a big lobby in Washington. If we are going to do away with and hate on the welfare state, lets do it all equally, not on just the bottom feeders.
 
I guess that is what you can call it. Others call it overstepping bounds and excusing lack of parental responsibility. This is a crushing problem. Shame some are not interested in actually addressing it. They'd just rather spend other peoples money to curry favors, and move the parents out of the way.

That's what I mean by cynicism. So it's impossible that people just want to ensure children get what they need to eat...it can only be because they want to buy votes and take over the parents job?

The idea that the Democratic party "buys" votes just doesn't make sense either...poor people don't vote and the states that have some of the highest percentages of poverty are deep red states.

If they want to buy votes going the Republican route is more efficient....evangelicals and wealthier people that don't want to pay taxes make up a disproportionately large amount of voters compared to their percentage of the population.
 
Yeah, next thing you know those darn progressives are a-gonna make education free through college so students aren't saddled with 50K in debt the day they graduate, and they're a-gonna make health care single-payer so workers can, you know, WORK instead of being sick at home! We should go back to the good ol' days of "don't get sick, but if you do get sick, die quickly", which is the way REAL 'Mericans oughta live!

At the very least, higher education should be dramatically cheaper.
 
At the very least, higher education should be dramatically cheaper.

I like the German model - if you're good enough, almost-free college...and if your grades aren't stellar, almost-free tech school...and then if one still wants to pay for more college, go for it.
 
That is an exact quote from me, right? I support the state elimination parents? If you are going to tell a lie, at least tell on someone might believe.

I was attempting to match the quality of my post with yours. Obviously I did well.
 
I like the German model - if you're good enough, almost-free college...and if your grades aren't stellar, almost-free tech school...and then if one still wants to pay for more college, go for it.

There are many models better than the one we have. In the end,though, an educated populace is a necessity for a Free Republic, so it behooves us to ensure that as many of our people are as educated as possible.
 
You claimed they are going to be "eliminated", yes?

"So you support the state eliminating parents?" This is what you said. Don't say it if you don't mean it.

So you admit you fabricated the words you used in your reply to me. Very good.

Eliminating as in making them unnecessary. As in removing them from the basic responsibilities of parenting. You know, like feeding their kids.

It really shouldn't need to be explained
 
So you admit you fabricated the words you used in your reply to me. Very good.

Eliminating as in making them unnecessary. As in removing them from the basic responsibilities of parenting. You know, like feeding their kids.

It really shouldn't need to be explained

Actually it was a direct quote, so I didn't fabricate anything. Perchance it is time to learn the definition of "fabricate", yes? You're the one running around claiming the government is going to eliminate parents by feeding our children at school. Here's your direct quote.

So you support the state eliminating parents? I'm not sure how to classify that. I'm pretty sure they've made movies about though.

Notice I only used the words you had used, no fabrication was necessary. You claimed elimination of parents. Sorry that you overstated things in your zeal to decry programs that feed our kids. But that's why you should be careful with how you state things.
 
I have no idea how you went from a school lunch program, to this:


I'm not surprised a liberal/progressive would see value in eliminating the role of parenting in the development of children.

Under the false banner of "compassion" it make sense such an ideological view would see the state as much more qualified to administer all facets of upbringing and values. The state knows better. And don't you forget it.

Dangerous ground Progressives have committed to. Better hope the State is always to your liking, because you never know who might be holding the reins of State in the future.
 
How about some of our kids are going hungry, and an aggregate school breakfast/lunch program can ensure at least some minimal level of nutrition to our children.

Yeah they are all starving, so we have to feed them, they can't make a call so we give them a cell phone, they don't want to work, so we pay them, their is always a cause that someone doesn't have enough of something so big daddy has to fix that and make the deficiency go away. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for yourself and your children? That's right government knows better.
 
Yeah they are all starving, so we have to feed them, they can't make a call so we give them a cell phone, they don't want to work, so we pay them, their is always a cause that someone doesn't have enough of something so big daddy has to fix that and make the deficiency go away. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for yourself and your children? That's right government knows better.

You still can. You don't have to accept any of those programs. You don't have to let your kids eat the school provided lunch. No one is forcing you. But some kids go hungry, and it is better to feed them than to let them go hungry.

Sure, government programs can be overbearing and intrusive and we don't need them all. But this is just feeding kids at school. It's hard to believe that people would rather kids go hungry than to have schools provide meals to all their students.
 
Ever state and municipality should be milking every program they can. The only way to take power away from the federal government is to crash it's currency. And the only way THAT will happen is to increase spending to the point that the rest of the world no longer wants anything to do with the watered down dollar. It is happening anyway, but we all need to do our part to accelerate it.
 
That's what I mean by cynicism. So it's impossible that people just want to ensure children get what they need to eat...it can only be because they want to buy votes and take over the parents job?

The idea that the Democratic party "buys" votes just doesn't make sense either...poor people don't vote and the states that have some of the highest percentages of poverty are deep red states.

If they want to buy votes going the Republican route is more efficient....evangelicals and wealthier people that don't want to pay taxes make up a disproportionately large amount of voters compared to their percentage of the population.

iliveonramen, it's one thing to provide a meal. It's completely different when it becomes a 7 day a week year round program. That's called eliminating responsibility, and it is destroying families. Perhaps there are people who applaud the state for taking control of children, but I'm not going to be joining any of them.
 
Actually it was a direct quote, so I didn't fabricate anything. Perchance it is time to learn the definition of "fabricate", yes? You're the one running around claiming the government is going to eliminate parents by feeding our children at school. Here's your direct quote.



Notice I only used the words you had used, no fabrication was necessary. You claimed elimination of parents. Sorry that you overstated things in your zeal to decry programs that feed our kids. But that's why you should be careful with how you state things.

Did I ever use the following words:

"going out and rounding up parents to remove them from the home. "

No.

Next?
 
Did I ever use the following words:

"going out and rounding up parents to remove them from the home. "

No.

Next?

You said eliminate. Hard to eliminate parents if they're still at home, yes?

Perchance you should just not overstate silly things.
 
I like the German model - if you're good enough, almost-free college...and if your grades aren't stellar, almost-free tech school...and then if one still wants to pay for more college, go for it.
And Germany has it all:

High wages
High standard of living
High quality of Life
High union protection of trade workers
Good national universal healthcare
Good (nearly free) education at ALL levels
A minimum wage 1.5X ours.
A strong stable economy
3.5X 'exports as percentage of GDP' as ours
A strong manufacturing base similar to what we once had - and growing!

N.B. All the things that we've been told can't successfully co-exist.
 
Last edited:
You still can. You don't have to accept any of those programs. You don't have to let your kids eat the school provided lunch. No one is forcing you. But some kids go hungry, and it is better to feed them than to let them go hungry.

Sure, government programs can be overbearing and intrusive and we don't need them all. But this is just feeding kids at school. It's hard to believe that people would rather kids go hungry than to have schools provide meals to all their students.

It is hard to believe a parent would let their kid go hungry. If they do call social services. It's not the governments job to arbitrarily provide breakfast for free at the tax payer expense.
 
I have no idea how you went from a school lunch program, to this:

I'm sure you can't. I'm not sure how schools went from a subsidized lunch programs to providing breakfast, lunch, and dinner, 7 days a week, year round.

Here is an early press release from LA Unified School District

http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_LAUSD_NEWS/FLDR_PRESS_RELEASES/TAB1255189/TAB1255232/GOLDEN%20CARROT%2010%2011%202011.PDF

LAUSD’s Food Services Division provides year round meals for students and has the largest breakfast program in the country. It currently serves more than123 million meals each year. The LAUSD menu meets and exceeds the USDA guidelines and the Institute of Medicine’s nutrient recommendations.
 
There are many models better than the one we have. In the end,though, an educated populace is a necessity for a Free Republic, so it behooves us to ensure that as many of our people are as educated as possible.
I agree with you all the way, Maybe your point pertains to part of the problem in that our elected officials don't want "educated citizens" because then barely anyone would vote for the lot of em'
 
I'm not surprised a liberal/progressive would see value in eliminating the role of parenting in the development of children.

Under the false banner of "compassion" it make sense such an ideological view would see the state as much more qualified to administer all facets of upbringing and values. The state knows better. And don't you forget it.

Dangerous ground Progressives have committed to. Better hope the State is always to your liking, because you never know who might be holding the reins of State in the future.

All of which goes to show how little you understand what we progressives do, much less why we do what we do.
 
You said eliminate. Hard to eliminate parents if they're still at home, yes?

Perchance you should just not overstate silly things.

You may want to consider there is more than one definition of a word. Perhaps you should avoid looking foolish by proving you don't understand that.
 
Back
Top Bottom