Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And while it maybe difficult for some families you at least have to put the effort into it.<< That assumes that children in need have parents that simply don't care or aren't "putting some effort into it." The fact is that the national school lunch program began as an effort by a nation of plenty to make sure all school kids got at least one decent, nutritious meal a day so that they could focus and learn. In the coldest terms, that gives the U.S. taxpayer a better bang for their education buck. The GOP pretends to be all about efficiency, but efforts like this one show what a sham that is. (Like most Republican talking points.) It is amazing to me that the GOP has now been consistently against things like telling kids to eat some veggies and get exercise, simply because it now is some sort of socialist plot because the Obama administration is behind this effort. Let them eat cake, that's the GOP's school lunch plan.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney 70% of the kids at my daughter's first school were on free or reduced lunch. If the government is paying for lunches, why can't they provide healthy choices? Since the state gov't is obviously not stepping up, it's time for the federal gov't to take action. They are only asking that the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and the USDA be taken. Of course, the potato and salt lobbiests wouldn't want that. So let's raise another generation of overweight, unhealthy kids. Of course, many of them won't be able to afford the health care necessary to fight diseases caused by obesity, so we, the people, can pay for their medical care since the Republicans don't want businesses to have to provide health care.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If the government is paying for lunches, why can't they provide healthy choices? << Right? I mean, it only makes sense that you'd want to provide healthier meals, not the cheapest junk food. This one seems like a no-brainer to me, and yet, the GOP sucks up to its lobbyists at the expense of kids' health.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<So you would punish those who are struggling but failing simply because you believe the majority of those who need help are too lazy to work for it?>> I didn't say that. I said that I realize that there are those who are unable to provide the means. Those people we should help.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I don't think it's wrong to expect people to at least put some effort into their lives and the lives of those they're caring for. This has always been a point of contention with me with the majority of the people here and nobody is changing anyone's mind. So you know what I'm going to bow out and hang out at other sections before it gets ugly.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<If you left it up the states or indiviual school districts, school children would simply go hungry.>> I think it should be left to the parents. I went to a private High School and we had to provide our own lunches. I brown bagged it. And yes I honestly believe that if we left it up to the parents children would starve. Can someone explain to me why people are having children they can not afford to feed?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<To bring lunch to school assusmes there is food in the house to bring. To play outside assumes a safe neighborhood to play in. Poverty is very powerful, more powerful than you realize, I think.>> Why are people having children when they can not afford to provide the childrens basic needs? I have only one thing to say, Octomom.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>I think it should be left to the parents. I went to a private High School and we had to provide our own lunches. I brown bagged it.<< Well, considering that you went to a private high school, I'm guessing you could afford to brown bag it. And considering you were in high school, I would also wager you could make your own lunch. Kinda different scenario from the average elementary kid who is on gov't funded lunch, don't you think? I've seen the same kids who get free and reduced lunches walking to school in the morning drinking a can of soda, eating candy for snack. Some of them may not eat at all if the school doesn't offer them free lunch. Many of them have food, but their parents don't provide healthy food so their school lunch could be the only time all day they get any fruits or vegetables.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom << So the one simple relatively inexpensive thing our government can do is to provide at least one healthy nutritious meal to those kids so they can remain focused in school and actually learn something in order to improve their lives as adults.>> Where in the US Constitution does it say that that it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to be feeding indigent children?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Why are people having children when they can not afford to provide the childrens basic needs?<<< If I told you my opinion I'd probably get my butt chewed. Let's just say a lot of people tend to make uneducated decisions in their lives.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Where in the US Constitution does it say that that it is a legitimate role of the Federal Government to be feeding indigent children?<<< You're right, we should just let the children of poor people starve to death. I'm sure that's the stand a lot of good, Christian Tea Partiers take.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<So you would punish those who are struggling but failing simply because you believe the majority of those who need help are too lazy to work for it? >> No, I simply believe that it is not a responcible role of our Federal Government to be smoothing out every "bump" in life. No one should be entering the role of parenthood lightly. There is a big difference between bearing a child and raising a child. As a parent it is YOUR responcibility to feed, cloth and provide a roof over YOUR childs head and not your neighbors responcibility. Why are people pawning off their parental responcibilites on everyone else. Only in a liberal mind does it take a village.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't think it's wrong to expect people to at least put some effort into their lives and the lives of those they're caring for. > But here's the disconnect - no one has disagreed with that. People say that healthy meals are preferable to junk food meals, and you non-sequitur into "people should put effort into their lives." As though the two followed.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Let them eat cake, that's the GOP's school lunch plan.>> As opposed to Michelle Obama's who says let them eat steak and Arugula. <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mrs-obama-let-them-eat-steak-and-arugula" target="_blank">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...-arugula</a>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Well, considering that you went to a private high school, I'm guessing you could afford to brown bag it.>> My parents had children they could afford.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Can someone explain to me why people are having children they can not afford to feed? > Sometimes they can indeed afford to feed them when they have them. Then they lose their jobs and fall into poverty. That describes, oh, several million people since the economic collapse. It's a completely different issue, but there are also schools that aren't necessarily offering free lunches - like the one I went to, you have to buy it. And in recent years various interests have gotten the contracts that put junk/less healthy food in there and crowd better food out. It's not absolutely horrible food, but if you eat it every day, yes it contributes to obesity. This is a more subtle problem, but it's there too.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I've seen the same kids who get free and reduced lunches walking to school in the morning drinking a can of soda, eating candy for snack. Some of them may not eat at all if the school doesn't offer them free lunch. Many of them have food, but their parents don't provide healthy food so their school lunch could be the only time all day they get any fruits or vegetables.>> And who is responcibile for that? Society? Many people shouldn't be having children they can't afford and have no intention of ever financially supporting. Octomom!
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>My parents had children they could afford.<<< I'm glad, and I agree that people shouldn't enter into parenthood lightly. But unfortunately we can't make those decisions for people. Wouldn't it be great if people had to pass some kind of test before they could have kids?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Many people shouldn't be having children they can't afford and have no intention of ever financially supporting. <<< Again, so you would say let those children starve?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Let's just say a lot of people tend to make uneducated decisions in their lives.>> So what your telling me then is that the liberal socialist thing to do is to enable these people to continue making in your words "uneducated decisions". They say where you get to in life is one poor decision at a time. The simple fact is that no matter who you are you should not be bearing children you can not afford. Octomom
