• 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

TurtleDude said:
there are only 432 billionaires
Click to expand...
and yet the republicans are willing to hold up the tax bill, negatively impacting the rest of the nation to make sure they protect the present tax break enjoyed by those 432 billionaire$
causes one to question who the congress actually serves

why do you constantly spew your envy and hate of the uber rich when your masters' want to screw over everyone in the top 2%
Click to expand...
why would someone with a professed legal education surmise that because i would expect the uber rich to be taxed progressively that such an opinion is based on either hate or envy
it simply makes common sense. only someone without out any would be unable to realize that those who have benefited the most from our nation's resources should be expected to pay the most to maintain the nation's greatness

why do you think someone making 250K a year or a retired person whose only income is now his investment income ought to face tax hikes.
Click to expand...
because at that point of income, their fundamental needs are adequately provided for, leaving room for them to incur additional taxes - paid only above the $250,000 threshold - without significant detriment to their circumstances
for the same reason i advocate tax relief for the person earning minimum wage, whose income does not begin to cover essential needs

If you make 200K a year on dividends your tax is going to DOUBLE. but that is ok to you because you figures it will "help the poor"
Click to expand...
if someone possesses enough assets to realize $200,000+ in dividends annually, why would i be worried about their ability to care for themselves financially? answer that, counsel

as long as you dems and socialists think that the taxpayers have a duty to fund fund and fund some more every act of irresponsible breeding on the grounds not doing so will "hurt the children" the creeping crud of socialism will continue
Click to expand...
one need not be a democrat or a socialist to recognize that hungry CHILDREN need to be fed. and by the government, if necessary, when their parents and the community's social assistance network is unable and/or unwilling to meet their fundamental needs
but tell us why you think a great nation should allow its CHILDREN to go hungry ... explain that to us, squire
 
Deuce said:
So, you're better than poor people, is what you're saying.
Click to expand...

you're damned right. I started out in the same boat most of them are in now. I was born poor, raised poor, was poor while I WORKED my way through college. If I can do it, they can do it. and if they can't or won't, then yes...I am better than them. and if they want me to support them, they should acknowledge that fact.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
you're damned right. I started out in the same boat most of them are in now. I was born poor, raised poor, was poor while I WORKED my way through college. If I can do it, they can do it. and if they can't or won't, then yes...I am better than them. and if they want me to support them, they should acknowledge that fact.
Click to expand...

thank you for displaying - for turtle dude's benefit - what hate and envy actually look like
 
Objective Voice said:
While it's true that in most cases food stamp recipients do qualify for free lunches in public school, S.3307 would also expand entitlement to all foster children - you know, those children who have been abandoned or orphanned. You gonna let them starve, too? Surely, you're not that heartless?
Click to expand...

I was a foster parent for 7-8 years. adopted 2 foster kids. the state already pays foster parents around $450/month to help support them. no one is going to starve if they don't pass this stupid bill.
 
OscarB63 said:
you're damned right. I started out in the same boat most of them are in now. I was born poor, raised poor, was poor while I WORKED my way through college. If I can do it, they can do it. and if they can't or won't, then yes...I am better than them. and if they want me to support them, they should acknowledge that fact.
Click to expand...

I suppose my view is different because I'm a Mom going through college, not single and childless.
 
justabubba said:
thank you for displaying - for turtle dude's benefit - what hate and envy actually look like
Click to expand...

hate??? a little strong. I prefer to be truthful and think of it as disdain and disgust for those unwilling to do what I have done. envy??? why should I envy some lowlife lazy piece of filth who is unwilling to do what it takes to better themself?

I started with nothing and made something of myself. how can I not be "better" than someone who started with nothing and remained nothing?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I suppose my view is different because I'm a Mom going through college, not single and childless.
Click to expand...

really? I was supporting a wife and two kids while I went through college. NEXT!!!
 
OscarB63 said:
hate??? a little strong. I prefer to be truthful and think of it as disdain and disgust for those unwilling to do what I have done. envy??? why should I envy some lowlife lazy piece of filth who is unwilling to do what it takes to better themself?

I started with nothing and made something of myself. how can I not be "better" than someone who started with nothing and remained nothing?
Click to expand...

What about those who are unable?

It's great that you were young, childless, single, and physically capable - but many other aren't and shouldn't be swept into your wide brush.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What about those who are unable?

It's great that you were young, childless, single, and physically capable - but many other aren't and shouldn't be swept into your wide brush.
Click to expand...

reading trouble? I was not childless and single.

please, I have never stated that those who are "unable" should be punished. but far too many people cry unable, when they are really just unwilling.
 
OscarB63 said:
reading trouble? I was not childless and single.

please, I have never stated that those who are "unable" should be punished. but far too many people cry unable, when they are really just unwilling.
Click to expand...

please point out all of the posts in this thread where forum members have advocated for assisting those who are unwilling to help themselves
 
OscarB63 said:
reading trouble? I was not childless and single.

please, I have never stated that those who are "unable" should be punished. but far too many people cry unable, when they are really just unwilling.
Click to expand...

We were typing at the same time so, no, I didn't see your post on that. (the forum use to advise you that someone added onto the thread while you were typing but it doesn't, anymore)

The people I consider "unwilling" are NOT the one applying to attend college. . . and if a lazy or 'unwilling' person DOES get in - they won't last long. If they get in on a scholarship or even FAFSA benefit of some type they have to maintain good performance.

For the lazy and unwilling THAT'S not very possible.

Have you applied for Financial Aid? I did - though I was rejected - it took an immense amount of pre-planning and effort on my part.
Now, it's great that you were married and had kids - and were able to still work and get through college. But I surely couldn't pull that off. My husband works, I don't - but I do everything else that he doesn't have time for. . . and I'm barely pulling off 4 classes this semester because of *time* - there just aren't enough hours in a day.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
please point out all of the posts in this thread where forum members have advocated for assisting those who are unwilling to help themselves
Click to expand...

please try to post something, anything that is in anyway relevent.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
We were typing at the same time so, no, I didn't see your post on that.

The people I consider "unwilling" are NOT the one applying to attend college. . . and if a lazy or 'unwilling' person DOES get in - they won't last long. If they get in on a scholarship or even FAFSA benefit of some type they have to maintain good performance.

For the lazy and unwilling THAT'S not very possible.
Click to expand...

and why then, should those of us who are not lazy and unwilling, support them?
 
If someone is content to be a HS dropout and live in a trailer park or housing project. Why should I give a rat's ass about them? They made the choice not to complete HS, or go to college, or attend a training school, or join the military.

why, why, why, why should I pay for their poor choices?

If you are so physically incapacitated that you can't work, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
If you are so mentally deficient that you can't get a job, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
 
Boo Radley said:
Reality does have a liberal bias.



Just joking a bit, but on a serious note, republicans do often object to things that help the needy. In some cases they may have justifable reasons, but in some cases they really do appear to just be harsh. Now, if we don't report what they object to, or sugar coat it, that would be bias. Just reporting what they vote agianst, quoting there reasons and quoting how others respond is not bias.
Click to expand...

A lot of objections that politicians have on issues like this are a matter of degree. One group wants to put a big ol' blanket over the problem and capture as many people and therefore votes in the program as possible. The other side wants some reasonable limits which gets translated into "cruel and heartless". Not saying that the objections aren't unreasonable sometimes but this name calling stuff is political and not reality.
 
OscarB63 said:
and why then, should those of us who are not lazy and unwilling, support them?
Click to expand...

You, obviously, wouldn't understand because you claim not to know what it's like to WANT to be able to do something but not be ABLE to do it because of circumstances outside your control.
If you don't want people to continue to be leeches on the government's money then I'd hope you'd see the benefit in them being given some assistance so they can, then, be able to support their selves and their family with a reasonable career. Overall - it's a benefit to you, whether you recognize that or not.

Curious - how did you pull it off, anyway? Did you work full or parttime? Did your wife have to care for the kids and pick up all that slack while you studied?
My husband helps out as much as possible - cooking dinner, taking off of work when the kids are sick, and doing other things like cleaning and laundry - if I had to pay my own way I simply wouldn't be attending. It would be like I started years ago - one online class at a time.

Unfortunately, I tapped through all the online classes - now I HAVE to attend. If the kids weren't all in school it just wouldn't be possible or affordable - even WITH his GI Benefits.
 
OscarB63 said:
If someone is content to be a HS dropout and live in a trailer park or housing project. Why should I give a rat's ass about them? They made the choice not to complete HS, or go to college, or attend a training school, or join the military.

why, why, why, why should I pay for their poor choices?

If you are so physically incapacitated that you can't work, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
If you are so mentally deficient that you can't get a job, you have no business pumping out kids that you can't feed
Click to expand...

Content? Odd choice of words. You realize this is the type of thing that supports the notion of republicans or conservatives being heartless, but let's put that aisde. Even if the parents are as worthless as you paint them, what purpose does it serve to punish the children?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
They might. But I'd like to see the Democrats say, "OK, add that" and find out. THEN it would be fine to blame the Republicans, solely.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that. If they did, would the conservatives then accept, assuming republcans still opposed it or tried to add something else, that it was merely a tactic?
 
Speaking of which - I have to depart for the day and attend my classes.
Cheerio.
 
Barbbtx said:
Conservatives give much more than liberals. Of course you're likely to find the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

The devil is always in the details, so I wouldn't go too far down that road. I don't say that all conservatives or all republicans are heartlerss or cheap, but there are some who feel church is not the palce for this type of help. Of course there are some who do. But the truth is, as the great depression clearly showed, poverty is too large a problem for churches to handle. Something larger, like the government is often needed.

That's why during the great depression those liberal baptist ministers begged government to lend a hand. ;)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You, obviously, wouldn't understand because you claim not to know what it's like to WANT to be able to do something but not be ABLE to do it because of circumstances outside your control.
Click to expand...

wrong. I wanted to be a pilot in the Air Force, due to circumstances beyond my control (I was born without 20/20 vision) I was not able to do so.

If you don't want people to continue to be leeches on the government's money then I'd hope you'd see the benefit in them being given some assistance so they can, then, be able to support their selves and their family with a reasonable career. Overall - it's a benefit to you, whether you recognize that or not.
Click to expand...

the assistance is already out there. grants and training programs aplently. all they have to do is apply. put forth a little effort.

Curious - how did you pull it off, anyway? Did you work full or parttime? Did your wife have to care for the kids and pick up all that slack while you studied?
My husband helps out as much as possible - cooking dinner, taking off of work when the kids are sick, and doing other things like cleaning and laundry - if I had to pay my own way I simply wouldn't be attending. It would be like I started years ago - one online class at a time.
Click to expand...

I took all Tues/Thur classes when possible. I did drywall 10-12 hrs a day the other 5 days a week, usually 12-14 hrs a day Sat/Sun. Wife stayed home and took care of the kids. I would come home, grab a quick shower, bite to eat, give the kids a bath, study for a couple hours, get a few hours sleep, rinse and repeat. We ate a lot of rice and beans and did without a lot of things. lived in a trailer park in a singlewide that was 20 years old. all slept in the same room with a little kerosene heater because we couldn't afford to run the heat.

I know what it is like to be "poor". I also know that the vast majority of poor people are capable of doing more to better themselves.
 
Erod said:
America's poor have babies more often than they change underwear. Having kids with multiple partners out of wedlock is like a badge of honor.
Click to expand...

bleat, bleat, bleat......but why should we punish the children for having retarded parents???...wah, wah, wah (accompanied, of course, by the obligatory, and ceremonial, wringing of the hands)
 
Erod said:
America's poor have babies more often than they change underwear. Having kids with multiple partners out of wedlock is like a badge of honor.
Click to expand...

Not that I think you're accurate by any means, but agian I ask, why punish the children?
 
jambalaya said:
A lot of objections that politicians have on issues like this are a matter of degree. One group wants to put a big ol' blanket over the problem and capture as many people and therefore votes in the program as possible. The other side wants some reasonable limits which gets translated into "cruel and heartless". Not saying that the objections aren't unreasonable sometimes but this name calling stuff is political and not reality.
Click to expand...

Just as I don't accpet all republicans are heartless, I don't accept your generalization either. People can actually vote for these things because they think they can help.

But, yes, I agree largely the name calling is political. Not limited to one side. On that we agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom