Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since when did it become the government's responsibility to prevent poor kids from feeling poor?
It's not only the kids, it's the adults as well.
Government subsidized housing has moved into the suburbs via vouchers.
Cell phones, debit cards instead of paper food stamps, etc.
All appearances of being poor are being eliminated so you cannot tell the poor from the middle class.
Well, look, I hate irresponsibility and lowlife attitudes and I hate welfare or rather, what welfare has become, but when it comes to children, I have to take a different stance. Children need to eat. They need food for their brain development. They can't learn if they are distracted by hunger or their blood sugar is low. Low blood sugar will also cause behavioral problems stemming from anxiety and unstable emotions. A lot of problems begin with an empty belly.
I'd really rather see mandatory sterilization, even more abortions (yes, I said it, sorry) than letting children go hungry. I'd like to see kids taken from their parents and their parents sterilized until they can learn how to be responsible. I'd like to see a total shift in the messages society sends to the poor - more emphasis on responsibility in family planning, marriage, working to make your own way, etc. Shame needs to make a comeback. If the stigma of teen pregnancy and single parenthood were even HALF what it is for using racial slurs, maybe some positive change could occur.
Unfortunately, letting children go hungry won't train the parents. If the lowlife parents really cared about their children's needs, or had the IQ to change their lives, the kids wouldn't be unfed in the first place. The key is to stop the breeding, and then maybe inroads can be made into changing the society.
But until then, kids gotta eat. In fact, take away foodstamps altogether and just have kids be fed at neighborhood feeding stations - at least then, you could be sure they were eating, instead of wondering if their parents sold the foodstamps for drug money.
But read the article- this isn't about feeding hungry children. This is about feeding everyone for free to remove any stigma from free lunches. The people they are now going to feed aren't the hungry children, it's all children, no matter how much money the families have. If 40% of the kids in that system qualify for free/reduced lunch, then they will feed 100% of children. So 60% of kids will get fed by the government that can afford to get fed by their parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
We definitely do have a PC problem with trying to protect children too much from any kind of stigmas, but when it comes to an allergen like this, I think that is not the motive, and it's probably a good idea to get peanuts out of the public kitchen. Children with a severe peanut allergy can have a reaction even if an infintismal amount of peanut gets on their food. For example, if the kitchenworker who prepared the PBJ sandwiches then pops over to the food line and picks up a biscuit to put on a child's tray, it is entirely likely that a child with an allergy to peanuts could have a reaction to a trace of peanut butter on that biscuit. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.
The real question, which is a topic for a different thread, is why are so many children developing asthma and food allergies now?
I totally get that peanut allergies are dangerous, and those children need to be protected. Right now most of them are being protected by their parents making their lunches to keep them safe. But when the government takes over lunch for 100% of kids in 3 states, it will become the government's responsibility, and that's the problem. The government should not get the business of feeding all children.
Um, what? No parents should have children? Who said that? Sorry, can't respond to irrational comments. Go back and read again. See if you can figure it out.
Well since this program is about giving free lunches to non poor kids, and you said " The key is to stop the breeding, and then maybe inroads can be made into changing the society." So, if the non poor receive free lunches and you believe that the non poor families will let their kids go hungry and you believe the key is what you stated, then that would mean quite simply that non poor parents should not have kids.
I totally get that peanut allergies are dangerous, and those children need to be protected. Right now most of them are being protected by their parents making their lunches to keep them safe. But when the government takes over lunch for 100% of kids in 3 states, it will become the government's responsibility, and that's the problem. The government should not get the business of feeding all children.
What about the lactose intolerant kids ?
Do schools need to eliminate milk and only provide water/juice now ?
What about vegetarians ? Religious customs regarding certain meats ?
Meals during religious holidays ?
LOL
I'm so sick of working for a living, it's getting me no where. I need to give in, be a low life, and hold my hand out.
It's our future, so why not start early?
If only I could get pregnant
Now this is an EXCELLENT example of the statement "republicans do not care about children after they are in the womb". Excellent example. This program is for the children, NOT the parents. You would like to punish them now? I don't think this post could be any more insensitive.
But until then, kids gotta eat. In fact, take away foodstamps altogether and just have kids be fed at neighborhood feeding stations - at least then, you could be sure they were eating, instead of wondering if their parents sold the foodstamps for drug money.
Now this is an EXCELLENT example of the statement "republicans do not care about children after they are in the womb". Excellent example. This program is for the children, NOT the parents. You would like to punish them now? I don't think this post could be any more insensitive.
1. Not a Republican.
2. It's BECAUSE of these low life parents that we are forced to feed these kids. No one wants to to punish the parents, so they keep popping out victims, I mean kids.
1. Not a Republican.
2. It's BECAUSE of these low life parents that we are forced to feed these kids. No one wants to to punish the parents, so they keep popping out victims, I mean kids.
how is the non poor parents of kids low life parents?
But read the article- this isn't about feeding hungry children. This is about feeding everyone for free to remove any stigma from free lunches. The people they are now going to feed aren't the hungry children, it's all children, no matter how much money the families have. If 40% of the kids in that system qualify for free/reduced lunch, then they will feed 100% of children. So 60% of kids will get fed by the government that can afford to get fed by their parents.
I totally get that peanut allergies are dangerous, and those children need to be protected. Right now most of them are being protected by their parents making their lunches to keep them safe. But when the government takes over lunch for 100% of kids in 3 states, it will become the government's responsibility, and that's the problem. The government should not get the business of feeding all children.
Got it. Thanks for correcting my misperception. I thought from the thread title that this was about feeding large segments of Detroit school children, presumably because they are all, or mostly, poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
