Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.
Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).
If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.
Students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances. I know those of you who support the rich people (against your own interests) don't understand that logic, but it is pretty basic.
BS. ALL people can be treated differently based on what they can buy. If I can't afford a meal at a 5-star restaurant, I don't have the right to demand they serve me anyway simply because my economic circumstances are less. The government does not have the authority to limit what legal products a person may buy. Even if that person is a student.
The government absolutely does. You may not like it, but it does. The fact of the matter is that students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances.
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:Night Strike wrote:And today Progressivism is turning the government into our masters by forcing half the population to work for the government while the other half depends on handouts from the government.
I'm guessing you're making this a US politics thread again. Which half are you in?
The half that pays taxes. And when I wasn't paying taxes, it was while I was still a full time student.
See...the third half I mentioned.