# Parents Refuse To Feed Their Own Children, Why Should I Have To Foot Their Bill?



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

It seems the Liberal utopia has solved the School Lunch problem by simply requiring to use others people money to pay for children's school lunches as the kids own parents are refusing to do so themselves. I don't think it's my responsibility to feed other peoples kids. I don't see much of what is happening in the article I have linked to as "shaming", but simply the schools trying to education the children about the fact that things cost money and they need to be responsible. 

Using the word shaming in a shaming sense (as an emotional control tactic against people that think that parents should feed their own kids) is shameful in itself. I supposed we are going to get have to get used to the Liberals using the word to attack other people with when it's not even the proper word to describe what is happening (just like everything is racist that they don't agree with).

Of course, it's not the kids fault the parents are refusing to feed them, so I think that giving them a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and then billing the parents is totally acceptable, especially considering when I was growing up my packed lunch that my mother took the time to make me was basically the same thing (peanut butter sandwich with jelly if I were lucky, an apple and I drank water out of the water fountain). It cost less than $5 a week for my home made lunch I'd bring to class. Sure, I wasn't happy that other kids had trays with better food, but being unhappy with something doesn't give you the right to just take whatever you want. I wasn't starving or going hungry and that's the point behind eating.

What do you think? Should parents be responsible for providing food for their own children or should everyone else have to float the bill because they are refusing to do so?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...g-problem-needs-national-solution-ncna1066461


----------



## matthi321 (Oct 16, 2019)

yes parents should feed their own children, it cant be that hard


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

matthi321 said:


> yes parents should feed their own children, it cant be that hard



A lot of parents simply refuse to and cite financial problems, yet have no issues obtaining new Nike's or a new $800 smart phone every single year. The parents have no problem spending all sort of money every day to eat at McDonald's or buy their legal weed. It's not like most of them couldn't actually afford it, it's more of the lines they are refusing to any think other people should have to feed their kids. It's the responsibility of the parents to feed their own children. Not mine.


----------



## leon315 (Oct 16, 2019)

tc, people never ever should feed other people's kids, instead you shall call Social assistance (dunno how to say it properly, maybe)?? and let them handle it.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

leon315 said:


> tc, people never ever should feed other people's kids, instead you shall call Social assistance (dunno how to say it properly, maybe)?? and let them handle it.



We have Child Protective Services here in the States, where you call and report Child Abuse and neglect. Clearly, Liberals think that parents not feeding their own children is not abuse, but schools who are feeding them and charging them for the food is abuse.


----------



## datahoarder (Oct 16, 2019)

It’s unfortunate people are okay spending millions on a single missile and billions+ on the military and paying for officers to shoot people and still get their tax funded pensions, but have no empathy for kids, hunger, and homelessness. It’s not a perfect world. There are shit parents and there are poor parents. I’m happy for you that you’re not in a situation where you have to make tough financial choices. All-in-all, hunger and malnourishment exist in a society where it shouldn’t. There are plenty of other things you should be upset about your taxes going toward before you get mad that poor kids get the right to a substandard free meal. I’ll never understand the older generation where “it was hard for me back then and I had to make tough choices” equates to them wanting the next generation to go through the same hardships “because I did” even though as an advancing society we don’t have to. People make the same argument about abolishing college debt - they want other people to suffer the exact struggles they had to in order to pay off their debts, rather than being happy that others don’t have to go through the same thing. It blows my mind the entitlement. but then again, it’s just my opinion.


----------



## shinrukus (Oct 16, 2019)

So I think a lot of your comments may come from a real place, but are vastly misguided. 

I may be comfortable living now, but I come from a place where my dad left my mom with nothing, we lived in the projects, and my mom did what she had to do to make sure my siblings and I had that 3 dollars a day for lunch, some days we even had the extra $1.25 for breakfast. Now that was 20 years ago, and may not seem like a lot, but my mom and grandmom sold drugs to make that happen, because McDonalds wouldn't even hire my mom. She graduated from high school, but dropped out of college. There were some people who VASTLY abused the system, I saw people in the projects with 32 inch tvs (which at the time was a big thing) I started seeing people with 2way pagers going into Cell phones, and they mess it up for people who genuinely need to feed their children. 
Free Lunch isn't to give parents an "out", its to take care of children who aren't as fortunate. Parents might be lazy/greedy, or unable, but its not the children's fault, and yes our tax dollars do go to that. My business itself makes close to $2m a year, but I myself my see close to 350-450k on any given year, and im ok with my tax dollars going to support children whose shoes I once wore and duct taped, because I may have thought it was the style when I was in 4th grade, but it was really trying to keep shoes together. We unfortunately may pay to keep lazy parents lazy, but I feel even with that, the children are whats important.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2019)

Children should be fed by almost any means necessary. Advocating for policy that allows children to go hungry is despicable.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

kornychaos said:


> It’s unfortunate people are okay spending millions on a single missile and billions+ on the military and paying for officers to shoot people and still get their tax funded pensions, but have no empathy for kids, hunger, and homelessness. It’s not a perfect world. There are shit parents and there are poor parents. I’m happy for you that you’re not in a situation where you have to make tough financial choices. All-in-all, hunger and malnourishment exist in a society where it shouldn’t. There are plenty of other things you should be upset about your taxes going toward before you get mad that poor kids get the right to a substandard free meal. I’ll never understand the older generation where “it was hard for me back then and I had to make tough choices” equates to them wanting the next generation to go through the same hardships “because I did” even though as an advancing society we don’t have to. People make the same argument about abolishing college debt - they want other people to suffer the exact struggles they had to in order to pay off their debts, rather than being happy that others don’t have to go through the same thing. It blows my mind the entitlement. but then again, it’s just my opinion.



The thing is that I didn't have it hard. I had food. I may not have liked the food, but having it hard would have been not having food. I don't want children to go hungry. So I have no problem with the schools feeding them and then billing the dead beat parents. "Having it hard" is not having to pay your bills or take care of your children.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



shinrukus said:


> So I think a lot of your comments may come from a real place, but are vastly misguided.
> 
> I may be comfortable living now, but I come from a place where my dad left my mom with nothing, we lived in the projects, and my mom did what she had to do to make sure my siblings and I had that 3 dollars a day for lunch, some days we even had the extra $1.25 for breakfast. Now that was 20 years ago, and may not seem like a lot, but my mom and grandmom sold drugs to make that happen, because McDonalds wouldn't even hire my mom. She graduated from high school, but dropped out of college. There were some people who VASTLY abused the system, I saw people in the projects with 32 inch tvs (which at the time was a big thing) I started seeing people with 2way pagers going into Cell phones, and they mess it up for people who genuinely need to feed their children.
> Free Lunch isn't to give parents an "out", its to take care of children who aren't as fortunate. Parents might be lazy/greedy, or unable, but its not the children's fault, and yes our tax dollars do go to that. My business itself makes close to $2m a year, but I myself my see close to 350-450k on any given year, and im ok with my tax dollars going to support children whose shoes I once wore and duct taped, because I may have thought it was the style when I was in 4th grade, but it was really trying to keep shoes together. We unfortunately may pay to keep lazy parents lazy, but I feel even with that, the children are whats important.



I don't think they should go hungry either, but I think if my money is going to be used to pay for the children's food that their parents need to pay me back. This should happen by the schools providing food to the children and then billing the parents. Further failure to pay on their end should result in penalties the same if I weren't to pay one of my own bills.

I do realize though what the Liberals are up to. They are using the children and this issue to push their agenda of adopting socialism and it's not fooling me. Having to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn't child abuse or shaming. The kids might not like it, but they aren't starving to death. I think refusing to feed your own kids is child abuse.


----------



## shinrukus (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> The thing is that I didn't have it hard. I had food. I may not have liked the food, but having it hard would have been not having food. I don't want children to go hungry. So I have no problem with the schools feeding them and then billing the dead beat parents. "Having it hard" is not having to pay your bills or take care of your children.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I not only agree, but I fully support that. Parents who CAN pay back the government, SHOULD. I have a child with my ex, and she's on the welfare system but I pay 2500 a month in Child Support, that goes directly to Welfare, on top of the money I have to pay for extra curriculars, and health insurance... not to mention he's a PC Gamer, so you know how much that costs me lol. The point is, my ex is one of those people who game the system as much as possible, but her limited understanding is if she got a minimum wage job, and got off of welfare, she'd actually see more gains, but my ex is lazy, and one of those people that these people talk about. 

Side note, Peanut Butter and Jelly is not only NOT child abuse, its everyone in my house favorite lunch time food...


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

kornychaos said:


> It’s unfortunate people are okay spending millions on a single missile and billions+ on the military and paying for officers to shoot people and still get their tax funded pensions, but have no empathy for kids, hunger, and homelessness. It’s not a perfect world. There are shit parents and there are poor parents. I’m happy for you that you’re not in a situation where you have to make tough financial choices. All-in-all, hunger and malnourishment exist in a society where it shouldn’t. There are plenty of other things you should be upset about your taxes going toward before you get mad that poor kids get the right to a substandard free meal. I’ll never understand the older generation where “it was hard for me back then and I had to make tough choices” equates to them wanting the next generation to go through the same hardships “because I did” even though as an advancing society we don’t have to. People make the same argument about abolishing college debt - they want other people to suffer the exact struggles they had to in order to pay off their debts, rather than being happy that others don’t have to go through the same thing. It blows my mind the entitlement. but then again, it’s just my opinion.





shinrukus said:


> I not only agree, but I fully support that. Parents who CAN pay back the government, SHOULD. I have a child with my ex, and she's on the welfare system but I pay 2500 a month in Child Support, that goes directly to Welfare, on top of the money I have to pay for extra curriculars, and health insurance... not to mention he's a PC Gamer, so you know how much that costs me lol. The point is, my ex is one of those people who game the system as much as possible, but her limited understanding is if she got a minimum wage job, and got off of welfare, she'd actually see more gains, but my ex is lazy, and one of those people that these people talk about.
> 
> Side note, Peanut Butter and Jelly is not only NOT child abuse, its everyone in my house favorite lunch time food...



I realize there are some poor people out there that simply can't afford things, but if you can afford a smart phone, car, HDTV, Nike's, eating out, etc ... you can afford school lunches. The actual percentage of people who really can't afford school lunches don't have or do these things is quite low. It just goes to show where their priorities lie.

I still enjoy PB&J too, so much that I buy 5 lb. tubs of peanut butter at a time (soft though, I don't like chunky). I'm in no way abusing myself because I enjoy eating just a PB&J for lunch with a tall glass of water. It's much more healthy then a #2 at Steak & Shake (and much cheaper).


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 16, 2019)

Pragmatically speaking I can see feeding kids -- most teachers will probably tell you what kids don't do well for food at home, or maybe have not had food on a given day, and a decent diet does wonders for people in any number of walks of life -- prisoners, military, schools in general (see those that would allow them to have water in classes, drinks in exams, breakfast before exams...) will all give you reams of research here.

Shame is a hard tactic to use properly. If we are going to continue with schools Freakonomics did an interesting one here with regards to fines for picking kids up late -- introducing fines only made the problem worse as the social stigma was enough to keep some in line but if they would instead just be able to pay it off for a token sum...
To visit the sins of the parents upon the children is a different matter. Going further and tying it back to the opening thing the very same thing that would see me call a parent that does not want vaccinations for their kids a dumb cunt and provide avenues for kids to get it themselves (age of criminal responsibility swings both ways I figure), and make it hard to access education, would in turn apply here. To that end minimising the stupidity of parents upon those of their kids and those surrounding (if little miss cranky is going to disrupt my kid's learning then shove something nutritious down her gob and everybody can get back to business far quicker than punishments are likely to achieve anything like results).
What to do I am less sure of. Garnishing a tax return might work (assuming the people either get them in the first place or are not smart enough to not give the government a zero interest loan each year). Most the things described in that article are rather typically American as well but I will skip that one and giggle inwardly.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Oct 16, 2019)

Um, I get that you're trying to express the "I ain't a mule!" mindset  that has developed over time from being forced to pay taxes, but this little solution of giving kids a peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn't enough. (I hope its just symbolism for something edible and healthy.) But yeah, obviously this mindset won't benefit kids that are allergic to peanuts.


----------



## Viri (Oct 16, 2019)

I was very poor as a kid, so I used to eat school lunches/breakfast. The teacher would sometimes stuff the remaining ones in my school bag. I wish my parents could have gave me a nice school lunch, but we were broke most of the time. Those school lunches tasted awful, but I had no choice. The pan cakes, bagged pizza(not box, fuck that stale box pizza), and waffles were delicious though. Also, I hated how they didn't let you choose between chocolate milk and white milk. They just alternated the days. I know if they allowed everyone to choose, they'd probably all choose chocolate. But who cares?! Is it that big of a deal? Don't get me started on strawberry milk. Fucking taste like medicine.

There are a lot of things that piss me off that I have to pay taxes for, school lunches isn't one of them. Because, yeah, I was there, lol.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2019)

Parents not feeding their children seems liberal. Aha.

Next.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Oct 16, 2019)

I think there should still be free lunches but there should be stricter about who they give them to. Giving them to children whose parents can't afford to feed them instead of people who blow their money on flat screen tellys and iphones or people who just want to save a buck.


----------



## 1stmoon (Oct 16, 2019)

oh no the horror of sparing a few cents to let starving children eat

please do however give our upstanding prez money to go on excessive trips to the golf course


----------



## shinrukus (Oct 16, 2019)

1stmoon said:


> oh no the horror of sparing a few cents to let starving children eat
> 
> please do however give our upstanding prez money to go on excessive trips to the golf course



Yea cause he doesnt get enough money from the government and military who spends their time at his personal resorts on "government business" lol


----------



## Jiehfeng (Oct 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Children should be fed by almost any means necessary. Advocating for policy that allows children to go hungry is despicable.



Make sure you limit that as well, there are moms who tend to overfeed. (not to be confused to support some sort of legal action)


----------



## Seliph (Oct 16, 2019)

At my school, lunch is free for all students, regardless of income. Students only have to pay if they want extra food. This is how it was in my elementary/middle school as well. It's odd to me that this isn't the nationwide standard.
You're completely missing the point of the article (which is suggesting free lunch for all students as a national solution for lunch debt) because you'd rather complain about the "liberal utopia" to further your own inane political ideology and hamper real discussion about the issue of lunch debt. Good job.


----------



## Chary (Oct 16, 2019)

Free school lunch for poverty level has existed for a while where I am. And if you're above the poverty bracket, yet still legally "poor", you get lunch for a reduced 30 cents. I remember fishing out nickels from the couch cushions and hoping to have enough for lunch that day. My family couldn't afford much back then, but at the very least, I had cheap school lunch, or something bagged from the previous day's leftovers. Yeah, it sucks that we're all probably taxed on those little kiddie lunches, but I'd much MUCH rather pay for taxes with that in mind, rather than consider that a bulk of my tax money is going to adults scamming the system for TANF/SNAP cards. Kids having food is important, and yeah it's bad that the parents can't provide, but that's not the kids' fault. They shouldn't be punished.



yummycake said:


> but this little solution of giving kids a peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn't enough


This is just personal experience, but for free breakfast, back when I was a kid, they'd hand out those packaged Smuckers PB&J frozen sandwiches. But, if a kid had a peanut allergy, they'd give them some of the fruit that we got free with lunch instead. It was always slightly off red delicious apples and small bananas, but at least it was something, and an alternative.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 16, 2019)

This topic is ridiculous. People complaining about their taxes feeding kids is insane to me. I heard we spend a million per tomahawk missile but nobody cries bout that. Also unrelated but people seem to love programs that help them out when they know what it is to be down on their luck as well


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Oct 16, 2019)

Chary said:


> Free school lunch for poverty level has existed for a while where I am. And if you're above the poverty bracket, yet still legally "poor", you get lunch for a reduced 30 cents. I remember fishing out nickels from the couch cushions and hoping to have enough for lunch that day. My family couldn't afford much back then, but at the very least, I had cheap school lunch, or something bagged from the previous day's leftovers. Yeah, it sucks that we're all probably taxed on those little kiddie lunches, but I'd much MUCH rather pay for taxes with that in mind, rather than consider that a bulk of my tax money is going to adults scamming the system for TANF/SNAP cards. Kids having food is important, and yeah it's bad that the parents can't provide, but that's not the kids' fault. They shouldn't be punished.
> 
> 
> This is just personal experience, but for free breakfast, back when I was a kid, they'd hand out those packaged Smuckers PB&J frozen sandwiches. But, if a kid had a peanut allergy, they'd give them some of the fruit that we got free with lunch instead. It was always slightly off red delicious apples and small bananas, but at least it was something, and an alternative.



Fruit for breakfast, huh? It was  mostly cold cereal at my school. If I knew about my raw fruit allergy back in the day as a child, then I wouldn't be able to eat those either..its nice that those offers exist though.


----------



## RHOPKINS13 (Oct 16, 2019)

The question is not whether or not you should have to foot the bill. Obviously you shouldn't, you weren't the one that decided to have kids you couldn't afford to support, or decided to blow money on other luxuries rather than food.

The real question, is whether those kids should have to suffer and/or be responsible for their parent's actions. And the answer is equally as obvious: No!

Quite frankly I'm tired of seeing our government waste billions of tax dollars on stuff the general public either doesn't want or doesn't need. I have very little problem with my tax dollars going to feed somebody else's kids. We can take a second look at that problem after we cut spending in other places where it's not needed, and while we're at it get rid of these tax loopholes that only benefit the mega-rich.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> This topic is ridiculous. People complaining about their taxes feeding kids is insane to me. I heard we spend a million per tomahawk missile but nobody cries bout that. Also unrelated but people seem to love programs that help them out when they know what it is to be down on their luck as well



They aren't my kids. I shouldn't have to pay for feed other peoples children. I don't mind tax money going to protect the nation or help the army defend the nation, but I don't want to be spending money on feeding other peoples children when it's their responsibility. Parents need to take responsibility for their own children. They aren't mine. I didn't make them. It's not my job to feed every hungry person in the world, especially ones that are simply hungry because their parents are refusing to food them when they are completely able to do so.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RHOPKINS13 said:


> The question is not whether or not you should have to foot the bill. Obviously you shouldn't, you weren't the one that decided to have kids you couldn't afford to support, or decided to blow money on other luxuries rather than food.
> 
> The real question, is whether those kids should have to suffer and/or be responsible for their parent's actions. And the answer is equally as obvious: No!
> 
> Quite frankly I'm tired of seeing our government waste billions of tax dollars on stuff the general public either doesn't want or doesn't need. I have very little problem with my tax dollars going to feed somebody else's kids. We can take a second look at that problem after we cut spending in other places where it's not needed, and while we're at it get rid of these tax loopholes that only benefit the mega-rich.



I don't want the kids to suffer either, but holding their parents responsible by billing them for the food they do eat isn't shaming the kids nor is feeding them stuff they rather not eat. So what, a 8 year old doesn't like his food. Boo hoo. He or she has food and has it because my taxes are paying for it, because the parents refuse to feed their own kids. That's fine, but I want my money back. I want the parents held responsible. You know what happens when you don't pay back the Government? They withhold money from your paycheck.

I'm all for the school system taking the money it cost them to feed the children whose parents refused to do so out of the parents paychecks. What I'm not willing to do is simply pay for everyone to eat when THEY ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. By simply paying everyone's school lunch bill we're encouraging these parents to continue to be bad parents. Giving them handouts out of my paycheck is not the answer, because the shit isn't free. I'm paying for it WHEN THEY SHOULD BE.

I'll never vote to support a nationwide free lunch program, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. What I would vote for is to punish the children's parents and would support charging them with child abuse and neglect. I'd have no problem with the Government taking money directly from their paychecks or going into their houses and taking their HDTV's, video games, smart phones, fancy clothes or anything else with value to compensate for the fact they are child abusing pieces of shit.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 16, 2019)

would of been Good message... destroyed by you making it political and ignoring real world problems which are complex. Kiss any discussion goodbye because this is getting fairly boring at this point with this liberal=evil. I can say the exact same for your side. Republican=evil. But that misses the entire point, here's a question. Liberals are defined by a person taking a certain stance. Now, let's use something called the human condition. Which that we all have empathy, including liberals because they too are human (and same with republicans)  in some form or another because we have common experiences, aka hunger, anger sadness so on. So what parent, which I must add you had to make political force your biased views into this post, would wish this upon their child. And if the child  Oh wait, right none. Most parents, regardless of political belief wouldn't. But of course you just had to take the liberal=evil stance.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Might as well add on this parents may or may not even have a choice since minimum wage is not livable wage. It could very well come down to, do you go to work aka use the car (which involves gas money obliviously) keep the house, or give the kid money so they can eat for that one day at school


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> They aren't my kids. I shouldn't have to pay for feed other peoples children. I don't mind tax money going to protect the nation or help the army defend the nation, but I don't want to be spending money on feeding other peoples children when it's their responsibility. Parents need to take responsibility for their own children. They aren't mine. I didn't make them. It's not my job to feed every hungry person in the world, especially ones that are simply hungry because their parents are refusing to food them when they are completely able to do so.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




Yet you pay for roads for others to drive on, the military you seem to proudly proclaim support for is massively overfunded for what you get in return (if you want to talk about pork barrels...) , you pay for healthcare for others, you pay for education for said kids and that list goes on an on.

If you want to try to advocate for some minimalist approach to tax and government spending then so be it but acting like it is not a fairly radical position to take in the modern world is odd.

As far as parents should be taking responsibility then sure. Highly encourage that one. Do we not want to be there for those that fall through the cracks though? Also why do you imagine they are all sitting there with luxury goods while their kids starve (or at least go malnourished)?


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Yet you pay for roads for others to drive on, the military you seem to proudly proclaim support for is massively overfunded for what you get in return (if you want to talk about pork barrels...) , you pay for healthcare for others, you pay for education for said kids and that list goes on an on.
> 
> If you want to try to advocate for some minimalist approach to tax and government spending then so be it but acting like it is not a fairly radical position to take in the modern world is odd.
> 
> As far as parents should be taking responsibility then sure. Highly encourage that one. Do we not want to be there for those that fall through the cracks though? Also why do you imagine they are all sitting there with luxury goods while their kids starve (or at least go malnourished)?



You see, I use the roads that I drive on. I don't paying paying for something that benefits me or I'm remotely involved in or is my responsibility.

We already have systems in place for very low income parents, but the majority of the parents refusing to feed their children are simply doing so when they can afford to pay the bills, but simply don't want to. I'm addressing the parents simply refusing to because they don't want to. If you're a low income parent you simply need to provide documentation to the Schools to get reduced or free food for your children. That's fine, that's already taxed and payed for. 

I'm directly addressing freeloading scum that think that passing another Socialism leading law is going to make the situation any better. Passing a national free lunch program is support these terrible parents who don't want to feed their kids be even worse parents. The end goal is socialism, but in the meantime laws like these only support bad parenting and encourage people to not take responsibility for their own, which in turn will instill these terrible values into the children who then think everything should be a handout and that they don't need to work or do anything and that everyone should just give them free shit. It's a cycle that I do not want to support.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 16, 2019)

“If it don’t benefit me, why should I pay into it?” welcome to living in a first world society where we try our best to help each other out.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> “If it don’t benefit me, why should I pay into it?” welcome to living in a first world society where we try our best to help each other out.



You're not going to make me feel bad. If I had children I would fucking feed them. I am willing to help people that are willing to help themselves. I'm not willing to help people be bad parents and abuse their children. That's something I'll never be willingly a part of. You're labeling me the bad guy when the fucking parents are the society leeching pieces of shit that aren't willing to help themselves let alone their own children.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 16, 2019)

I am not. I am merely notifying you what part living of a society entails. Nobody is trying to hurt your feelings. For context, how many children’s meals do you think one of Trumps trips to mar a lago would pay for? It’s a matter of perspective, I suppose


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2019)

I'm not opposed to school lunch. I'm a little opposed to public school in general, but if you're gonna have public school then there should be a meal provided during the day. The problem with providing that meal, the Catch-22 if you will, is then a lot of deadbeat parents feel they don't need to feed their kids anything. My wife's a kindergarten teacher and sees this a lot. The free school lunch is the only meal the kid gets, period. These parents will even send a letter to the school asking for financial assistance when the school asks for a $5 contribution for a field trip. But they have cars, cellphones, and drug habits. That's the problem with welfare of any kind in the long run ... it just subsidizes poor uses of money. Law prohibits buying tobacco and alcohol with food stamps, but because they get food stamps they can use their cash to get the smokes and whiskey anyway. And lottery tickets. And drugs. The people who make those choices ... and there are a lot of them ... always put their kids last. Giving their kid a free meal everyday just makes it easier for them.


----------



## Kurt91 (Oct 16, 2019)

I'm pretty sure that with most public schools, or at least the ones I went to because I fell under "too poor to afford lunch", it's set up so that you get lunch for free if you're considered below the poverty line, and at a reduced cost if you make under a certain amount for the number of kids you have enrolled in school.

Thing is, aren't schools funded by the government? So, let's say that you do NOT fall under those categories and you get lunch for the normal price. (I'm going to not include the "reduced-but-not-free" lunch group, because if you're that poor, you're still probably in a situation where something like a minor medical problem is a crippling financial emergency) If you have a bill by the end of the year, why not have the government apply that to your tax returns? Hell, we can even be nicer about it and make it a payment-based thing, so the bill is split across something like five to ten years, and each payment is applied to the corresponding tax return, so it ends up being an insanely minor cost individually.

The thing is, if we're going to work on fixing issues with schools as far as money and funding goes, my big thing is that there needs to be a cap on how much a school is allowed to spend on each department based on the number of students attending that school. (not grades, because then you have the schools possibly trying to game the system) 

The high school that I went to had gone so far as to eliminate pretty much every single elective class, and spent just about all of the school's funding on the football team. There was no extra funding for electives, and even the other school groups and teams relied on volunteers and fundraisers to get to do anything. (I would know, my family WERE those volunteers.)

If there was a cap on each department, then you wouldn't have schools gutting some parts to play favorites with others.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not opposed to school lunch. I'm a little opposed to public school in general, but if you're gonna have public school then there should be a meal provided during the day. The problem with providing that meal, the Catch-22 if you will, is then a lot of deadbeat parents feel they don't need to feed their kids anything. My wife's a kindergarten teacher and sees this a lot. The free school lunch is the only meal the kid gets, period. These parents will even send a letter to the school asking for financial assistance when the school asks for a $5 contribution for a field trip. But they have cars, cellphones, and drug habits. That's the problem with welfare of any kind in the long run ... it just subsidizes poor uses of money. Law prohibits buying tobacco and alcohol with food stamps, but because they get food stamps they can use their cash to get the smokes and whiskey anyway. And lottery tickets. And drugs. The people who make those choices ... and there are a lot of them ... always put their kids last.


Not as many compared to those that are actually poor, who do try to managed their money but are inable to do so because I'll state again. Miniumwage is not livable wage.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 16, 2019)

Crying for money?
Not me. Not my type.
I couldn't give less fucks.
If the money improves my environment in some way it makes sense to me.
I will, like I am, reap what I saw everyday.

Nickels?
Hit me with something that hurts... like time, yeah time is the real deal.
They say time is gold... but that is a terrible underestimation of the value of time.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I am not. I am merely notifying you what part living of a society entails. Nobody is trying to hurt your feelings. For context, how many children’s meals do you think one of Trumps trips to mar a lago would pay for? It’s a matter of perspective, I suppose



How many meals would that iPhone that the kids parents paid $800 for buy for their kids? How about that HDTV? Those Nike's? The daily $50 sack of weed? Those 12 packs of beer? The $30 they spend on themselves at McDonalds? The makeup? It's the parents responsibility to feed their own children not mine or yours or Trumps. So you're envious that Trump has money and think since he has it you have a right to it? That's not how it works. It's his money, not yours. Just like how I make money by working, when these lazy pieces of shit sit home all day and bitch about how bad things are and then refuse to feed their kids, yet expect me to feed them. I'm glad to see what sort of person you are and who you support. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 16, 2019)

Implying that all poor people live lives of luxury and all have huge TVs and 1000 dollar iPhones. Get real.Also the mar a lago trips are paid by the tax payers on the weekends. Secret service sent when he is there? On tax payers dime. Their meals? Same. Jealousy my foot. Seriously you don’t research stuff much


----------



## Lumstar (Oct 16, 2019)

Basic food should be part of the school's funding. If attending school is compulsory, then the school taking appropriate care of its students while on campus is a natural part of that obligation.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Not as many compared to those that are actually poor, who do try to managed their money but are inable to do so because I'll state again. Miniumwage is not livable wage.




You have personal experience to back that up? Cuz my wife does. 17 students in her class this year, 4 are drug babies (mom was on meth or heroin while pregnant) with mental deficiencies. It's not a special-ed kindergarten, special-ed is too full already. Those kids' parents are fucked up, and they made even more fucked up kids. It's common here. Meth & opiates epidemic. She had a kid last year whose father OD'd when he was supposed to be picking the kid up from school. 

And the issue isn't that minimum wage isn't a living wage. Minimum wage isn't a family wage. Was never meant to be. Minimum wage is for teenagers with a part-time job flippin burgers after school or on the weekend. If you're still making minimum wage after 25 years old it's probably because you've got a criminal record, a drug habit, or you've fucked up your life some other way. And that's nobody's fault but the fuck-up. And people making minimum wage shouldn't be having children in the first place. That's just irresponsible, like the fact they'd let that happen _by definition_ DQ's them from proper parenting. That's how their kids' life starts getting fucked up in the first place. You don't make enough to support a child? Then don't make a child.


----------



## Trashman (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> How many meals would that iPhone that the kids parents paid $800 for buy for their kids? How about that HDTV? Those Nike's? The daily $50 sack of weed? Those 12 packs of beer? The $30 they spend on themselves at McDonalds? The makeup? It's the parents responsibility to feed their own children not mine or yours or Trumps. So you're envious that Trump has money and think since he has it you have a right to it? That's not how it works. It's his money, not yours. Just like how I make money by working, when these lazy pieces of shit sit home all day and bitch about how bad things are and then refuse to feed their kids, yet expect me to feed them. I'm glad to see what sort of person you are and who you support. Welcome to my ignore list.


You are ridiculous. Here's my life, get it right, I grew up in a poor family, I had to wonder if I was going to have food the next day as my mother busted her ass off. She didn't smoke, she didn't drink, she bought me little things here and there, but that was it, and those little things was the occasional candy bar, because my school life was crap and she couldn't do anything about it. She didn't go out buying TVs or the next new iphone because it didn't even exist, we stuck with what little we had. She spent every single dollar on either getting to work, or picking me up from school and buying with the little money she had  for food and utlites at the apartment. So how was she expected to pay 4 dollars every day in lunches, or nearly 60 dollars per month. I dare you to call her lazy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2019)

Trashman said:


> You are ridiculous. Here's my life, get it right, I grew up in a poor family, I had to wonder if I was going to have food the next day as my mother busted her ass off. She didn't smoke, she didn't drink, she bought me little things here and there, but that was it, and those little things was the occasional candy bar, because my school life was crap and she couldn't do anything about it. She didn't go out buying TVs or the next new iphone because it didn't even exist, we stuck with what little we had. She spent every single dollar on either getting to work, or picking me up from school and buying with the little money she had  for food and utlites at the apartment. So how was she expected to pay 4 dollars every day in lunches, or nearly 60 dollars per month. I dare you to call her lazy.




Sounds like she was raising you by herself. That's rough, but her choice.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Sounds like she was raising you by herself. That's rough, but her choice.


Implying that misfortune is always choice. The reasons why programs like these exist is to help those stuck in a situation through no fault of their own


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 17, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Sounds like she was raising you by herself. That's rough, but her choice.


I do not agree with this comment and what it implies to a big extent.
As there is no dislike button I need to write it down.
It is quite bad.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 17, 2019)

Geez guy. Its like you're purposefully trying to find "information" just to bash the left. Every comment you make is made just to "oWn ThE lIbTaRdS".

Just fucking be banned already. Jesus.


----------



## baxzxd (Oct 17, 2019)

You do realize that some countries already provide free lunch right? It could be done easily in the US as well.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Yet you pay for roads for others to drive on, the military you seem to proudly proclaim support for is massively overfunded for what you get in return (if you want to talk about pork barrels...) , you pay for healthcare for others, you pay for education for said kids and that list goes on an on.
> 
> If you want to try to advocate for some minimalist approach to tax and government spending then so be it but acting like it is not a fairly radical position to take in the modern world is odd.
> 
> As far as parents should be taking responsibility then sure. Highly encourage that one. Do we not want to be there for those that fall through the cracks though? Also why do you imagine they are all sitting there with luxury goods while their kids starve (or at least go malnourished)?


He doesnt support the military. If he did, he wouldnt say much of the things he does. He (along with every other idiot trump supporter) "claim" to support the military and "claim" to be patriotic, but those repiblican Americans are the absolute LEAST patriotic or supportive of their military. They blindly believe they support them, while in actuality, they pick and choose. Disregard much of what it means to be "patriotic". Its a false and childish "patriotism", which is more than half-ass'd


----------



## EarthBound (Oct 17, 2019)

" The daily $50 sack of weed?" hahahahahah


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 17, 2019)

This thread is making me fucking livid.

How selfish and inconsiderate are you to let children starve because "it's not your problem"?

Irresponsible parents should not allow you to punish children in return, even less forget those who are working hard and are struggling to meet ends.

I personally lived through poverty during most of my childhood, because I did have really shitty parents who were drug addicts and took a full meal as something optional for themselves, and school lunches were life saving (literally) for myself and my sister.

I can afford my life well now without hesitation I want to have my taxes go to the people in need, children don't deserve to starve, even less be dismissed by some grown up adults who couldn't see further than their own, fatty, egocentric belly, because "fuck they aren't mine, let them suck it while I point and laugh to liberals".


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 17, 2019)

VinsCool said:


> This thread is making me fucking livid.
> 
> How selfish and inconsiderate are you to let children starve because "it's not your problem"?
> 
> ...


Bloody well said Vins.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

VinsCool said:


> This thread is making me fucking livid.
> 
> How selfish and inconsiderate are you to let children starve because "it's not your problem"?
> 
> ...



I never said "let the children starve". I said feed them and then make their parents pay, which is what they should be doing to begin with.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Trashman said:


> You are ridiculous. Here's my life, get it right, I grew up in a poor family, I had to wonder if I was going to have food the next day as my mother busted her ass off. She didn't smoke, she didn't drink, she bought me little things here and there, but that was it, and those little things was the occasional candy bar, because my school life was crap and she couldn't do anything about it. She didn't go out buying TVs or the next new iphone because it didn't even exist, we stuck with what little we had. She spent every single dollar on either getting to work, or picking me up from school and buying with the little money she had  for food and utlites at the apartment. So how was she expected to pay 4 dollars every day in lunches, or nearly 60 dollars per month. I dare you to call her lazy.



Then your mother needed to apply for reduced lunches. Currently, reduced lunches in 2019 cost an average of $0.40. That's 40 cents and that's way too much for some parents to pay, not because they can't afford to do so, but because they refuse to. (and before you say, "we'll it's only 40 cents, why don't you pay it"?) THEY AREN'T MY KIDS THEY ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.

Back in the 1970's reduced lunches were around 10 cents with the entire meal costing 90 cents. School lunches are really inexpensive, which is another reason why I think it's horrible for the parents to not be taking responsibility and caring for their own children.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

The Liberals r at it again taking away my money away for a cause I agree with


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 17, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Sounds like she was raising you by herself. That's rough, but her choice.


It wasn't her choice, the admins are going to kill me, if I get banned, that's fine. I took the risk and understood the consequence of making a dupe so I can through to billpong.
My biological father and her were married. She didn't want children, so she used birth control, however at the time, something went wrong, I don't understand the full details. But her leaving, going on her own. It wasn't a choice, Shortly after, she discovered that my biological father was a child molester. Prompting a divorce. And for a while, we were on our own, parts of my school life occurred, then well stepfather happened. After another set of experiences with my stepfather. Another divorce. And right now we do struggle. She doesn't smoke, already explained that, even in the past she didn't, and well, lets say at the time of 16 I had too much emotional trauma. Watching my grandfather die, my grandmother turning her backs on my mom and him,her (grandmother) being greedy, my stepbrothers turning into people I didn't wish to see... I wasn't mentally able for a part time job as I was barely keeping myself away from suicide, and was previously suicidal even before then. And even then Tucson job market is shit. We stretch food a lot. Make little with what we do have. A lot of it is canned food. We don't go out to eat. Only maybe once every 2 months? if at that? (aka not very often at all) She works minimum wage for her job. And for three years, she was unable to pay my high school lunch because we were that strapped for cash. Even though the bill was half the price of my old school. We don't buy iphones, or phones or new tvs every year, or any electronics. Only buying things when it's reached a unusable point or if it's a necessity. We need our phones because my mom is terminally ill, but  for while used our old phones from the previous household. One day the stepfather just cut us off the phone plan, and due to for some dumb reason, we had to ditch our old. So we got android phones, cheaper on the wallet anyways.  So also had to get a new phone plan, and pay that ourselves. It wasn't a choice, because the thing is, if something happens to her, I need to know, she at that time, was/is my only care taker. Now she has connections incase that does happen, and I'm looking for a job. But if she went, and my future was completely unknown.  The new computer I run today, was only because she saw it as a investment into my future. Because I am learning how to program, and try to manage a YouTube channel which video rendering was to say the least too time consuming. One day I'd like to be able to make a small game, still learning. Started with python. But most game engines don't support python so eventually learn c and c++. My old laptop was 11 years old. The screen was cracked due to a accident while moving. and it was a rather cheap laptop, and working on it was becoming a bit of a task. So again, more of a necessity to keep up with the changing world. As for rent of the apartment we live in, which is not as crap as the previous (but for well. safety reasons. Old place, before this had drug addicts and other unwanted things) the thing is though, we still live off the alimony check for paying for rent. And we don't eat like hogs either. My point is, we were fucked by the situations we were in, not by choice. So you saying that free lunches is only for those that abuse it, is wrong. And it's not the majority either, or drug attics, because even then empathy still applies, not to all addictions, and some are stronger than others. But even then, there is a larger amount of people who actually need it, than those who gain the system.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 17, 2019)

baxzxd said:


> You do realize that some countries already provide free lunch right? It could be done easily in the US as well.



here in the UK kids may be able to get free school meals if a parent receives certain state benefits


----------



## shinrukus (Oct 17, 2019)

Jokey_Carrot said:


> I think there should still be free lunches but there should be stricter about who they give them to. Giving them to children whose parents can't afford to feed them instead of people who blow their money on flat screen tellys and iphones or people who just want to save a buck.





billapong said:


> I never said "let the children starve". I said feed them and then make their parents pay, which is what they should be doing to begin with.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Objectively I agree, I don't know how much reduced lunches cost, but I get a 120 dollar bill a month for school lunches where I live (Suburbs in the Philadelphia area in PA) and thats 30 dollars a month for 4 of my kids in school. That works out to a dollar a day per child, and thats breakfast and lunch. My High Schooler has a job and pays for his own lunch. I feel those parents who CAN should, and I see your point as well, feed them then make parents pay. I may be ok with my tax dollars going to feed hungry kids, but I cannot get mad at other's point of view with not wanting their tax dollars go to paying for schools. I think a real argument should be had for people/homeowners who get school tax bills with no children/school age children to not have to pay taxes on schools.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

shinrukus said:


> Objectively I agree, I don't know how much reduced lunches cost, but I get a 120 dollar bill a month for school lunches where I live (Suburbs in the Philadelphia area in PA) and thats 30 dollars a month for 4 of my kids in school. That works out to a dollar a day per child, and thats breakfast and lunch. My High Schooler has a job and pays for his own lunch. I feel those parents who CAN should, and I see your point as well, feed them then make parents pay. I may be ok with my tax dollars going to feed hungry kids, but I cannot get mad at other's point of view with not wanting their tax dollars go to paying for schools. I think a real argument should be had for people/homeowners who get school tax bills with no children/school age children to not have to pay taxes on schools.


So basically he's fine with paying taxes to feed kids, but wants to force irresponsible parents wasting gov money on drugs to use it for their kids lunches.
Isn't that hard? Tracking parents who don't use gov money as intended. How would someone do that? And create some kind of penalty for parents that are lazy and avoid working. 

Again how can you separate parents that abuse the gov system and don't? You can't, so what most people do is pay taxes anyway, its the safer option so that people that are actually struggling and not from their own fault are able to feed their babies. Its a matter of, should those people be screwed over because some people abuse the gov system? We can't get people to act always perfectly, someone is always going to take advantage of something.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> we were fucked by the situations we were in, not by choice




I feel for you because all/most of what you described there happened when you were a kid. But your mom wasn't a kid. What you say there (quoted above) may be true, but excluding natural disasters and genetics, as far as adults are concerned we get ourselves into the situations we're in. Mostly with bad choices. Choices have consequences. I'm sorry, that's blunt. I don't want to be, there is no hurtful intent in what I'm saying. But seems like you're old enough to hear it and you need to let it sink in if you want to rise above the situation you're in over the next decade or so, because you definitely can. I can tell you're plenty smart and assertive enough to do that.

Also, there's nothing you need to defend, explain, justify. There's nothing wrong with growing up poor - the world is completely out of your control when you're a kid. My dad committed armed robbery when he was young, did time in jail, couldn't get good jobs because of the criminal record. No point trying to compare our experiences, suffice to say in my house growing up we were poor enough. He worked the night shift in a canning factory from before I could remember until after I went to college, because that was the only type job he could get that could pay the bills. I hardly ever saw the guy. My mom was a bank teller. I went to college on a scholarship, or I wouldn't have gone at all. But my dad's crime, and my mother's decision to marry him in spite of it, affected my life. Can you relate?

You're passing the age soon where you have an excuse to be someone's dependent. It's your life, take charge. Make good decisions, especially where choosing to take on major responsibilities in your life is concerned. Spouse, family, mortgage can all be worth it if undertaken when you're ready. Or severely handicap your future (and theirs) if you jump in unwisely.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 17, 2019)

Theres a difference between "wont" and "cant". If kids are required to spend 8+ hours a day in school then meals should be provided. Education funding comes from taxes, that's all there is to it.

This "starving children shouldnt be my problem" attitude is quite disturbing to me. There was a time that malice, greed, and total lack of empathy and social responsibility was condemned, even by the most extreme of either political wings.

As far as people that abuse the system, you'll find that to be an almost exclusive quality of the rich. How many poor people do you think are guilty of embezzlement, tax evasion, outsourcing labor, or denying quality healthcare/welfare. The single mother that cant afford to feed her children isn't the enemy guys.


----------



## yuyuyup (Oct 17, 2019)

leon315 said:


> tc, people never ever should feed other people's kids, instead you shall call Social assistance (dunno how to say it properly, maybe)?? and let them handle it.


Yeah exactly, let's not feed children, let's call up the GOVERNMENT in order to yell at parents ROFLMAO hey buddy, I'd actually rather feed kids than pay the GOVERNMENT to teach families how to raise a kid, or hell were you thinking we'd somehow be better off with GOVERNMENT re-educating parents????  Seriously, you guys don't think things through.  I wish I could respond to the original post instead of you, but the original poster put me on ignore because I spanked him around too much ROFLMAO


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> How many poor people do you think are guilty of embezzlement, tax evasion, outsourcing labor, or denying quality healthcare/welfare.


This is irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> There was a time that malice, greed, and total lack of empathy and social responsibility was condemned, even by the most extreme of either political wings.




But lunch wasn't free then either.


(Relax, I explained earlier I'm ok with free school lunch.)


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> But lunch wasn't free then either.
> 
> 
> (Relax, I explained earlier I'm ok with free school lunch.)


Free Lunch to kids isn't that bad to provide even for a Conservative. It's something I think everyone will agree with. it's just getting those parents that are bad parents to actually be parents.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Oct 17, 2019)

Every single school on earth should have a free option for lunch available to every student.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Oct 17, 2019)

Everybody pitching in to make everybody happy is an incredibly normal and reasonable (I'd even say obvious) way to do things. People are making two mistakes here:

1: Blaming the parents for being bad parents because they cant afford food is just bad. You cant really call people bad parents for being poor. There is a lot more to it than that

2: In an ideal situation, you wouldnt be spending all that much to pay for these lunches, millionaires and billionaires who literally have more money than they can physically spend in 10 lifetimes, will take a tiny bit of their profits and use that to pay for the lunches. 

There is, quite literally, no downside to this.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is irrelevant to the topic.


Clearly I was addressing those that have already touched on this in this thread.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> Everybody pitching in to make everybody happy is an incredibly normal and reasonable (I'd even say obvious) way to do things. People are making two mistakes here:
> 
> 1: Blaming the parents for being bad parents because they cant afford food is just bad. You cant really call people bad parents for being poor. There is a lot more to it than that
> 
> ...


There are bad parents out there you can't deny it. One person in this thread gave an example of one.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is irrelevant to the topic.


It isn’t @billapong keeps saying the poor are all scamming the system when infact as @WeedZ rightly pointed out its normally the exact opposite and is usually the rich that scam the fuck outta anything they can.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> It isn’t @billapong keeps saying the poor are all scamming the system when infact as @WeedZ rightly pointed out its normally the exact opposite and is usually the rich that scam the fuck outta anything they can.


But this is a thread about free lunches which affects the poor. We know the rich scam. Just like anybody of any class scams. WeedZ pointed out the Rich scam, ok. And everybody hates them for that, there's enough threads about that and people fighting that. How does this affect people that scam the gov funds in the lower class that are in that situation because they're crappy people themselves. They can't feed their kids because of their own irresponsibility. 

There are people out there that are poor because of their own fault, Yes or No.


----------



## nando (Oct 17, 2019)

i had free lunches growing up, my parents worked hard. my mom died of cancer possibly do to the cleaning chemicals she had to use at work. and they payed their taxes too. 

i grew up and was able to go to school because of free lunches, now i'm a home owner and i pay a shitload of property taxes to help other kids with their lunches. it's really messed up to go to a public school which is payed by taxes and bitch about a kid who requires an extra 2 dollars a day to eat.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> You see, I use the roads that I drive on. I don't paying paying for something that benefits me or I'm remotely involved in or is my responsibility.
> 
> We already have systems in place for very low income parents, but the majority of the parents refusing to feed their children are simply doing so when they can afford to pay the bills, but simply don't want to. I'm addressing the parents simply refusing to because they don't want to. If you're a low income parent you simply need to provide documentation to the Schools to get reduced or free food for your children. That's fine, that's already taxed and payed for.
> 
> I'm directly addressing freeloading scum that think that passing another Socialism leading law is going to make the situation any better. Passing a national free lunch program is support these terrible parents who don't want to feed their kids be even worse parents. The end goal is socialism, but in the meantime laws like these only support bad parenting and encourage people to not take responsibility for their own, which in turn will instill these terrible values into the children who then think everything should be a handout and that they don't need to work or do anything and that everyone should just give them free shit. It's a cycle that I do not want to support.




Absolutely all of the roads? Even the dead end ones that only lead to someone's house on a hill somewhere?

Also does not having the general public not be drooling morons not benefit you?

Judging by the amount of fat cunts around people already fail to feed their kids -- if they can wind such lunches into nutrition then I would call that a win-win . As for the rest I can't get to this therefore that here -- you are going to need to qualify that one. As an alternative then plenty of places in the world ensure people get fed and watered and they are pretty sweet to live in.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Absolutely all of the roads? Even the dead end ones that only lead to someone's house on a hill somewhere?
> 
> Also does not having the general public not be drooling morons not benefit you?
> 
> Judging by the amount of fat cunts around people already fail to feed their kids -- if they can wind such lunches into nutrition then I would call that a win-win . As for the rest I can't get to this therefore that here -- you are going to need to qualify that one. As an alternative then plenty of places in the world ensure people get fed and watered and they are pretty sweet to live in.



Usually. yes. I go for 2-3 hour long drives a lot with no destination a few times a week. I just like to go out and drive, but also if I'm not personally driving the roads provide others who use them to bringing products or perform services the ability to do so. Plus, the roads only need to eat (be repaired) every so many years. You picked something bad to compare this situation to.

It's hilarious how *I'm the bad guy*, but the only group of people in this situation that are unwilling to feed the kids is their own parents. I'm fine with feeding them and then going after the parents for how much the meals cost and the schools generally feel the same way. I can't fathom the Liberal logic that goes into labeling me the evil one, when the kids own parents are refusing to feed them and then the Government wants to take my money to do so. 

So the parents who are abusing their kids by not feeding them ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS and WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM IN THE ABUSE? I swear Liberal logic would make Spock go on a mass shooting spree.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> Usually. yes. I go for 2-3 hour long drives a lot with no destination a few times a week. I just like to go out and drive, but also if I'm not personally driving the roads provide others who use them to bringing products or perform services the ability to do so. Plus, the roads only need to eat (be repaired) every so many years. You picked something bad to compare this situation to.
> 
> It's hilarious how *I'm the bad guy*, but the only group of people in this situation that are unwilling to feed the kids is their own parents. I'm fine with feeding them and then going after the parents for how much the meals cost and the schools generally feel the same way. I can't fathom the Liberal logic that goes into labeling me the evil one, when the kids own parents are refusing to feed them and then the Government wants to take my money to do so.
> 
> So the parents who are abusing their kids by not feeding them ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS and WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM IN THE ABUSE? I swear Liberal logic would make Spock go on a mass shooting spree.


I don't disagree that society at large benefits from roads, just as society at large benefits from not having everybody as thick as pig shit. I see no functional difference there and if roads are OK under your logic then this follows too.

You know the phrase two wrongs don't make a right? This is an example of that in action. I am very much for people feeding their crotch fruit, and all for governments using a bit of carrot and stick action to try to enable it as far as the parents are concerned (if the child can't be expected to earn their keep), but if they are screw ups enough to dodge that then there is also benefit to getting them fed -- both from a humanitarian side of things and from a pragmatic side of things (hungry kids notoriously not paying much attention and either getting bad results themselves or distracting those others). Governments then being the prime players to enable this. If said government also wants to teach the kid about proper eating at the same time then so much the better (possibly quite literally -- any rich country I have been to where they teach people about food from school on up, and ensure it is good there, usually don't suffer the same epidemic of fat bastards).


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't disagree that society at large benefits from roads, just as society at large benefits from not having everybody as thick as pig shit. I see no functional difference there and if roads are OK under your logic then this follows too.
> 
> You know the phrase two wrongs don't make a right? This is an example of that in action. I am very much for people feeding their crotch fruit, and all for governments using a bit of carrot and stick action to try to enable it as far as the parents are concerned (if the child can't be expected to earn their keep), but if they are screw ups enough to dodge that then there is also benefit to getting them fed -- both from a humanitarian side of things and from a pragmatic side of things (hungry kids notoriously not paying much attention and either getting bad results themselves or distracting those others). Governments then being the prime players to enable this. If said government also wants to teach the kid about proper eating at the same time then so much the better (possibly quite literally -- any rich country I have been to where they teach people about food from school on up, and ensure it is good there, usually don't suffer the same epidemic of fat bastards).



Two wrongs? You mean the Government trying to force me to pay for dead beats and the dead beats themselves? Because, I'm not in the wrong here. I fully support feeding the children and then forcing the parents to pay, because that's what they should have been doing in the first place.

Sure, there's the actual poor people who can't afford the full price or the food what so ever, but all they need to do is to apply for assistance and then if they are actually poor they will get it. The assistance is based on your income and sometimes your assets. So if you're simply refusing to pay to feed you child when you're completely able to do so you're not going to get assistance.

If the irresponsible parents weren't being irresponsible we wouldn't have this problem and by simply saying "let's pass laws"  will only support the irresponsibility. We shouldn't be focused on forcing people not involved in the situation to fix the problem. Why not focus on making the parents responsible for stuff they are supposed to be responsible for?

The problem is the bad parents. The problem isn't honest tax payers. The problem isn't schools with limited incomes. The problems aren't the current laws or the system set in place. The problem are the scum bag parents. They are the ones that need to be addressed and forced to change, not me.

So the Liberal solution is to create more laws and more taxes? Well, the current laws aren't being enforced and the current tax money is being misused. What in the fucking world would make you think that the new laws that would be passed or the new taxes would be followed/used correctly if we don't enforce the current ones? Seriously Liberals, you need to open your eyes as blindly following your emotions is destroying our country.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 17, 2019)

I'd rather have all my tax money go to school lunches than to spend another penny on unconstitutional acts of aggression overseas.


----------



## Osakasan (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> A lot of parents simply refuse to and cite financial problems, yet have no issues obtaining new Nike's or a new $800 smart phone every single year. The parents have no problem spending all sort of money every day to eat at McDonald's or buy their legal weed. It's not like most of them couldn't actually afford it, it's more of the lines they are refusing to any think other people should have to feed their kids. It's the responsibility of the parents to feed their own children. Not mine.



This post is "fuck you, got mine"

Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.

You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 17, 2019)

Osakasan said:


> This post is "fuck you, got mine"
> 
> Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.
> 
> You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP


It's just an opinion. It may be slightly misfuided, but it's not worth wishing violence on someone over.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 17, 2019)

Osakasan said:


> This post is "fuck you, got mine"
> 
> Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.
> 
> You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP


As much as I disagree with absolutely everything @billapong says on the temp violence should never be the answer.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

Osakasan said:


> This post is "fuck you, got mine"
> 
> Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.
> 
> You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP



@Subtle Demise @AmandaRose

Unlike people who chose a dangerous life style and then bitch when they get hurt I can handle myself. I'm not scared of physical confrontation or the threat thereof. I'm not the type of the person who goes stands in the rain and then whines that they got wet. Sort of like the Civil War the Liberals keep threatening Conservatives with. I think they should reconsider their request because they actually might get what they want this time around and considering the are against fire arms and are a minority trying to lord over others they don't stand much of a chance.

@Osakasan I do care about others positions, which is why I started the thread. What I don't and never will agree with or care about is the Liberal point of view. They are the ones defending the parents who don't wish to feed their kids and trying to make me look bad because I support feeding the children.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> Unlike people who chose a dangerous life style and then bitch when they get hurt I can handle myself.


What is this supposed to mean?
What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
Are you just trying to sound cool?
What is it? I don't see your point.



billapong said:


> I'm not scared of physical confrontation or the threat thereof. I'm not the type of the person who goes stands in the rain and then whines that they got wet.


Again... what is this?
Are you trying to pretend some kind of grandeur because you are not scared of some void online ""threat""? (not enough quotes on this one, seeing how void it is really).
Are you implying that somebody that avoids physical confrontation or tries to tone down a situation and talk people into reason instead of going for the violence is less than you?



billapong said:


> Sort of like the Civil War the Liberals keep threatening Conservatives with. I think they should reconsider their request because they actually might get what they want this time around and considering the are against fire arms and are a minority trying to lord over others they don't stand much of a chance.


Again, expanding on the one above, are you suggesting that your fellow Americans should arm to the teeth so they can get a chance to kill you and each other instead of seeking a way through reason to close the growing social/political rift? Seriously?


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 17, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> What is this supposed to mean?
> What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
> Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
> Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
> ...


That whole "i can handle my own shit" is the same reason these repubs pose with guns and get hissy that their gun rights are getting taken away. Its insecurity masked by a false aid of confidence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



billapong said:


> @Subtle Demise @AmandaRose
> 
> Unlike people who chose a dangerous life style and then bitch when they get hurt I can handle myself. I'm not scared of physical confrontation or the threat thereof. I'm not the type of the person who goes stands in the rain and then whines that they got wet. Sort of like the Civil War the Liberals keep threatening Conservatives with. I think they should reconsider their request because they actually might get what they want this time around and considering the are against fire arms and are a minority trying to lord over others they don't stand much of a chance.
> 
> @Osakasan I do care about others positions, which is why I started the thread. What I don't and never will agree with or care about is the Liberal point of view. They are the ones defending the parents who don't wish to feed their kids and trying to make me look bad because I support feeding the children.


Fuck off guy. Seriously. Youre clearly masking your insecurities behind the "im so tough" cherade. Youre like a 12 year old. Bet you pose with guns too because you think they "make you look tough". If you think violence and being "aggressive" is strength, then youre an absolute moron. Youre confusing strength with immaturity. Being keen on avoiding arguments, avoiding phyisical altercations and not liking war or aggression in general is the REAL definition of strength. What you're showing is flat out weakness and immaturity. Go back to posing with your guns in a sad small attempt to feel like a big man... idiot. Can we please ban this troll please? What if we all start reporting his shit? Im so exhausted from his idiocy and immaturity and unhealthy aggression and projection toward "the libs"...


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> What is this supposed to mean?
> What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
> Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
> Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
> ...


The dangerous life style he lives is trying to get to work on time everyday without getting into a car crash. He's big tough guy so tough his nickname is Mr. TUFF


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 17, 2019)

I have said it before in another thread but I will say it again @billapong is 100% an alt of @cots everything they both say is phrased exactly the same way by both of them. They repeat the same pointless argument over and over ect ect. They both when losing an argument start adding people to the ignore list. They both bang on about not wanting their taxes used for things. Everything is the same by both of them.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> What is this supposed to mean?
> What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
> Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
> Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
> ...



I mean I can deal with the shit I get myself into. I don't need anyone defending me. Unlike Liberals who chose to live a dangerous life style and then expect me to feel sorry for them when they get hurt I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me. If you walk into a bar and talk shit and get your nose broken then you aren't a victim. You're just a loud mouth bitch who get their ass kicked.

And yes, I suggest the Liberals threatening Conservatives with Civil War arm themselves, otherwise if they start a War they really are not going to be able to handle what they get themselves into. I'm simply responding to a threat. I'm the sort of people that end up solving matters in the long run. Less talk and more action. Liberals would turn to people like me in a time of need because they can't defend themselves, but there's not enough money in the world to make me chose their side.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I have said it before in another thread but I will say it again @billapong is 100% an alt of @cots everything they both say is phrased exactly the same way by both of them. They repeat the same pointless argument over and over ect ect. They both when losing an argument start adding people to the ignore list. They both bang on about not wanting their taxes used for things. Everything is the same by both of them.


Actually billapong and cots are both androids with pre programed dialogue produced in a conservative factory, the same factory that doesn't pay workers a living wage, so they had to make cost cutting measures to their software and give them all the same personality.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I have said it before in another thread but I will say it again @billapong is 100% an alt of @cots everything they both say is phrased exactly the same way by both of them. They repeat the same pointless argument over and over ect ect. They both when losing an argument start adding people to the ignore list. They both bang on about not wanting their taxes used for things. Everything is the same by both of them.



So I'm guilty of talking like a conservative? You'll find most of them care about what the money the Government is taking out of their paychecks is used for and it's also a common thing to ignore people you don't want to converse with, especially on the Internet and in Conservative circles. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to the constant horse shit that comes out of Liberal peoples mouths? I simply ignore the ignorant and I guess since you're persistent you've been added to my list too.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Actually billapong and cots are both androids produced in a conservative factory, the same factory that doesn't pay workers a living wage, so they had to make cost cutting measures to their software and give them all the same personality.



No, when I got out of High School I was very Liberal, but then realized most of the stuff that I was taught was a lie. I sought out the truth and it lead me to Conservatives. While they aren't the nicest people they generally value the truth, work hard, don't steal, don't cheat, etc ... I want to associate with good God fearing people, not sinning criminal scum hell bent on pushing their will on others for personal gain and destroying our country at the same time. 

Like these parents who won't feed their children and the Liberals that support them. I don't want a damned thing to do with either one and refuse to vote for anything that would keep contributing to bad parenting. Like I've stated 20 some times now, I'm not the bad guy. I support feeding the children, but it's the parents responsibility to feed their own damned kids. Sure, like most Liberal issues the responsible people actually end up having to take care of things, but believe this. I will hold the actual shitty ass parents responsible. I will not vote to support this madness.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> I mean I can deal with the shit I get myself into. I don't need anyone defending me. Unlike Liberals who chose to live a dangerous life style and then expect me to feel sorry for them when they get hurt I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me. If you walk into a bar and talk shit and get your nose broken then you aren't a victim. You're just a loud mouth bitch who get their ass kicked.


At least I can agree with you that I don't like the excessive self-victimization seen sometimes in Americans, I don't know if you want to call them liberals, I don't even know if those are liberals at all (probably not really). But there is some victimization that I don't agree with.



billapong said:


> And yes, I suggest the Liberals threatening Conservatives with Civil War arm themselves, otherwise if they start a War they really are not going to be able to handle what they get themselves into. I'm simply responding to a threat. I'm the sort of people that end up solving matters in the long run. Less talk and more action. Liberals would turn to people like me in a time of need because they can't defend themselves, but there's not enough money in the world to make me chose their side.


Now, with that I can't agree at all. It is not the way to go for a healthy nation, that would only lead to indiscriminate bloodshed, everybody loses in a civil war, it tears apart families. It is something to avoid, not something to encourage and get ready to engage into.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> At least I can agree with you that I don't like the excessive self-victimization seen sometimes in Americans, I don't know if you want to call them liberals, I don't even know if those are liberals at all (probably not really). But there is some victimization that I don't agree with.
> 
> Now, with that I can't agree at all. It is not the way to go for a healthy nation, that would only lead to indiscriminate bloodshed, everybody loses in a civil war, it tears apart families. It is something to avoid, not something to encourage and get ready to engage into.



The Liberal media has been toying with the idea of Civil War. I'm not sure if they are just trying to weed out radicals that would post dumb things online against Liberals (so they can take their guns away) or if they're serious, but going around threatening Civil War is no joke, especially considering they are against owning firearms. I never asked to have these types fucking with me or trying to control every move I make, pushing their sinful lifestyle on me, trying to make me go along with their crap, tax the hell out of me, but I'll be damned if I sit by and let them declare war and then do nothing. I'm not scared to die. So for their sake they need to keep their mouths shut because they are out numbered and out gunned. They'd lose.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> So I'm guilty of talking like a conservative? You'll find most of them care about what the money the Government is taking out of their paychecks is used for and it's also a common thing to ignore people you don't want to converse with, especially on the Internet and in Conservative circles. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to the constant horse shit that comes out of Liberal peoples mouths? I simply ignore the ignorant and I guess since you're persistent you've been added to my list too.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I think you follow too closely to the conservative rule book, so much that you don't have your own unique view point on things. It's all like copy and pasted.
Truth, work hard is things all those groups do.

Liberals don't support parents that don't feed their kids. If they did then they wouldn't be complaining about poor kids not getting feed.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> I mean I can deal with the shit I get myself into. I don't need anyone defending me. Unlike Liberals who chose to live a dangerous life style and then expect me to feel sorry for them when they get hurt I don't want anyone feeling sorry for me. If you walk into a bar and talk shit and get your nose broken then you aren't a victim. You're just a loud mouth bitch who get their ass kicked.
> 
> And yes, I suggest the Liberals threatening Conservatives with Civil War arm themselves, otherwise if they start a War they really are not going to be able to handle what they get themselves into. I'm simply responding to a threat. I'm the sort of people that end up solving matters in the long run. Less talk and more action. Liberals would turn to people like me in a time of need because they can't defend themselves, but there's not enough money in the world to make me chose their side.


You're the only ones threatening and even BEGINNING to think about civil wars. You're insane.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> At least I can agree with you that I don't like the excessive self-victimization seen sometimes in Americans, I don't know if you want to call them liberals, I don't even know if those are liberals at all (probably not really). But there is some victimization that I don't agree with.
> 
> Now, with that I can't agree at all. It is not the way to go for a healthy nation, that would only lead to indiscriminate bloodshed, everybody loses in a civil war, it tears apart families. It is something to avoid, not something to encourage and get ready to engage into.



The Liberal media has been toying with the idea of Civil War. I'm not sure if they are just trying to weed out radicals that would post dumb things online against Liberals (so they can take their guns away) or if they're serious, but going around threatening Civil War is no joke, especially considering they are against owning firearms. I never asked to have these types fucking with me or trying to control every move I make, but I'll be damned if I sit by and let them declare war and then do nothing. I'm not scared to die. So for their sake they need to keep their mouths shut because they are out numbered and out gunned. They'd lose.


SG854 said:


> I think you follow too closely to the conservative rule book, so much that you don't have your own unique view point on things. It's all like copy and pasted.
> Truth, work hard is things all those groups do.
> 
> Liberals don't support parents that don't feed their kids. If they did then they wouldn't be complaining about poor kids not getting feed.



I don't follow any book. I do what feels right according to actual morals and beliefs based on actual values put in place by non-sinners. It just so happens that Conservatives align themselves with good and Liberals with evil.

By supporting taxing me to pay for school lunches you are supporting the bad parents who aren't feeding their children and are also supporting socialism. If you wanted the situation to get better you'd hold the actual people refusing to feed their kids accountable for their actions. Using my money isn't going to solve the lousy parenting problem, it'll just give them justification to be bad parents. Just like the Liberal policies in CA attract and encourage drug use, which in turn causes mental illness that is causing their homeless population problem. Liberal thinking is the problem.

We should be holding the irresponsible people that aren't feeding their children accountable and enforcing the current laws on the books. Giving them a free ride and then making more laws that wouldn't be enforced is not the solution.


----------



## smf (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> A lot of parents simply refuse to and cite financial problems, yet have no issues obtaining new Nike's or a new $800 smart phone every single year.



You need to try harder generalizing and vilifying people so that you can treat them as less than human

I give you a C-


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> The Liberal media has been toying with the idea of Civil War. I'm not sure if they are just trying to weed out radicals that would post dumb things online against Liberals (so they can take their guns away) or if they're serious, but going around threatening Civil War is no joke, especially considering they are against owning firearms. I never asked to have these types fucking with me or trying to control every move I make, but I'll be damned if I sit by and let them declare war and then do nothing. I'm not scared to die. So for their sake they need to keep their mouths shut because they are out numbered and out gunned. They'd lose.
> 
> 
> I don't follow any book. I do what feels right according to actual morals and beliefs based on actual values put in place by non-sinners. It just so happens that Conservatives align themselves with good and Liberals with evil.
> ...


With taxes you are supporting both, bad parents and good parents that are in an unfortunate situation. Why leave out the parents that are in an unfortunate situation and only focus on bad parents?


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> With taxes you are supporting both, bad parents and good parents that are in an unfortunate situation. Why leave out the parents that are in an unfortunate situation and only focus on bad parents?



Because there's already laws regarding the parents in bad situations. There's assistance already available to them. I'm not talking about the "good" parents as they are already paying the 40 cents a day to feed their children. I'm talking about the free loading scum. The current rules would work just fine if people weren't abusing them and the laws were being enforced.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> Because there's already laws regarding the parents in bad situations. There's assistance already available to them. I'm not talking about the "good" parents as they are already paying the 40 cents a day to feed their children. I'm talking about the free loading scum. The current rules would work just fine if people weren't abusing them and the laws were being enforced.


Someone is always going to break the rules, it's always going to happen till the end of time.
So whats your solutions? To get rid of taxes that feed those unfortunate kids?


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> With taxes you are supporting both, bad parents and good parents that are in an unfortunate situation. Why leave out the parents that are in an unfortunate situation and only focus on bad parents?


Because hes a blind Republican who only picks and chooses. Dude supports trump. Its obvious shy hes the way he is isnt it? Hes a blind moron


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

smf said:


> You need to try harder generalizing and vilifying people so that you can treat them as less than human
> 
> I give you a C-



Yeah, maybe I should have started out with the money the parents spend daily on their drug habits. I wanted to be fair and accurate because not every bad parent is abusing drugs, but most of them spend way too much money and their attention on their smart phones and clothes (as these things hold a much higher priority to them than their kids do).


----------



## SG854 (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yeah, maybe I should have started out with the money the parents spend daily on their drug habits. I wanted to be fair and accurate because not every bad parent is abusing drugs, but most of them spend way too much money and their attention on their smart phones and clothes (as these things hold a much higher priority to them than their kids do).


What kind of smart phones do they own? Statistics show many in the lower class has a smart phone, but that could be second hand older models. 
What percentage is doing what you described above? It's kind of useless to be complaining about it if you don't know how many people are actually doing this. How much is most?


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Someone is always going to break the rules, it's always going to happen till the end of time.
> So whats your solutions? To get rid of taxes that feed those unfortunate kids?



I already stated my solution. To make the parents pay to feed their own kids. I'm not saying get rid of the current laws that allow the school system to use our taxes to feed the people in poverty. If you're in poverty then apply for assistance and as long as you're honest about your income you'll get it. If you're making too much then you won't, which means you need to rearrange your priorities so your children can eat. If every parent that simply refuses to feed their children were forced to pay up then we wouldn't have this problem. There's existing laws that would allow this situation to be dealt with in such a manner and when schools actually try to hold the irresponsible parents responsible you get resistance from the Liberals. The Liberals simply need to be ignored and the parents held responsible. Take their tax returns, take money out of their checks, seize assets or throw them in jail for a few days to get the message through that they are pieces of shit and need to feed their kids.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> What kind of smart phones do they own? Statistics show many in the lower class has a smart phone, but that could be second hand older models.
> What percentage is doing what you described above? It's kind of useless to be complaining about it if you don't know how many people are actually doing this. How much is most?



I live in the projects. I know from simply observing my surroundings. I know that the majority of them are cheating the system, because I play by the rules and I don't have the things they do nor could obtain them legally according to the rules. The parents who stand at the bus stop with a flip phone and are wearing torn jeans and shoes from Wal-Mart and not smoking weed are clearly the responsible ones and they are very few and far between.


----------



## smf (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yeah, maybe I should have started out with the money the parents spend daily on their drug habits.



Maybe, you do need to try harder to dehumanize people with lies so that your own inadequacies seem less.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

smf said:


> Maybe, you do need to try harder to dehumanize people with lies so that your own inadequacies seem less.



I don't lie so that might pose a problem.


----------



## smf (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> I don't lie so that might pose a problem.



Because someone saying they don't lie is proof?

Maybe you've convinced yourself that you're not lying? I don't know.

I'm not saying there aren't people committing fraud out there and that fraud should be looked at, but you are so far off being objective that nothing you say can be trusted.


----------



## billapong (Oct 17, 2019)

smf said:


> Because someone saying they don't lie is proof?
> 
> Maybe you've convinced yourself that you're not lying? I don't know.
> 
> I'm not saying there aren't people committing fraud out there and that fraud should be looked at, but you are so far off being objective that nothing you say can be trusted.



Considering this entire post is relate to the parents that are breaking the rules I think I'm being perfectly objective by staying on the topic.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 17, 2019)

This thread has outlived its usefulness.


----------

