Children go hungry without school meals. (employment, illegal aliens, Maryland, county)

[gentlearts]

I just don’t know why I keep getting sucked in to these same discussions again and again.

There have always been poor people who struggled to keep their kids fed. That’s why some kids were skinnier than others, but they we probably healthier than the French fried fat kids today. My grandparents generation had 10 kids and lived on a farm. The kids had enough to eat, but nothing fancy. You can bet there was no such thing as a picky eater.

Now we have the advantage of birth control, so there is just no excuse for having kids you can’t afford to feed.

The crux of it is the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the welfare system. It’s created the dependence on others to provide for things that aren’t the government’s responsibility. It’s a slippery slope and we are sliding down it at warp speed.

I have no problem with the availability of school lunches. When my kids were in school, I gave them lunch money to buy their lunches, because it saved me time. I don’t even have a problem with the government coordinating food buying to save money. What I object to, is when free school lunches become expected and demanded.

[bus man]

In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 23.5 million people in the U.S. live in "food deserts", meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.

Seriously? THAT'S the definition of a food desert in a suburban area? Well then, I'm glad I don't live in the house next door. By road distance, my house is exactly 1.0 miles from the nearest supermarket. Now that I know how fortunate I am, I truly pity the folks who live next to me, on the non-supermarket side, because they must really be suffering in that desert of theirs.

[RememberMee]

Originally Posted by bus man

Seriously? THAT'S the definition of a food desert in a suburban area? Well then, I'm glad I don't live in the house next door. By road distance, my house is exactly 1.0 miles from the nearest supermarket. Now that I know how fortunate I am, I truly pity the folks who live next to me, on the non-supermarket side, because they must really be suffering in that desert of theirs.

ghetto grocery stores are little more than junk food stores. Less than appealing to look at not processed foods are very few and more expensive than bix box grocery fares.

[dspguy]

Originally Posted by 2mares

Well I already took in two. How about you.
Id be willing to foster if I didnt work 40 hours a weak to take care of what I have. Dont think I'd qualify being single and working full time.
Are you for leaving kids in neglectful abusive homes where they are going hungry because parents buy booze and drugs or get tattoos and piercings before feeding their children.

The schools weren't giving parents $10 to feed their kids. They were giving them food. I live in an area where there's a lot of kids that qualify and receive the free lunch from school. I don't see these parents selling the lunch on the corner to score some cash to get drugs.

[saltine]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

I just don’t know why I keep getting sucked in to these same discussions again and again.

There have always been poor people who struggled to keep their kids fed. That’s why some kids were skinnier than others, but they we probably healthier than the French fried fat kids today. My grandparents generation had 10 kids and lived on a farm. The kids had enough to eat, but nothing fancy. You can bet there was no such thing as a picky eater.

Now we have the advantage of birth control, so there is just no excuse for having kids you can’t afford to feed.

The crux of it is the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the welfare system. It’s created the dependence on others to provide for things that aren’t the government’s responsibility. It’s a slippery slope and we are sliding down it at warp speed.

I have no problem with the availability of school lunches. When my kids were in school, I gave them lunch money to buy their lunches, because it saved me time. I don’t even have a problem with the government coordinating food buying to save money. What I object to, is when free school lunches become expected and demanded.

Good post. Thank you for your participation

Originally Posted by bus man

Seriously? THAT'S the definition of a food desert in a suburban area? Well then, I'm glad I don't live in the house next door. By road distance, my house is exactly 1.0 miles from the nearest supermarket. Now that I know how fortunate I am, I truly pity the folks who live next to me, on the non-supermarket side, because they must really be suffering in that desert of theirs.

I'm deserted and I didnt even know it

I wonder if I'm 'food insecure'?

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by 2mares

I hear this touted over and over.
The only reason kids are going hungry without school meals is because they have bad parents.
So I agree, instead of worrying about feeding kids 2 meals a day at school 365 days a year focus on reforming child services, take away these parents parental rights and place these kids in good homes.

You have no idea.

There AREN'T foster or adoptive homes for all these children who are in a home with minimally acceptable standard of care, except they need food from the school.

There isn't enough foster care/adoptive homes for children who are beaten and neglected and abused. There is NO WAY CPS is going to step in and take away children whose parents love them and hug on them but rely on the school for food for the kids.

I challenge you to look through your local CPS website of adoptable children. It's heartbreaking.

It's easy to find foster care for a healthy preschooler, but once they are older than that, zip.

There aren't "good homes" standing there in the wings to take a 13 year old, even ones who are academically on target and have decent social skills.

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by 2mares

So why no judgement or comment on where dad is or what he is doing.

well, first, there may be a father in the house. now, in the majority of Black households, it's not the case. But this is by no means a "single mother only" issue. Just recently (may be the "what about the poor" topic that is lengthy) I provided the exact information. You might review my posts on that thread.

It's too bad. Hundreds of "gotcha now Trump!" "look what the Dems did!" threads get started a week. But thoughtful and informative debate has no place among those people.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

I just don’t know why I keep getting sucked in to these same discussions again and again.

There have always been poor people who struggled to keep their kids fed. That’s why some kids were skinnier than others, but they we probably healthier than the French fried fat kids today. My grandparents generation had 10 kids and lived on a farm. The kids had enough to eat, but nothing fancy. You can bet there was no such thing as a picky eater.

Now we have the advantage of birth control, so there is just no excuse for having kids you can’t afford to feed.

The crux of it is the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the welfare system. It’s created the dependence on others to provide for things that aren’t the government’s responsibility. It’s a slippery slope and we are sliding down it at warp speed.

I have no problem with the availability of school lunches. When my kids were in school, I gave them lunch money to buy their lunches, because it saved me time. I don’t even have a problem with the government coordinating food buying to save money. What I object to, is when free school lunches become expected and demanded.

Gentlearts, in the past, those families who "struggled to keep their kids fed", had kids who starved to death. Babies born that didn't make it to 3 days old because the mother was starving. In the US. Before the late 1930's. Children literally starved to death, and babies were born so starved they couldn't survive.

Yes, there have always been the poor. But in the last 80 years we Americans have decided that in our country, we're not going to turn our backs while children starve to death. We can do better.

[ncguy50]

Originally Posted by dspguy

You talking about parents that are out of work since they were laid off since March 15th from their job?

It is easy to point out that parents that can't provide are the scum of the earth. Some of them might be spending whatever money they do have on alcohol and drugs. Not all of that 11% of the unemployed were wastrels to begin with.

In my area, the school district continued serving meals that parents could pick up. It was a great service to the community, given how many people are out of work. They were going to continue this into the school year for the remote learning students. After Pence showed up to push reopening schools face-to-face, the meals are only offered to the students that show up for face-to-face instruction.

Republicans - always doing what is best for the the little guy.

I think we are talking about parents with undernourished kids who are morbidly obese and speckling peoples' faces with chewed up Doritos bits while asking "Who gonna feed my kids!!??"

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by 2mares

So why no judgement or comment on where dad is or what he is doing.

There is "judgement and comment" on where the dad is. That's why there's court mandated child support, and men who refuse a DNA paternity test get stuck with child support as a "default". "Default his ass" is what you hear court appointed attorneys say, right there in court. People DO care that men are not stepping up to do their part.

But you can't get blood out of a turnip.

Yes, the dads are largely to blame for mothers having to raise a child alone, when it obviously takes two to create that kid. The mom is alone in caring for it, often.