• 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

Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.

Do you understand the difference between having sex and getting raped?
 
you have no idea of the circumstances people find themselves in. how very judgemental of you.

You betcha. I will ALWAYS be judgmental about people who neglect and/or abuse their kids. There are public and private social services aplenty for those who do care about their kids, and people who deserve their kids will do whatever they have to do to be sure that they are safe, warm, clothed, fed, and educated. I've devoted a good deal of my life helping disadvantaged families so I am not operating out of a vacuum here. I'm not suggesting that every family will be able to provide more than the basic necessities of life along with love for their kids, but any parent who has kids should be able to do at least that or hand them over to somebody who can and will.

To think that giving the kids school lunches on the 180 days per year that the kids will be in school is enough is ludicrous. The kids deserve the basics on the the other 185 days too.
 
Last edited:
You know there's poor people in every country right? You know there's been poor people since people came into existence right?

You know if a person has enough to own a car, they're required to insure it and if they don't have 5$ for gas, they can take a bus, train, or they can walk right? So if it's down to the last 5$ and there's no food of any kind anywhere, you know they can go to a homeless shelter or a Church and get food right? And children who don't have food get to be wards of the state and taken away from parents who cannot feed them, you know that right?

:roll:

How many bloated little naked children running around with flies on their eyes are there exactly today Hatuey? Got an accurate count do you? There's always a choice isn't there...this being one of the countries in the world where opporutinity still abounds for those willing to work for it. There's always an alternative and there's always a helping hand for those in real need through charity and the local community.

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. I can see a helping hand for a temporary amount of time when and if it's needed. Then the poor need to apply themselves and become a functioning part of society, not a leech living off it's host.

I can't believe I just spent 30 seconds reading this disgusting piece of horse****.
 
as a person who got reduced fee lunches for a short time......it was NOT my mother's "fault" that the program was necessary. i really do get tired of people who lump all recipients of aid into the same category.

That must be a REALLY exciting story involving aliens or pirates or ninjas or something. If she just wasn't able to feed her kid because she got laid off, or ran into regular old financial troubles that she hadn't the foresight to anticipate as a possibility, then yes, it's still her fault.
 
Does that mean we blame Clinton?

I'm going to say no;

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

"September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."


You can try to rewrite history all you want though...
 
This is poverty:

starving.jpg


Your kids missing a meal because you're too stupid to save a few bucks for a real emergency is not.....:doh
Sorry for the graphic photo, but come on.....:roll:
 
Do you understand the difference between having sex and getting raped?

Hardly the same thing, but feel free to up the rhetoric as you wish.

But I think it is silly that people boohoo because the government does something they don't like. That's the price we pay for not being the only man on a deserted island. In any group of people, you are going to disagree with it in some way. The fact is, nobody is completely happy with what the government does, but everyone has their own personal set of grievences. To claim that a policy is akin to a forceful act is ignorant at best and shows that people who feel this way have no interest in sharing society with people who have different priorities.

It is one thing to go "yeah, that thing the government is dumb for x, y, z reasons" and another to act like a baby and go "help! help! I'm being oppressed!"

(not directed at you, just your sentiment) grow the eff up and be an adult.
 
Last edited:
I guess the Nanny State needs to go home with these people an live their lives for them, because they must be utterly incapable of even feeding their kids, right?

Do you know that the article goes on to say this?

"many parents working hourly jobs were unable to earn any money during the week, as the snow forced businesses to close."

and this?

"Otto Tambito, a Fairfax County father of two, said his family burned through much of its savings during the week off from school and work. Tambito works as a window cleaner and an electrician, but was unable to travel to jobs. His wife, who cleans houses for a living, was in the same boat.

"We hope that thing melts down and we start again," he said."


And this?

"Maritza Hernandez, a 32-year-old mother who came to pick up food Friday, said her usual baby-sitting income dried up during the snow days, and her husband had no work either. The couple and their 5-year-old son survived all week on beans, tortillas and the occasional egg, she said.

"We were sad that we didn't have enough to go shopping," she said."



How come she isn't complaining about how the gov isn't taking care of her?

Nice try making this about the fabled 'nanny state'.
 
Do you know that the article goes on to say this?

"many parents working hourly jobs were unable to earn any money during the week, as the snow forced businesses to close."

and this?

"Otto Tambito, a Fairfax County father of two, said his family burned through much of its savings during the week off from school and work. Tambito works as a window cleaner and an electrician, but was unable to travel to jobs. His wife, who cleans houses for a living, was in the same boat.

"We hope that thing melts down and we start again," he said."


And this?

"Maritza Hernandez, a 32-year-old mother who came to pick up food Friday, said her usual baby-sitting income dried up during the snow days, and her husband had no work either. The couple and their 5-year-old son survived all week on beans, tortillas and the occasional egg, she said.

"We were sad that we didn't have enough to go shopping," she said."



How come she isn't complaining about how the gov isn't taking care of her?

Nice try making this about the fabled 'nanny state'.

Tambito, Hernandez, illegal immigrants?.....:confused:
 
You're right, but in my opinion, any parent who does not feed his/her kids has no business with those kids in the first place. The kids are almost certainly being neglected and/or abused in every other way as well.

Neglected and abused children should be reassigned to people who will not neglect and abuse them.

Then you are certainly welcome to attempt to convince others of your statist authoritarian views on the subject.

If you think it is the proper role of the government to intervene in the family to the extent that the government removes the parental rights of a parents simply because they need food assistance for their kids, then lobby congress to codify it into law. However, while social safety-nets are not often successfully challenged in the federal courts, I would put money on such an initiative being ruled unconstitutional.
 
Tambito, Hernandez, illegal immigrants?.....:confused:

Why don't you go get in your time machine and go back to 1940's Berlin? Where you belong.
 
That may mean that the case was not presented in such a way to convince the SCOTUS of it's lack of Constitutionality. That does not mean it is Constitutional, it simply means there was not enough evidence to convince the SCOTUS. Now we all know that the SCOTUS may also have a bias for or against such a position depending upon their interpretation. That interpretation changes with the membership of the bench. For example, Brown vs. Board of Education Topeka was overturned at the right time. Until then all de-segregation challenges were upheld. Using your logic, and you'd be against a challenge of Brown again because it's been tried before and failed so therefore, segregation should continue to exist.

Segregation was constitutional until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruled it unconstitutional. Similarly, social safetynets are constitutional due to prior rulings. If you think they should be unconstitutional, then you are welcome to try to challenge them in the federal courts. You won't succeed, but try just the same if you want.
 
While the welfare system is broken and is used to trap certain groups of people in the system there are a great deal of people who do work hard to try to provide for their families but right now with actual unemployment rates around 15% a record number of people are struggling to put food on the table, and it has nothing what ever to do with beer or any of the other prejudice statements some have made.

The system is broken, the economy is broken, and Obama is the worst possible choice to expect fix anything since he's out to collapse the whole system and replace it with Socialism and god knows what else.

Try to remember everyone on welfare isn't there by choice or on drugs or what ever, and believe it or not some are not even minority stereotypes.
 
Hardly the same thing, but feel free to up the rhetoric as you wish.

The difference between consensual sex and rape is exactly the same as between voluntary charity and forced charity.

One of them is something you choose to do. The other is something you are forced to do.

You claimed not to understand the difference.

But I think it is silly that people boohoo because the government does something they don't like. That's the price we pay for not being the only man on a deserted island. In any group of people, you are going to disagree with it in some way. The fact is, nobody is completely happy with what the government does, but everyone has their own personal set of grievences. To claim that a policy is akin to a forceful act is ignorant at best and shows that people who feel this way have no interest in sharing society with people who have different priorities.

To claim that a forceful act is akin to a forceful act is not ignorant, it is accurate. Are you claiming that people are not forced to pay for these programs?

It is one thing to go "yeah, that thing the government is dumb for x, y, z reasons" and another to act like a baby and go "help! help! I'm being oppressed!"

You know, I've never actually heard a baby say "help! help! I'm being oppressed!" I mostly hear them say things like "Ga ga! Goo goo!"

(not directed at you, just your sentiment) grow the eff up and be an adult.

I don't want to grow up. I'm a Toys R Us kid.

Can you really not understand the difference between voluntary charity and charity enforced on pain of incarceration?
 
I understand the difference between sex and rape.

To me this is far different. Paying taxes for things that you may not agree with is part of the compromise one must make when one lives in society. It is not a violent act that often causes medical and psychological damage.

Its the difference between being assaulted and being annoyed.

It is a terrible analogy.
 
Then you are certainly welcome to attempt to convince others of your statist authoritarian views on the subject.

If you think it is the proper role of the government to intervene in the family to the extent that the government removes the parental rights of a parents simply because they need food assistance for their kids, then lobby congress to codify it into law. However, while social safety-nets are not often successfully challenged in the federal courts, I would put money on such an initiative being ruled unconstitutional.

The state already takes abused and neglected away from parents who intentionally neglect and abuse them. There are provisions in all 50 states for that to happen. Most states have laws that can charge and penalize people (schools, child care workers, medical providers, etc.) who know of child abuse or neglect and do not report it. Perhaps you are not aware of that?

If anybody is actually paying attention here, I am NOT suggesting that children be taken from parents who are availing themselves of public or private social services because their temporary circumstances are that they cannot provide for their kids. Real parents do whatever, go whatever, accept whatever help they must to provide for their children. I suggest that kids should not be left with parents who intentionally abuse and/or neglect them.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why anybody would suggest that anything else should happen.

My quarrel is with tunnel visioned people thinking a school lunch program prevents child hunger and starvation. It doesn't. It provides one meal a day--two if breakfast is included--180 days per year at the most. It does not absolve parents from the responsibility to provide for their children the other 185 days per year, and if they can do that, they can dang sure make sure their kids are fed on snow days too.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to say no;

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

"September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."


You can try to rewrite history all you want though...

Yet the economy of 2001 would be a continuation of his.

His surplus was not real it was cooked books.

If there was a surplus how did thee deficit increase?
 
I understand the difference between sex and rape.

To me this is far different. Paying taxes for things that you may not agree with is part of the compromise one must make when one lives in society. It is not a violent act that often causes medical and psychological damage.

Its the difference between being assaulted and being annoyed.

It is a terrible analogy.

Ok, so do you understand the difference between choosing to pay for things that you support and being forced to pay for things regardless of whether or not you support them?

The analogy is fine. It is your understanding of it that is terrible.

I made no implication that giving free lunches to schoolkids was somehow just as bad as rape. Obviously it is not.

The difference between choosing to give free lunches to schoolkids and being forced to give free lunches to schoolkids is the same as the difference between choosing to have sex and being forced to have sex though, and in that respect the analogy is appropriate.

In one event you choose to do something. In the other you or forced to do it. Can you now understand how one could voluntarily give to charity while opposing laws that would force them to?
 
Ok, so do you understand the difference between choosing to pay for things that you support and being forced to pay for things regardless of whether or not you support them?

The analogy is fine. It is your understanding of it that is terrible.

I made no implication that giving free lunches to schoolkids was somehow just as bad as rape. Obviously it is not.

The difference between choosing to give free lunches to schoolkids and being forced to give free lunches to schoolkids is the same as the difference between choosing to have sex and being forced to have sex though, and in that respect the analogy is appropriate.

In one event you choose to do something. In the other you or forced to do it. Can you now understand how one could voluntarily give to charity while opposing laws that would force them to?

Intellectually yes. Emotionally no. I just cannot help but feeling some sense of dishonesty from those who try and make this distinction.

Family had personal experience with rape, lets try to use another metaphor from now on.
 
Intellectually yes. Emotionally no. I just cannot help but feeling some sense of dishonesty from those who try and make this distinction.

Family had personal experience with rape, lets try to use another metaphor from now on.

Ok then, can you understand how someone could voluntarily choose to join the armed forces without supporting the draft?
 
Segregation was constitutional until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruled it unconstitutional. Similarly, social safetynets are constitutional due to prior rulings. If you think they should be unconstitutional, then you are welcome to try to challenge them in the federal courts. You won't succeed, but try just the same if you want.

I do think they're unconstitutional however I'm not a lawyer and you still cannot provide any Constitutionality for your view point.
 
You are all over the map.......

Yup. I'm a bona fide World Traveler.

Did you find some issue with this analogy as well? How is choosing to join the military different from being forced to join the military if the end result is the same?
 
Personally, I think everyone should do 2 years in the military or some sort of charity work, but that's beside the point.

But yes I can see the difference. My overall suspicion when people go "I should give to charity, not pay taxes" is that they are using it as a cover to evade responsibility. Yes, I know about the statistics that conservatives give more to nonprofits, but I think that's just a difference in approach by the two groups.
 
Personally, I think everyone should do 2 years in the military or some sort of charity work, but that's beside the point.

But yes I can see the difference. My overall suspicion when people go "I should give to charity, not pay taxes" is that they are using it as a cover to evade responsibility. Yes, I know about the statistics that conservatives give more to nonprofits, but I think that's just a difference in approach by the two groups.

I agree that it's just a difference in approach by the two groups. One group feels they have the right to give generously with their own money, and the other feels that they have the right to give generously with other people's money.
 
Back
Top Bottom