http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … -for-lunch
Just being 3 dollars behind on school lunch gets your kid a lunch of a hard boiled eggs crackers and milk.
But don't worry you can talk to the school board if it's a problem.
So let me get this straight, you, a conservative, are arguing that we should be giving more free food to kids. I completely agree, unfortunately we have this whole bunch of people who complain incessantly about welfare programs and cutting government spending and unsurprisingly sometimes they get their way. Of course if we did start giving the kids a proper meal it would be days before we had stories of kids from rich families bringing packed lunches AND getting the meals and how terrible government aid therefore is and how easily abused.
So no, you don't get to have it both ways. Either you don't want people in this country unable to afford sufficient food on a regular basis (current estimates put that number at around 15.5%) and you are willing to accept that costs money and maybe even a tax hike on guys making a million a year + to pay for it or you want to insult people for relying on the government and demand the government reduce welfare costs but make up your mind because this is ground breaking hypocrisy.
Wait a minute. Is that a generalization you are using there Josak?
Am i not supposed to want kids to have a good lunch because I am a Conservative? Shame on you.
I have kids in high school and make sure they are fed. The school system we have here would NEVER do anything like this.
And yes if this is fallout from the Michelle lunch system somebody somewhere is wrong are they not?
No it's not it's focused on you and the views you express regularly, you are a conservative and you have repeatedly told me how much you oppose government spending and tax hikes and now you are complaining because free meals for kids at school are too small and that is hypocrisy, these are the things that we pay for, this is what gets cut when the money is not available and this is what Republicans have been arguing against (free lunches at all) for example:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/17/2 … nding.html
So make up your mind, either you don't want a big federal governemnt (this is a federal program) and you want low taxes on the wealthy and you want low spending or you do want the federal government to provide for kids who are hungry and you want them to do it MORE than they are but you don't get to have it both ways. Do you not realize there are real world consequences to reduced spending and taxation? Because there they are right there, the direct consequences of the views you espouse.
No the problem exists in that if I actually show i have feelings for these kids, which I do, that blows the whole Conservative meme out of the water. I can promise you that when some of the others get around here on the forums they will agree.
In the same manner, if you are going to institute programs that take care of these issues then have the you know what to take care of them. Feed the kids and we will worry about the other later. I don't blame children for issues they aren't responsible for. I blame adults who want it to be one way until you hold up an example of how it's not being followed through on and then want to shoot the messenger for pointing it out.
I am a Christian. Feed the kids.
I am also struck by the fact you don't seem to care as much about the story and the situation as much as I have the audacity to complain about it. Because I am a Conservative this is not supposed to be an issue?
There is nothing hypocritical about it. There are idiots there who think this is how to handle the situation. Are you inferring they are right and that is how YOU would handle it?
Or you could give them a sandwich and apple in their bag, Reasonable policy or not, if you want your kid to have a nutritious lunch, you can make that happen. I don't think anyone is obliged to provide a service that has not been paid for. And maybe just not doing so is better than putting the school in debt or sending debt collectors after parents. $3 can quickly become a lot more and schools are on tight budgets. Their primary job is teaching.
That's ok. Let's let some kids who cannot afford it starve. Your call.
Nope, let's make sure no kid goes hungry, hell let's make sure no one goes hungry, good school lunches, add 50% to the food stamp allowance. Hell food isn't all a kid needs he needs to be healthy if he is going to study so let's make healthcare free for people who cant afford it so the kid isn't at school sick without treatment because his parents can't afford the bill...
You oppose these things...
Hurts to see the human face of it doesn't it?
What I oppose is not getting children fed. What I oppose is a system which will allow people to be rewarded for not taking part at all. There is a vast subset of our society which knows they don't have to do a blinking thing if they like but they will be subsidized and it is the liberal political philosophies that have fostered that.
I am sorry was i supposed to write a Hub saying how they deserved hard boiled eggs?
Well I am sorry I won't go along with the social narrative that you wish.
How interesting it's the Liberal suddenly who doesn't care what the child is being fed and money is the reason.
Hypocrisy Josak? Better look....
JSC don't get me wrong, if I was in charge of this it would be a system that the kids of families how make less than a certain amount a year who request it can get free good balanced meals every day at school, my uncle actually helped draft that precise legislation under the SOCIALIST government in Argentina.
But you don't get to blame the leftish government for not giving the kids enough when we have conservatives who oppose any school funding at all (as per the link I posted) without looking like a hypocrite. Now answer me honestly which side of the aisle do you think is more likely to give kids better meals at school?
And again everything here is with a broad brush and i can absolutely promise you that while this stuff needs to get paid for...the problem needs to be corrected.
If you are going to ...and by that I mean this administration...paint yourself as the protector of those who can't do for themselves, then turn around and let this sort of thing hang out in the public eye at this time, you really don't deserve a second term.
Let me get to that second point because here we go again with the generalist meme that Conservatives want people, especially kids, to starve.
If it's the other way around this is certainly peculiar, isn't it , that a Conservative is looking out for the kid and the Liberal is worried about the money. Just print some more. Yo will anyway.
The liberals are, strangely enough, concerned with the school remaining economically viable. And the kid being feed by the people responsible. But it seem even agreeing with the conservative agenda is not acceptable when the desire to disagree is more important than ideology.
And a kid getting an egg is not going to starve. They are doing the minimum.
I am actively involved in a free lunch program, properly configure to not just depend on the state. That is how this should be done to protect children from incompetent or truly destitute parents.
JSC firstly I am not sure you understand how money creation works, if the government were just "printing" money we would see high inflation but we have low inflation, what the government is doing is borrowing money (it's significantly different).
As I said I fully support an excellent free school lunch program for kids who can't afford it and I would like it to be funded not by borrowing (or "printing") but by a small tax increase on people earning more than a million a year, that is far more sustainable.
But you never answered my question, which side of the political aisle do you think is more likely to give disadvantaged kids a better lunch?
FYI Obama has already increased the school lunches budget, if I remember correctly there was plenty of conservative opposition to it.
I am sick of this. Line up all the conservatives and shoot them in the head Josak.
It's a lie. Nobody wants these kids to go hungry.
So if you are looking for me to lick my lips and be weak and say the Democrats are more likely to feed the kids I can't do that because PLAINLY THEY DON'T!
If you really think Democrats aren't the most likely party to give kids a better government funded lunch then its pointless discussing it, you are just wrong, particularly given that the Democrats have increased spending on just that against Republican opposition this presidential term no less.
BTW I don't want to shoot conservatives, I don't even think they are bad people, some just seem to not realize there is a cost to small government, low spending and low taxes, it's a human cost, you are a perfect example.
Some like Evan do and just don't care, there I feel a bit differently.
So JS I don't think you are a bad person, I am sure you are a great guy, I am positive you want kids fed but unfortunately you are against the policy that makes that and other similar things possible.
You do what is always done and do your dead level best to swerve it around.
We give the allowance to the parent. If the kids is getting a charity meal that mechanism need to be set up--not by putting the school in debt or appropriating the money of other parents. The second parents realize they can stop paying and still get the food, many will. The school could genuinely end up bankrupt.
FWIW the school I work with has corporate funding of free meals that children can claim discreetly, no questions asked. But the school budget cannot cover this. That is, I solved the problem myself rather than just getting outraged and demanding the government fix it.
And, yeah.. *I'm* a socialist. That means money goes from those who have to those who need. Not from those who are responsible to those that don't bother.
Feeding the kids is the parents job, period. They can pay the school to do it, or they can do it themselves out of their earnings or food stamps. They should not expect nanny school/state to do it for them on credit they may never pay off. Honestly, providing a free egg and crackers is going above and beyond. Schools provide education, they may choose to do more but that is a voluntary charitable activity--not an entitlement.
Some people want to want small government, except when they don't.
If you can't pay for food, you don't deserve it.
Sorry, but that's called "real life". It's important to learn these lessons early.
Children whose parents can't afford to feed them should be allowed (like all people) to work for money to pay for food.
Government shouldn't be providing food to anyone. Poverty is a symptom of government.
This JS is exactly what I am referring to that's the side of the political fence you are on I am afraid, I imagine your vote will be too.
I know you want kids to be well fed and cared for, but that isn't free and I guarantee it won't be coming from the right, Obama got in hot water when he increased the food for school budget allocation by 5%.
Let's back up a minute. First off if you look I never said F R E E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Take care of the kids and we will sort it out afterward.
Charity still exists.
Government is not charity.
Oh i agree...what i trying to point out here is that there is this utter BS about heartless Conservatives and this situation arises and what the heck...the kids deserve it in their eyes.
When I was a kid some of the kids were allowed to do little chores around the school, nothing ridiculous, just enough to instill the sense of worth. They were still fed.
The kids can't help it if their parents are not responsible. Should the children starve?
The school lunch program is in serious need of an overhaul. The waste there is sickening. I know what I'm talking about - I've seen it over and over. Perfectly good food dumped in garbage cans. Government restirctions won't allow the leftovers to go to homeless shelters or even to animal shelters. I think it's disgusting for so much perfectly good food to be tossed when we have so many hungry people in the U.S.
Of course they shouldn't.
But your so blinded by government that you can't recognize that government is the entity preventing the children from earning their own food.
Government can't cure poverty, it can only create it.
"The waste there is sickening."
OF COURSE THERE'S WASTE!!! IT'S A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM!!!
Government's can't create wealth because they don't spend their own money!!!
Go on! Take your money and give it to the children. Start up your own charity program. Find investors, earn the logistics, make it happen.
There won't be waste then!
Instead, you put it in charge of thieves and liars who would rather use the program for political games to advance their own careers.
Give me a break. Wake up.
I am saving this comment as a perfect example of what motivates me politically, that callousness.
Kids in school should go hungry to learn life is terrible, then they should be hungry so they can't study and then they will turn out poorly educated at best or turn to crime at worst, at which point by every probability their kids will end up in school with nothing to eat and the cycle begins again.
BTW Evan what country in the world has no government? Oh look currently it's just one, Somalia, oh look it's the poorest country in the world, what a mind blowing coincidence.
Why are kids in the school when they're hungry in the first place? Let them earn some food. They'll gain money, food, and experience that will be used in the future.
Guess what: education doesn't have to come from school. Companies educated people LONG before governments screwed everything up.
It's not callous to state "reality".
Go to a land where people are starving and tell them that "they must be educated. They will all have to pay 10% of what they have to send their kids - who earn 30% of the family income - to school EVERY DAY. And then tell them that, because the families can't pay for their children's food they should spend another 10% of what they have to feed their children."
Go on, do it! See what happens!
"Hey, you poor people. Give up 50% of your income so that you can have people fed at schools"
YOU'LL END UP WITH A NATION OF DEAD PEOPLE, YOU FOOL.
I'M THE CALLOUS ONE? You want to steal, not I.
Great let's add child labor to the list
Education is the way out of poverty, but I don't have to imagine, I was alive when it happened in Argentina, school was made compulsory and many parents complained that the kids were needed to work the fields, I had friends who went to school and friends who went to school one day a month a called in sick the rest of the time to work the field, the kids who went to school by and large live successful or comfortable lives, those that survived the disappearances anyway, but those who stayed at home are still working those same tiny patches of land they don't own and their parents got old and relied on them to feed them but they had no way to do it except the same field so they went hungry. For the others the government rounded up prisoners and civil servants and provided more than enough assistance to cover the deficiency of the kids. One generation later we had educated kids who could read and write.
It's about investment, keep kids dumb and or hungry and you cost yourself hundreds of times more than the short term savings and that is the foolish choice. If school hadn't been made compulsory I would probably be a subsistence peasant too.
As for your last comment which you added, tax under sovereign law with democratic support is not theft but even if it was there are plenty of situations where theft is justified and the lesser of two evils, don't worry I don't expect you to understand, you are the product of a privileged existence with no experience or understanding of real poverty or suffering, you lack the experience to understand.
I am sorry this is the first instance I have ever seen of Socialists not wanting someone in need to have something and it's children being FED!!!!!!!!!!
My state has one answer -- Beginning school year 2013 - 2014, all kids Pre-K through Grade 12 are to be offered free breakfast and lunch at school. No income qualifications, no raise in taxes, and this is under a Republican governor. He cut some waste elsewhere from the budget.
If a child is really going hungry, I report this to Child and Family Services every time and get the child help. Parents need to make it a point to remember to pay into the kids' lunch accounts in NJ or ask for the free lunch program, since they cannot afford the payment. In my experience, the parents of students that have been worst about not paying for food, sports, etc., were the wealthiest, the very worst being a millionaire. In fact, we were asked by mom not to charge this family at all, because of their wealth status (they felt they were too important to be charged). They were charged.
Right now, there is a problem with a particular family not paying in a neighboring district - the mom spends $40+ a night on shooting pool and darts leagues and alcoholic beverages 6 nights a week in bars, but no lunch or dinner for the 4 kids. Neighbors reported the mom, so I expect the kids to get help soon.
Of course once again we see this conversation being swerved to"Well, Conservatives don't care anyway"
Even thought that had nothing to do with it.
by Simone Haruko Smith 7 years ago
For how long can one keep a hard-boiled egg (not refrigerated) before it goes bad?While traveling in Germany, I noticed hard boiled eggs for sale that weren't refrigerated... I've always kept mine chilled, but is this necessary?I supposing timing will be different depending on whether the egg is...
by Moderndayslave 6 years ago
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying wages that are holding their own against inflation....
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess how the most intense crisis to have shaken the industrialized economies since the...
by Steven Dison 5 years ago
Should there be more cuts to budget in the short term, even with the threat of austerity looming?
by fishskinfreak2008 7 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_taxes_pollLooks like DEMOCRATS still have at least SOME support
by uncorrectedvision 6 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the products of Summer's Eve. Krugman is a partisan, a warrior for one side and no...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|