POLL: Should free lunch kids be allowed to buy from snackline at tax payer's expense?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<<

<<

<< The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
>>



If you actually read my post you would find that they are doing their very best to provide for themselves. They are not living on welfare, their mother works to support all of the kids and is putting one through college. She busts her ass for them and does everything she can, but their medical problems are EXTREMELY expensive and also debilitating, there is no way that a single working parent could afford to pay for them.
>>



That's funny. Two of my brothers have been single fathers, and neither has ever relied on any state or federal assistence. It CAN be done.
>>



Yes, obviously it's possible to be a single parent without any sort of federal assistance.
Do they also have 6 kids who have medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars, as in the example I gave you?
>>



Let me see. They have not one, not two, but SIX freakin' kids, and now that they can't support them, WE must? Sorry, they should have given them up for adoption if they weren't financially able to care for them. Or maybe they should have just stayed married? Or maybe, just maybe, they should have thought twice before having such a large family with no financial parachute in the first place. Any way you stack it up, their failure to plan ahead does not constitute a financial burden on ME. They do NOT have a right to MY money to support THEIR mistakes.
 

Yeeny

Lifer
Feb 2, 2000
10,848
2
0
If you don't have an emergency fund to support your family for at least 6 months in case you're laid off, that's your own fault. If it leads to not being able to feed your children, that's abuse through neglect. If a family breaks up, it's still BOTH parent's responsibility to care for the children. If a parent dies, it's the surviving parent's responsibility to care for their children, and this should have been done by securing life insurance BEFORE hand. Your failure to plan ahead does NOT become my responsibility to support you.

Your views are great on what parents should do. Unfortunately, in the real world, daddys and mommys don't always stick around like you think they should. They don't always pay child support, or help take care of their kids. Views like yours are what makes the world the place it is becoming. So many people are me me me, mine mine mine. What happens one day if its you? What if you get laid off, and neither you or your wife can find a job paying what you had? Then its time to go work for minimum wage, if you can find one. Then what? Pay your rent or mortgage. Pay your electric to keep it on, along with your heat. Come up with money for gas/insurance, for transportation to and from work. Buy food for your family. Then pay every day for their lunch, whether they brown bag it or buy it at school, you still have to buy it. Along with keeping your kids clothed, shoes on their feet, backpacks to carry, and school supplies. Along with all of lifes other neccessities, such as laundry soap, shampoo, soap, toothpaste, etc. Lets see you pull that off on your own, and if you can, (which I am sure you are going to insist you could) good for you.

And as for people who are poor being abusive parents, grow up. I am a damn good mother, and my husband is a damn good father. I spend tons of time with my children, they are loving, respectful kids, who are well behaved and disciplined, and have never been abused. My kids are honest, forthright, and generally sweethearts with a ton of friends. My husband got laid off for a few months, it happens, and at the time, neither of us could find work. Eventually, we did, and got back on our feet, with as little help as possible from programs such as the free lunch program. I am sorry that you feel the need to look down upon me and mine, because of your views, and I am sorry the change you paid in taxes towards those programs has caused you to be so bitter, but thats your choice. I just hope you put your nose down before it rains, I hear drowning can be an awful way to go.

I am done posting/reading this thread. The views of some of you, and how much better you think you are than everyone else because you have something in life is sickening. Good for you that you made it, good for you that life worked out for you. But not everyone is always so lucky. And like it or not, life is partly luck, partly what you do for yourself. You can have all the skills in the world, but if the opportunity isn't there, you won't be going far. I for one am glad I was poor for a while. It taught me alot, including compassion for others, and maybe made me a bit less judgemental. And those lessons, in my view, are priceless.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
In my experience kids on the reduced lunch program always had more money than me. I know that sounds selfish. How are they wearing all the nice clothes and have gobs of cash to spend? Then for their free lunch they get french fries with cheese and ranch dressing on them. It prevents those that want salads from getting the cheese or ranch. The lunch ladies can't do anything about it. Also they get more food than you are supposed to, but what can someone do? We need controls and balances to PREVENT abuses of the system. Kids need a good nutritional meal. They don't need ranch with cheese fries!
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< If you don't have an emergency fund to support your family for at least 6 months in case you're laid off, that's your own fault. If it leads to not being able to feed your children, that's abuse through neglect. If a family breaks up, it's still BOTH parent's responsibility to care for the children. If a parent dies, it's the surviving parent's responsibility to care for their children, and this should have been done by securing life insurance BEFORE hand. Your failure to plan ahead does NOT become my responsibility to support you.

Your views are great on what parents should do. Unfortunately, in the real world, daddys and mommys don't always stick around like you think they should. They don't always pay child support, or help take care of their kids. Views like yours are what makes the world the place it is becoming. So many people are me me me, mine mine mine. What happens one day if its you? What if you get laid off, and neither you or your wife can find a job paying what you had? Then its time to go work for minimum wage, if you can find one. Then what? Pay your rent or mortgage. Pay your electric to keep it on, along with your heat. Come up with money for gas/insurance, for transportation to and from work. Buy food for your family. Then pay every day for their lunch, whether they brown bag it or buy it at school, you still have to buy it. Along with keeping your kids clothed, shoes on their feet, backpacks to carry, and school supplies. Along with all of lifes other neccessities, such as laundry soap, shampoo, soap, toothpaste, etc. Lets see you pull that off on your own, and if you can, (which I am sure you are going to insist you could) good for you.

And as for people who are poor being abusive parents, grow up. I am a damn good mother, and my husband is a damn good father. I spend tons of time with my children, they are loving, respectful kids, who are well behaved and disciplined, and have never been abused. My kids are honest, forthright, and generally sweethearts with a ton of friends. My husband got laid off for a few months, it happens, and at the time, neither of us could find work. Eventually, we did, and got back on our feet, with as little help as possible from programs such as the free lunch program. I am sorry that you feel the need to look down upon me and mine, because of your views, and I am sorry the change you paid in taxes towards those programs has caused you to be so bitter, but thats your choice. I just hope you put your nose down before it rains, I hear drowning can be an awful way to go.

I am done posting/reading this thread. The views of some of you, and how much better you think you are than everyone else because you have something in life is sickening. Good for you that you made it, good for you that life worked out for you. But not everyone is always so lucky. And like it or not, life is partly luck, partly what you do for yourself. You can have all the skills in the world, but if the opportunity isn't there, you won't be going far. I for one am glad I was poor for a while. It taught me alot, including compassion for others, and maybe made me a bit less judgemental. And those lessons, in my view, are priceless.
>>



GF, you could not be more wrong.

I give to a number of charities, AND donate time.

My point is NOT about being selfish, as I am anything but. It is about ENTITLEMENT. Please reread my points, and show me one place where I said people shouldn't help those who CANNOT help themselves. I haven't.

And, again, my life is not luck. Everything I have and everything I am I WORKED for. I started with nothing, and have been given nothing. I have no special skills, in fact, I'm pretty talentless. What I have I've gained through HARD work and determination. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then again, it it makes you feel morally superior to simply call me selfish, so be it. But I'll gladly stack up time and monitary charitable donations with you any time.

And I'm not "bitter." I believe in freedom. Manditory entitlements and government nanny programs are anathema to freedom, for both the taxed, and the recipents.
 



<< Because he's a whiney brat, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to recognize that, sampson. >>


You can be implying many things, none of which I think are positive.
And AmusedOne did lay down what we call the proverbial "smackdown" on you with in one post length.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<< You know that needle exchange program (of which there are relatively few in the US) they keep the crack ho that your neighbor visits from infecting him and his wife and potentially her next child. Oh and if the druggie gets HIV and can find a treatment facility who do you think pads Pfizer's pockets for antiretrovirals . . . your tax dollars at work(10 cent needle vs $1K/mo). >>



well damn... I stand corrected on financial issues and I forgot the fact it could be your loved one that druggie is picking up..




 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0


<<

<< It costs money to make money, my friend. If your cash supply is $0, how do you start a business? Not everyone has business sense either, something essential to being successfully self employed. >>



You wanna know how I did it? I WORKED FOR IT. I didn't start with ANY capital when I left my parents house. Stop making excuses.
>>



Your response to a poor job market: "I started my own business"
Your response to lack of capital: "I worked for it"

Again, it takes money to make money. You had to have a job or some means to make money before you could start your own business.
I am not making excuses, I'm just trying to get you to clarify. How do you make money to support yourself when the job market is horrible and you can't get hired and you have no money?



<<

<< A family at the poverty level does not have the means to put aside 6 months worth of funds, they can barely make ends meet as it is.
In the divorce case that I gave you, the emergency funds would have been stashed away in the divorce, or cut in half. And even if you have all of them, 6 months worth of emergency funds is not going to be enough if you have to go buy a new house and support 6 kids. It is not the neglect of one parent if the other is a complete asshole, and there has to be a safety net there for those times. You won't convince me that newly divorced mom is responsible for their new poverty levels, and if you're willing to just turn away and let them suffer, you're an asshole too.
>>



Again, their failure to plan ahead and provide for their children is not my fault, nor will I agree to being forced to pay for their bad planning and lack of responsibility either. Calling me names wont change that. If I can provide for me and mine, they can do the same.
>>



Please read what I said. There are some cases where no amount of planning is going to be enough; funds are limited to begin with, you only have so much money that you can set aside for certain things. Even if they could have set aside a million dollars for an emergency, if the guy decides to be an asshole and take all the money, or finds some way to shelter it or whatever (which is not hard if it's liquid), then it hasn't done the children any good.
Also, it's impossible to plan for everything.

If the father abandons the children and takes everything, yes he has been irresponsible, but he obviously does not care about the kids. That leaves the mother doing everything she can to support them. This is not necessarily a result of her irresponsibility or lack of planning, and to refuse them aid would only harm the children, because the only person who CARES about them is doing everything in her power to support them.



<<

<<

<< No matter how many excuses you come up with, I will NOT consent to other's being ENTITLED to the fruits of my labor, i.e., slavery. >>



You have not experienced true slavery. Taxes are part of our American system, and if you do not like them, then maybe you should become a professional bum; they're not subjected to taxes or any such "slavery" as you call it.
>>



There are two issues here. Paying taxes to support an army, a police force, a fire department, or a public works project is one thing. We all benefit from these things equally, and no individual person sees my money as their entitlement. Paying taxes to support others who are now told they are ENTITLED to my hard earned money IS slavery.
>>



You may not benefit directly from the support network that your tax dollars pay for, but if you ever fall on hard times or there are some unforseen circumstances which you could not plan for, you will appreciate it. If that never happens, good for you, but keep in mind that necessity knows no law, and the people who truly do not have the means to support themselves will be forced to steal out of necessity, at the lowest levels of poverty. You would also have more people living on the street, filling up the jails, more children would be neglected and malnourished out of the complete inability of the parents to care for or feed them properly, whether it is the fault of the parents or not, these are all issues that we would all have to deal with more regularly if all support networks were dropped.

My friends would be more permanently disabled and possibly dead if they were not able to receive their necessary (and expensive) medical treatment. You're too stuck on how things should be to see how they really are.

Parents SHOULD take responsibility for their kids, everyone should be able to support his or her self and children without help, everyone should plan for every possible disaster, everyone should be able to find a job or start their own business, etc.
As hard as you find it to believe, since you managed to be successful, there are sometimes legitimate reasons for why things don't fit your utopian idealistic view of how the world should be, and even when the reasons aren't legitimate, there are still innocent children involved.

I am writing this from the perspective of someone who has never been on welfare, medicade, medicare, or any other form of support like that, I have been successful, and I pay taxes to support these very support networks. I have seen them abused, and I have seen the actual benefits of these programs, and I feel that overall, they are worthwhile despite their many drawbacks.

If you don't want to live on the street, and you don't want to pay taxes for these support programs that have become an integral part of America, time to find another country that doesn't have these things. If you can't find one, you might just want to start your own. Hey, if our founding fathers could do it, anyone can!
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0


<<

<<

<<

<<

<< The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
>>



If you actually read my post you would find that they are doing their very best to provide for themselves. They are not living on welfare, their mother works to support all of the kids and is putting one through college. She busts her ass for them and does everything she can, but their medical problems are EXTREMELY expensive and also debilitating, there is no way that a single working parent could afford to pay for them.
>>



That's funny. Two of my brothers have been single fathers, and neither has ever relied on any state or federal assistence. It CAN be done.
>>



Yes, obviously it's possible to be a single parent without any sort of federal assistance.
Do they also have 6 kids who have medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars, as in the example I gave you?
>>



Let me see. They have not one, not two, but SIX freakin' kids, and now that they can't support them, WE must? Sorry, they should have given them up for adoption if they weren't financially able to care for them. Or maybe they should have just stayed married? Or maybe, just maybe, they should have thought twice before having such a large family with no financial parachute in the first place. Any way you stack it up, their failure to plan ahead does not constitute a financial burden on ME. They do NOT have a right to MY money to support THEIR mistakes.
>>



You are failing to follow my posts.

They had 6 kids, yes. This is typical for a farm family. They had a fairly good support system in place. This fell apart when the parents got divorced.
Oh sure, they could have stayed together, but as I stated previously, the father became somewhat mentally disturbed, was mentally and verbally abusive, and was physically abusive on two occasions. That would not have been good for the children if they stayed together.
Being on a farm, most of their assets were in equipment and land. When she started pushing for a divorce, he gave their equipment to his father (who lives right up the road), and started renting an old pickup truck from his father for $800/month. He reduced the value of the farm and the equipment as much as he could, and hid as much of the money as he could so that when they divorced, she got significantly less than she should have.

Their farm business was worth over a million, but she received a small fraction of that, and because he sheltered his assets so well, his child support payments are the legal minimum.

I can't believe that you would actually suggest adoption for these kids. They have a loving mother who is actually supporting them quite well other than her lack of ability to pay for their medical expenses without some help from medicaid and medicare.
Putting them up for adoption would destroy their lives, break the bonds they have with their mother and with eachother, and oh yeah, still cost you a boatload of tax money. Did you know that foster parents are actually paid to take care of kids? And at least at first, they would be wards of the state, which means that the state would still be paying all their medical expenses. That's about the worst suggestion I've ever heard.

Even if you disagree with what the parents have done, what about the kids?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<<

<<

<<

<<

<< The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
>>



If you actually read my post you would find that they are doing their very best to provide for themselves. They are not living on welfare, their mother works to support all of the kids and is putting one through college. She busts her ass for them and does everything she can, but their medical problems are EXTREMELY expensive and also debilitating, there is no way that a single working parent could afford to pay for them.
>>



That's funny. Two of my brothers have been single fathers, and neither has ever relied on any state or federal assistence. It CAN be done.
>>



Yes, obviously it's possible to be a single parent without any sort of federal assistance.
Do they also have 6 kids who have medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars, as in the example I gave you?
>>



Let me see. They have not one, not two, but SIX freakin' kids, and now that they can't support them, WE must? Sorry, they should have given them up for adoption if they weren't financially able to care for them. Or maybe they should have just stayed married? Or maybe, just maybe, they should have thought twice before having such a large family with no financial parachute in the first place. Any way you stack it up, their failure to plan ahead does not constitute a financial burden on ME. They do NOT have a right to MY money to support THEIR mistakes.
>>



You are failing to follow my posts.

They had 6 kids, yes. This is typical for a farm family. They had a fairly good support system in place. This fell apart when the parents got divorced.
Oh sure, they could have stayed together, but as I stated previously, the father became somewhat mentally disturbed, was mentally and verbally abusive, and was physically abusive on two occasions. That would not have been good for the children if they stayed together.
Being on a farm, most of their assets were in equipment and land. When she started pushing for a divorce, he gave their equipment to his father (who lives right up the road), and started renting an old pickup truck from his father for $800/month. He reduced the value of the farm and the equipment as much as he could, and hid as much of the money as he could so that when they divorced, she got significantly less than she should have.

Their farm business was worth over a million, but she received a small fraction of that, and because he sheltered his assets so well, his child support payments are the legal minimum.

I can't believe that you would actually suggest adoption for these kids. They have a loving mother who is actually supporting them quite well other than her lack of ability to pay for their medical expenses without some help from medicaid and medicare.
Putting them up for adoption would destroy their lives, break the bonds they have with their mother and with eachother, and oh yeah, still cost you a boatload of tax money. Did you know that foster parents are actually paid to take care of kids? And at least at first, they would be wards of the state, which means that the state would still be paying all their medical expenses. That's about the worst suggestion I've ever heard.

Even if you disagree with what the parents have done, what about the kids?
>>



You keep making excuses for the failing of the parents. Again, it is not my fault they failed to properly provide for their children. Maybe they should approach their local charity or church for help.

Secondly, any property he owned during the divorce cannot be "given away." So that story is BS. I know the law here and that's called "hiding assets."

But, again, excuses are not going to make me believe that tax dollars should go to support individuals. I will not. That's what charities are for.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126


<< The needle exchange program encourages drug use. Rather, there should be a way that police can stop people going in for needle exchage. Set the officer up with portable ion mobility spectrometer and a dog trained for drug detection. When the sniffing dog detects drug or officer suspects it, finds a needle, run it through ion mobility spectrometer to confirm the presence of illegal substances. But they know they are doing wrong thing and I'm sure they won't show up at needle exchange as often with police force at work. Positive test means police could put the druggin in vault(j a i l) for possesion of controlled substances. This should prevent them from further infecting people and keep the druggies off the street.
>>




sorry doesn't work. if they're gonna do drugs they're gonna do them no matter what, might as well have them do it safely. if you bust them, you're paying for them to go to jail, you're funding their housing/food, when they get out, they're just gonna do more drugs

it's pretty hopeless
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< You know that needle exchange program (of which there are relatively few in the US) they keep the crack ho that your neighbor visits from infecting him and his wife and potentially her next child. Oh and if the druggie gets HIV and can find a treatment facility who do you think pads Pfizer's pockets for antiretrovirals . . . your tax dollars at work(10 cent needle vs $1K/mo). >>



The needle exchange program encourages drug use. Rather, there should be a way that police can stop people going in for needle exchage. Set the officer up with portable ion mobility spectrometer and a dog trained for drug detection. When the sniffing dog detects drug or officer suspects it, finds a needle, run it through ion mobility spectrometer to confirm the presence of illegal substances. But they know they are doing wrong thing and I'm sure they won't show up at needle exchange as often with police force at work. Positive test means police could put the druggin in vault(j a i l) for possesion of controlled substances. This should prevent them from further infecting people and keep the druggies off the street.
>>



Nope. I disagree. I think needle exchanges are a great idea (privately funded, though). Druggies are going to do drugs no matter how hard you make it for them to get needles. BUT, if they have access to clean needles, they will spread disease FAR less. Don't forget, the druggie you save from HIV might be the one that picks up your young daughter in a bar at college.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<<

<< BTW, I see Jerboy's point here. If they can afford the freakin snacks everyday, they could be buying their own damn food. Instead, they mooch off the taxpayers, then turn around and buy extra food. >>



School lunches are small, i need at least two to actually sustain myself and I'm far from fat (18 year old guy that's 5' 10" and only 130 lbs). A kid may need to supplement what the lunch program gives him. Yes, it would be better to get healthier food but that's what's available to him. They are not mooching, they just need more then we give out for free.
>>



The snackline is ALWAYS more expensive. One needing more food than provided is no excuse for buying from over priced snack line. You got free lunch and you still need/want more food. Go back into regular lunch line and buy another set of full lunch instead of blowing that money at a snack line.

People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol or smoke either since they are absolutely unnecessary to live. If they want to smoke, fine their choice but get off the welfare.

I neither smoke nor drink and I live fine. Unless someone has a different body structure that requires alcohol and cigarette smoke to complete the normal metabolism, allowing them to blow money on alcohol is trashing our tax money.

If you're 18 and already have a job, the revenue from your wage should count toward family income as it could be used for your own support.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81


<< The needle exchange program encourages drug use. Rather, there should be a way that police can stop people going in for needle exchage. Set the officer up with portable ion mobility spectrometer and a dog trained for drug detection. When the sniffing dog detects drug or officer suspects it, finds a needle, run it through ion mobility spectrometer to confirm the presence of illegal substances. But they know they are doing wrong thing and I'm sure they won't show up at needle exchange as often with police force at work. Positive test means police could put the druggin in vault(j a i l) for possesion of controlled substances. This should prevent them from further infecting people and keep the druggies off the street. >>



Now thats just stupid. Not only is that entrapment that is just big government at its finest.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
After following this thread all I can say is that it makes me really sad :(


I do hope that nobody here every experiences a hardship that would require them to rely on the assistance of others in order to provide for themselves or their children..


over and out of this thread now :(
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0



<< sorry doesn't work. if they're gonna do drugs they're gonna do them no matter what, might as well have them do it safely. if you bust them, you're paying for them to go to jail, you're funding their housing/food, when they get out, they're just gonna do more drugs

it's pretty hopeless
>>



Good and bad. It is unfortunate that we have to pay and may cost more than giving needles, but that'll reduce the number of druggies out on the street by throwing them in Federal Prison, pay the tax and forget about it. If we could get the prision to cut budget on inmate recreation and only give them absolute minimum some tax money can be saved.

 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126


<< Good and bad. It is unfortunate that we have to pay and may cost more than giving needles, but that'll reduce the number of druggies out on the street by throwing them in Federal Prison, pay the tax and forget about it. If we could get the prision to cut budget on inmate recreation and only give them absolute minimum some tax money can be saved. >>



yes but it will never happen, carebears will call it "cruel and unusual punishment"

it would be smarter just to let them OD and kill themselves, not like they're doing anything productive for society anyway
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< After following this thread all I can say is that it makes me really sad :(


I do hope that nobody here every experiences a hardship that would require them to rely on the assistance of others in order to provide for themselves or their children..


over and out of this thread now :(
>>



Relying on the assistance of others is one thing. DEMANDING and feeling entitled to it it through penalty of of jail for those who are forced to pay is another.

Again, I have never said people should not be helped. I've only said it should not be through government. Why is that so hard to understand?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< sorry doesn't work. if they're gonna do drugs they're gonna do them no matter what, might as well have them do it safely. if you bust them, you're paying for them to go to jail, you're funding their housing/food, when they get out, they're just gonna do more drugs

it's pretty hopeless
>>



Good and bad. It is unfortunate that we have to pay and may cost more than giving needles, but that'll reduce the number of druggies out on the street by throwing them in Federal Prison, pay the tax and forget about it. If we could get the prision to cut budget on inmate recreation and only give them absolute minimum some tax money can be saved.
>>



Historically, throwing druggies in prison has done NOTHING to stem the addiction rates. In fact, it's made life more dangerous for those who aren't involved in drugs, because now the druggies aren't only addicted, they're desperate and have nothing to lose.

Nope, prohibition of drugs has had about as much effect on drug use as alcohol prohibition had on alcohol in the 20s. None. And the only ones who truely suffer are the law abiding folks who are seeing their freedoms thrown away one by one in the name of "safety and security."
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0



<<
since most kids are totally dependent on their choices made by their parents, let's make sure to make things rougher for them by labeling them and making sure everybody knows what loser families they come from !!!
rolleye.gif
>>



I don't recall saying anything about publicly humiliating them. Not everyone use the snack line(I seldom do) and if the terms and conditions were stated in free/red. lunch applicaiton form and parents tell the kids, they simply would stay out of the snackline. When they disregard anyway and attempts to make a purchase, lunch lady's computer would simply say "denied due to special program this student is applied to" or "checkout can't be approved until first $2.25 is applied toward lunch" and if they haven't had lunch simply read out "denied". Nobody else really has to know about it.



<<
I would think that someone who practices an alternative lifestyle would be strongly opposed to any attempt to
pubically label and humilate other people,particularly dependent kids and over an issue as basic as food ! I am
ashamed for you that you would even suggest such a thing :Q
>>



I don't consider myself to be practicing alternative lifestyle. Alternative to what primary lifestyle are you talking about anyway?

Eating whatever the hell I want whenver the hell I want is probably looks like alternative lifestyle to kids living on welfare, but just because there are more than one lifestyle doesn't mean one is alternative and other is primary.

 

Zwingle

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,925
0
0
Those on welfare are a burden on society.....some may actually need the assistance, but they are still a burden on society. But the majority are just getting a free ride. If you are not adding to the system, you are adding to the problem. I have seen many people on gov't assistance buy cigs and beer rather than giving thier children money to eat lunch. When I see all the money our gov't wastes by supporting other countries, it burns me up, because as I stated the public school system is in shambles. This is where our taxes should be going. Forget about rebuilding Afghanistan, not our problem, those people are not going to add anything of value to the US, why should my tax money help them. I would rather pay for free lunches to ALL US school children instead of going to waste in another country. In Texas we have the Robin Hood plan, where the richer school districts give money to the poorer, this is stupid and hopefully will be repealed soon. I moved to the area I am in because the schools were nicer.....now it is worse than it ever was.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
POLL: Should free lunch kids be allowed to buy from snackline?


no, poor kids suck. why do they deserve a cookie?
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0


<< You keep making excuses for the failing of the parents. Again, it is not my fault they failed to properly provide for their children. Maybe they should approach their local charity or church for help. >>



There is no reason "they" (being the mother) should have to beg for money for her kids, these government programs are in place specifically for people like them.



<< Secondly, any property he owned during the divorce cannot be "given away." So that story is BS. I know the law here and that's called "hiding assets."

But, again, excuses are not going to make me believe that tax dollars should go to support individuals. I will not. That's what charities are for.
>>



Well, welcome to the real world my friend. Illegal or not, it happened. My story is not BS, I witnessed it myself. If everything happened the way it should in your idealistic world, these programs would be unnecessary, but there are sometimes circumstances that cannot be planned for.
I will not rehash my friend's story as you are obviously not really interested in it, I have already given you all the information about it which you have chosen to ignore or claim as false. There's nothing more I can do.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< You keep making excuses for the failing of the parents. Again, it is not my fault they failed to properly provide for their children. Maybe they should approach their local charity or church for help. >>



There is no reason "they" (being the mother) should have to beg for money for her kids, these government programs are in place specifically for people like them.
>>



They ARE begging. Except it's now being facilitated by a government who takes my money with a virtual gun to my head. Yes, there IS a reason they should beg. They failed to provide for themselves... and now they MUST rely on the kindness of others. You just want that kindness to be FORCED at gun point, and I want it to be voluntary.

I have NEVER said they should not be helped. Only that they should not feel ENTITLED to help as if we OWE them sonething, nor should anyone be FORCED to pay.



<<

<< Secondly, any property he owned during the divorce cannot be "given away." So that story is BS. I know the law here and that's called "hiding assets."

But, again, excuses are not going to make me believe that tax dollars should go to support individuals. I will not. That's what charities are for.
>>



Well, welcome to the real world my friend. Illegal or not, it happened. My story is not BS, I witnessed it myself. If everything happened the way it should in your idealistic world, these programs would be unnecessary, but there are sometimes circumstances that cannot be planned for.
I will not rehash my friend's story as you are obviously not really interested in it, I have already given you all the information about it which you have chosen to ignore or claim as false. There's nothing more I can do.
>>

[/i] >>



Look, even if this is all true, it hasn't changed my mind. Charity should be voluntary, and government should get out of it. Your friends created their own situation, and the father is guilty of abuse. Not only that, but the mother has a piss poor lawyer. All and all, it's THEIR mistakes that are causing this. And now they, and you, feel ENTITLED to MY money to pull them out???

You know, if someone like this came to me seeking help, I'd probably help them. But when they, and you, demand that I contribute under threat of prison if I don't? Well, you already know my feelings on this.

My world is not idealistic, it's realistic. The more socailized we become, the more dependant we become, the more dependant we become, the more control governmemnt will demand over our lives. One only has to look at the Welfare system for the last 35 years to figure this out. When people feel ENTITLED to other people's money, everyone loses. The recipient becomes dependant and now must live under restrictions laid out by the system, and the tax payer becomes a slave to the recipient. BOTH lose freedoms they would have were the system not there.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0


<<

<< You know that needle exchange program (of which there are relatively few in the US) they keep the crack ho that your neighbor visits from infecting him and his wife and potentially her next child. Oh and if the druggie gets HIV and can find a treatment facility who do you think pads Pfizer's pockets for antiretrovirals . . . your tax dollars at work(10 cent needle vs $1K/mo). >>



The needle exchange program encourages drug use. Rather, there should be a way that police can stop people going in for needle exchage. Set the officer up with portable ion mobility spectrometer and a dog trained for drug detection. When the sniffing dog detects drug or officer suspects it, finds a needle, run it through ion mobility spectrometer to confirm the presence of illegal substances. But they know they are doing wrong thing and I'm sure they won't show up at needle exchange as often with police force at work. Positive test means police could put the druggin in vault(j a i l) for possesion of controlled substances. This should prevent them from further infecting people and keep the druggies off the street.
>>





Not only are you retarded buy you dont know sh*t about what you are talking about. Needle exchange programs have been proven to NOT increase drug use. Studies back this up yet the gov't just doesnt care. Its the image of funding it that they find unnaceptable.

bah, you dont know crap about this.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<< If Jerboy's parents pay property taxes (I'm sure they do) it's not a "free education." Maybe if they were allowed to KEEP that money, they could send him to a private school. >>



What about state and federal income tax? The poor people not only bring in less dollars, they bring in less portion of their income into tax. They only drop in 15% or so of their meager income and take food stamp, welfare and other financial assistance themselves and their children. Graduated tax system is so messed up and is difinitely in favor of poors :| :|:|:| After all taxes combined my parents said close to 50 freaking % of their income goes to tax.

Like I said earlier, its better for ME and my friends education if my school was on different school district. The average housing cost here is $300K+ and needless to say students from here are pretty well off. On the other side of the county, many people are living in ~$50K pigsty living off of welfare and yet their schools are in same friggin district.

Since people in my part of the town are more self supplying, even if we shared the money equally based on how much students we have, they take more money from the reserve than my school do.

Its like a building with 1,000KW generator that can enjoy 750KW of energy and another building with 125KW geneator that needs 500KW. So the stupid district says lets combine the power reserve together and share the generator output fairy between two buildings, hey wait, they aren't self supplying, they to take some from us. As a result they end up eating 500KW of power(125KW from their own, 375KW taken from us). They're taking more from us than they make themselve. What do they give us in return? None Nada Zip. From their side of view, they are in favor of combining them, otherwise they won't get the freebie money. From my side of town, its unnecessary output that downs our reserve.


Had the building two(reads: ghetto schools) been not connected to our power grid we would have the 750KW and 250KW to use for other luxuries. Well the poor district only makes 400KW.. Its not our fault.. why should our part of town give it away?