Kids are innocent. I have every sympathy for what adults and government have done to them. Our schools feed kids even in summer when school is out. My point would be that we need to stop funding and expanding a system where “education” takes over as yet another government program to facilitate dependency and dysfunction. It’s a classic argument that conservatives aren’t compassionate, but the truth is that they seek solutions, not endless, painful extension of a problem through enabling it. Build the fence at the top of the cliff. Then you don’t need hospitals at the bottom of it.
During the depression most kids went to school without shoes and I’m sure many of them were hungry. But they learned the basics of education that allowed them to pursue a better future.
Now we’re feeding their stomachs while starving their minds.
Hunger is a great motivator as well...also teaches gratefulness. I don't want kids to go hungry, but no way the gov't should be feeding them. Isn't that what our local churches are for?
I disagree. We need to have some sort of safety net for hungry children. Obviously, the churches didn’t do a very good job or there wouldn’t have been any intervention.
The churches and other organizations did a great job. Government stepped in, taxes increased to cover social programming costs, and church donations a long w donations to other charitable organizations decreased because people believe the government is taking care of people. Not its job. Not in the constitution. The federal government has two jobs. TWO. Protect its borders (so it can protect its people and their freedoms and liberties) and create and preserve infrastructure. That’s it. That’s the job. Shutter the DoE and all of the other BS government entities. The people will provide…they always do.
Not true in all cases. I taught special education and some of those children were horribly neglected or treated shabbily by their parents. In some cases, I cared about those children much more than their parents.
I have generations of teachers in my family. If course it isn't true in ALL CASES. I also think that gov stepping in to become parents makes hateful lazy parents instead of good ones. Sex education has nothing right about it as it lacks the ability to teach love and only sparks desires to satisfy self by teaching sexual grooming.
Yes that’s also my objection, expanding the role of schools—where does it end? Clothe them (with name brands so they don’t feel left out or demeaned, naturally)? House them? They’re already talking about medical care on schools. At what point does the state take over the children completely, with this creeping expansion?
In the early 90's the Karens of my children's elementary school were soliciting for winter coats for low-income children. But they specified that the coats had to be brand-new. My children were wearing hand-downs and thrift-store winter coats. ???? Instilling in poor children a sense of entitlement.
Exactly! I stopped donating to local causes like “A Gift for Every Child”, in which an ‘underprivileged’ child’s name, age and gift preference was placed on a card on the Christmas tree. They asked for expensive, brand name gifts, things I didn’t buy for my own children. I never thought that a PlayStation was a necessary thing in our household.
And this entitlement mentality has been fostered for at least 30-40 years, so we have a generation of those folks, expecting that ‘someone’ will provide not only their needs, but their wants as well.
Yes, I have seen far too much of this as well. It’s all because of the desire to make sure kids are “not being left out” or “not being made fun of” because they don’t have “what everyone else [meaning the “popular” kids] has.” I wish we could focus the mindset more on not being so superficial and not judging based on possessions. I hate how this all feeds into and encourages that mentality 😕
This is the left’s MO. If everyone doesn’t have something, no one should. Remember the “studies” showing that kids from happy families had an unfair advantage over kids who weren’t? It was a NYT article, and suggested kids from unhappy families should have lower educational standards (hoops and challenges to jump) and be given other advantages like scholarships and such. The left tries to “level” everything but all it does is capsize the ship.
In my small town everyone knew who was on welfare and the families who were always had the nicest newest bikes for the kids and brand name clothing (among other things) 🤔 Whereas working poor families had hand me downs and thrift store items.
That was me - and to this day I'm still a thrift store shopper and advocate. I've studied fashion and imaging consulting for years and I know how to dress. People always compliment me on my sense of style and they are often shocked when I tell them I shop at thrift/consignment stores. Sometimes I can't believe what people give away or consign. I actually made a business out of it when I decided to owned and operated a ladies consignment boutique for nearly 20 years. I made a pretty good living selling used clothing and accessories so I'm thankful for the experience I received because I was raised as a poor welfare kid. I did not remain on the welfare system - I was on my own from the age of 17 and was an entrepreneur - the thought of having a boss didn't sit well with me at all.
I have many expensive items of clothing - one of my favorite suits is 3-button navy Brooks Brothers suit that I paid $50 for at an upscale consignment store. (It was at least $900 when new.) My suit wardrobe includes Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and many others. All purchased second hand.
At this moment I'm wearing a navy Lacoste polo shirt, some Tabasco khaki shorts and Sperry Top-Siders. All purchased used - but many of which are still with the original tags.
I realized a long time ago, that except for a brief moment, all clothes are used clothes. It's stupid to waste money on brand new designer wear when you can buy the exact same items for like 60-90% off.
Buying "gently worn" used is tougher for men than women, at least in our semi-rural area. Men wear stuff until it disintegrates ... whereas some women think "Oh, I cannot wear that again, I've been seen in it already!" and donate it.
And before y'all label me a sexist for that observation, it was made by my wife and not by me. She has a spiffy wardrobe of quality casual stuff (most looking like it was worn once) bought for pennies on the dollar at thrift shops.
You are not a sexist - you are absolutely right - my husband says the same thing, especially of more rural areas. When we go to the big cities we always source out the thrift/consignment stores and he finds great stuff there, but obviously I find way more, that's just the way it goes. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
Thanks, Fred. More thoughts on this, but won't go into them now. However, in my mind, the same is true for used cars. Only twice in our married (52 years) life have we bought a new car--and then, only because the new car had what we needed (1978 Subaru--still could use less-expensive leaded gas and then, 1987 Ford Aerostar--because with 3rd baby, we needed a larger vehicle, and only the Aerostar [which proved to be something of a lemon] had the leg room needed by a tall husband.
Exactly!!! And good for you for figuring that out. I just bought a pair of embellished Brazilian Rox Jeans at a consignment store that still had the original price tag of $380 on them - I paid $40. Yey!
That’s great and I admire that you have gotten such great finds. I have found that it takes so many visits to the second hand shops and so much time combing through the “junk” that I just don’t have the patience nor do I want to spend the time.
Yes--on my return to 'teaching', with need for professional dress, I found the tony Phila suburb Bryn Mawr Hospital Thrift Shop tp be the "once and done". Colleague , envious, remarked on my appearance--how to? Answer: I purchase clothing pre-chosen by women of taste and means.
I actually buy most things online these days. I have done Thrifting, but you're right - that's time consuming and often results in not finding what you're after.
Online I can search for exactly what I'm looking for, and specify if I want "New with Tags,' or the exact color, brand, etc.
I love that! You used your experience in a positive way and gained useful knowledge and insights. The people on welfare in my town (which was tiny so everyone knew everyone else’s business) were the definition of deadbeats. Didn’t work, didn’t want to work, perpetually on the government dole. While do many around them worked really hard and struggled 😕
It was that perception that made it embarrassing for me to use food stamps and medicaid for my son while I was in college as a single mom. But I did it to give him and me a better future. Not all ppl were deadbeats...I still worked 16-20hrs a week holding down a 20+ hour curriculum. And I paid my loans all back (only borrowed 30k for pharmacy school). Paid back those food stamps and any medicaid he used via taxes many many times over. My caseworker used to tell me she wished she had a hundred ppl like me instead of what she usually deals with. But yeah. An atypical example for sure. Still was embarrassing tho. And I still went without because my income was such I only qualified for a small stipend. I was a lot skinnier then. 😉
Key word, you were embarrassed! It used to be that people that had to take a handout or up, were ashamed. I don’t see that anymore. I see those taking and scamming at the same time, instead of working. And if you are on assistance, I’m thinking nails and eyelashes and cell phones might be a tad expensive for the likes of those people. But apparently, it’s now a sense of arrogant pride.
Why feel embarrassed when your money comes from a nameless, faceless bureaucracy? It was different when, in the past, charity had to be taken from people you knew, and who may not have had much to give. That's the worst part of it.
Exactly!! When it was neighbors there was a sense of accountability. It helped build ties and also keep people honest to only ask for what they needed.
Back then, you got a coupon book of actual "food stamps" which is where the term came from. It took time to count them all out as they came in various denominations like money but they were glued into a booklet. Everyone around you could see what you were doing, knew what it was, and gave the stank eye as you used them. There were no cell phones to own, no debit cards, just checks, cash and credit cards which I didn't have. Even the cashier would glare. I wasn't even buying steaks believe me as I needed meals for a growing boy I bought fruit, vegetables, hamburger, chicken, eggs and milk.
You are the kind of person I am happy to help! It’s meant to be a temporary help not a way of life. I know the reality of generations on welfare from growing up where I did and seeing it first hand, and that’s my objection. The problem with the system is that it is more designed to enable that than give an incentive to get off the program. As your caseworker seemed to acknowledge 😕
I shop at thrift stores. I wear new/like new Chico’s, Talbots and other brands of upscale clothing. I’ve also found some nice antiques. I recently purchased a stapled plate from the 1870’s for a dollar because it was “damaged.” The company made dinnerware for Tiffany.
Most dirt poor, but no one was on welfare. And sharing was eagerly anticipated. Of course, the population was in the low hundreds. I still remember when free food for the poor showed up - most were offended, at least initially. Times have changed.
My mom used to be a guidance counselor and the kids they gave coats to would lose them constantly because they could just get another one. There's no gratitude or appreciation there.
I stopped volunteering to give Christmas gifts 🎁 to children because parents felt entitled to them.
People donated bikes and other nice toys. I imagine some of those people did without to make sure kids received their Christmas wishes. I gave out many gifts to parents and none of them said a word of thanks. I was shocked.
It was! I thought that people would appreciate that others cared about their children and wanted to protect them from the harsh realities of life. But they just wanted to come in and grab their stuff and go. I think they felt like people that donated stuff were just to be taken advantage of. I don’t know quite how to explain their attitude. I wasn’t the only volunteer that noticed it. Whenever someone does something nice for me or my family, I try to let them know that I appreciate their kindness and thoughtfulness.
Unfortunately when people expect it as their due, this is the attitude you get 😕 My mom participated in a nonprofit that rehabbed houses and rented them to low income people. Some of the people just who had all of their rent paid for just trashed the place 😕 It’s very disheartening.
Nothing teaches gratitude more than going without things that aren't water, meat and veggies, clothing to fit the weather and maybe just a little too thin, and shelter from wind and sun and snow and rain.
Wow! I hadn’t heard that one. But it has all the marks of the truth I experienced. Throughout those years of exposure, I continued (and continue) to believe that “beggars can’t be choosers”. My children’s father was starting/running a high tech business; “salary” was an iffy thing—a paycheck a reason for great gratitude (to be honest—38 years later, that’s still true). Hence, Mama’s sewing machine and the thrift shop.
I stopped volunteering to give Christmas gifts 🎁 to children because parents felt entitled to them.
People donated bikes and other nice toys. I imagine some of those people did without to make sure kids received their Christmas wishes. I gave out many gifts to parents and none of them said a word of thanks. I was shocked.
Way back in the day, we participated in the hedonistic, let's get them all they ever wanted for Christmas. But we came to realize this was misguided.
These days, I'm proud to say that my children who are scattered around the globe, are all my friends. We talk about serious things we laugh about unserious things. but we talk.
Though I did my best as their father, I had no reason to expect that they would turn out so well,. and impress me so much.
I believe that all school children in the US should wear uniforms!! So much pressure is off parents and children with uniforms! No wealth or fashion comparing!
No binary and gender garbage. Boys and girls uniforms, period.
The lack of discipline in this country is getting out of hand. Cell phones should be handed in at the beginning of the day too, or simply not allowed!
I agree! My grandchildren were privileged enough to attend a Christian elementary school where they wore uniforms every day. It gave me such an appreciation for the concept of school uniforms.
It eliminates all the stress and competition in the dress area at least. They focused their competition on academic performance which was a great thing!
Yup, I think so too, hence my objection. And it’s so easy to convince people this is all okay using the “don’t you care about the children??” manipulative argument 😕
Really? Can you look a 6 year old girl in the eyes and tell her it’s better if she goes hungry? The government shouldn’t help her at all. She ought to go begging to the church for help. I don’t mind paying taxes to feed hungry children. But that’s just me 🙄
School lunches totally suck. It’s not like they’re getting good meals.
Really? There were other comments saying we should flat out not feed them but I don’t have time too inclination to look for them.
SYFY
MamaApprovedBooks4Kids
5 hrs ago
Hunger is a great motivator as well...also teaches gratefulness. I don't want kids to go hungry, but no way the gov't should be feeding them. Isn't that what our local churches are for?
CathyRN
6 hrs ago
During the depression most kids went to school without shoes and I’m sure many of them were hungry. But they learned the basics of education that allowed them to pursue a better future.
Now we’re feeding their stomachs while starving their minds.
Certainly but i was still paying for others to NOT feed their own. It shouldn't be a gov charity! Gov NEVER GIVES CHARITY. Ppl give. Organizations give to gain...something!
That isn’t what I said 🙄 Please don’t twist my words and interpret them to mean something different from what I wrote. Just because I’m not in favor of this particular solution doesn’t mean I want kids to starve. It’s not a binary choice between schools feeding kids and them not getting fed at all.
There are kids who are homeless too. And need clothes and medical care. What about building dormitories for homeless children and a store so they can get free clothes? And attach a medical center to the school while you’re at it too.
Your rection is exactly what I’m talking about—creeping government control is justified by appealing to people’s emotions and accusing people of being uncaring if they are not on board with expanding government services. Schools are not the only way to get children fed. And government is usually the most wasteful and least efficient way of getting anything done. I don’t want to pay more taxes for this not because I don’t want children to eat, but because I want to minimize government involvement in all of our lives. There is far too much waste, bureaucracy and ultimately less freedom once the government starts to put its tentacles into any aspect of life. For all the taxes we pay, we should have zero societal problems by now, but it seems like the more we pay, the more problems we have.
Btw. When child labor laws were passed, many people felt that the government should not intervene in their children’s lives. Parents wanted their very young children to work 10-12 hours in the mines and factories to help support them.
Of course they thought that, children contributed income to the household and they had to find a way to replace that somehow 😕 The idea was good but as always with the government, implementation was flawed. I wonder how many children subsequently went hungry because their income was suddenly missing from the household? A transition period to allow households to adjust m, or some other way to ease into it, would have been a better idea, but I am sure the people patting themselves on the back for “saving the children” didn’t ever consider that.
OMG 😳 please look at some of those pictures (search child labor) of children in mines and factories.
BTW wouldn’t the churches have fed the hungry children? Surely they wouldn’t let children starve. People say we don’t need government lunches because wonderful church people will feed them. Those 7 year-old children forced to work 10+ hours, 6 days a week, couldn’t have possibly have gone hungry with so many good samaritans in nearby churches to help them.
A society that doesn’t protect and provide for its children doesn’t have (or deserve) much of a future.
What does that have to do with what I said?? Did I say I thought they should be working like that? Why is it that you just react emotionally to those pictures (which I do as well, they’re heartbreaking) but refuse to acknowledge the reality of people’s lives that their children contributed to household income? Stating that truth does not mean I think child labor was a *good* thing. How do you think the parents made up for that income once it was taken away, I ask you again? Maybe the churches did feed them. But then again, do you think churches were equipped to handle a sudden massive influx of hungry people that weren’t there before?? I’m sure they weren’t. You can’t just wave a magic wand and suddenly find a way to provide for large numbers of hungry people. I’m sorry, that’s just completely unrealistic. That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful. This idea of sudden revolutionary change is never not fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences, because no one ever thinks that far ahead since they’re too busy crowing about how wonderful they are for supposedly solving a problem. The virtue signaling and emotion-driven decisions that have not been well thought out inevitably carry with them all kinds of issues downstream that sometimes can be as bad as or worse than the initial problem.
I agree with you that for as many taxes as we pay, we should have zero societal problems. However, please tell me your better solution for feeding hungry school children? I think government intervention is absolutely essential in some areas. One of them is in school lunches for poor children. I think it’s terribly cruel that some people here feel kids do better in school when they’re hungry. These are children -not adults. Although, I don’t think that the schools need to provide 2 or 3 meals a day for them.
Non profits? Churches as mentioned above? A combination of different approaches? Don’t we pay politicians and policy makers big money to come up with these kinds of solutions? Why is it up to me to do that? All I know is, since the government declared a so-called “war on poverty” things have only gotten worse even though we spend more money than ever.
Let me turn the question around to you—why do *you* believe government is the best way to help people? From what I have seen in my life, it’s usually the least effective means of solving any problem.
I also challenge how many children are actually “hungry.” How is that even determined? Do they ask kids? What is the basis for deciding this? And why can’t we just feed the ones who really are hungry instead of allowing those who are perfectly capable of providing meals to their children to freeload off of everyone else if they choose to? That’s my problem with all of these government programs, they use exorbitant amounts of money and only end up helping a small proportion of those in real need. I hear people say “oh well I would rather have the programs available even if some don’t need it and at least some in need will also be helped.” But that is totally ignoring the concept of opportunity cost. Despite what some people seem to think, funds are not unlimited. If we use part of our money to help people who don’t actually need it, then less money is available for people who truly do. I am not okay with that. I’m also not okay with financially supporting a cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy to distribute the funds and services to needy people.
Don’t feel obligated to respond, if you don’t want to take the time. It’s been a very interesting discussion that would be far easier in person than typing out long replies 😕 I am in the middle of a very busy week and I am not sure if I will be able to continue the exchange, as interesting and thought provoking as it’s been. 😕
The government is bloated and there is a lot of corruption. I do believe we, as a society, need to provide for those children that are truly in need.
Anyhow, I have the impression that you’re against any government involvement or intervention to help others suffering in life. I’m for basic safety nets. We aren’t getting anywhere in our conversations since our perspectives about life annd helping others are so different.
I believe life was much worse for many before government intervention. We would probably still have child labor, slavery, poor & dangerous working conditions, pregnant women going without prenatal care and more without government intervention. I’m not saying the government is run by perfect people or that there isn’t a lot of fraud, waste and abuse. I’m comparing life today for poor people compared to life in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.
Thank you for engaging with me. I’ve learned a lot from seeing your viewpoint. 🙂 Hope you have a good day.
I appreciate that. Thank you also and have a good day.
A few more thoughts since I have a minute. We do clearly have different world views. I’m not against any government involvement but I believe it should be a last resort and have safeguards in place to keep it from expanding too much. There were good reforms a century or so ago but now government is overly involved and getting more so all the time. I’ve seen the creeping interventionism across the decades and the overreach. Government is generally the worst option for solving problems. And so it should be used sparingly and judiciously. Which I absolutely do not think is the case nowadays and it hasn’t been so for a while.
I also think people are worse off in many ways now than several decades ago, despite the increased government programs. The cost of government makes it more difficult for people to live on smaller incomes. There are so many taxes and fees beyond income taxes that poorer families struggle more than they have in a long time. And it becomes a vicious circle that keeps poor people living in poverty instead of giving them opportunities to get out. It’s like with the Department of Education. We used to be top ranked in education but the more the government has gotten involved, the worse outcomes have gotten. More government does not equal better conditions. And a lot of the improvements you cited either have negatives to offset them (free prenatal care often means government coercion for shots and other interventions that aren’t necessary or beneficial—look at infant and maternal mortality rates in the US, “Despite spending two and half times more per person on health than the OECD average, the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. increased from 12 to 14 deaths per 100,000 live births from 1990 to 2015, putting the United States at 46th in the world.” from the Wilson Center website). Or they weren’t all due to government intervention but other factors—education by nonprofits, cultural changes such as hygiene practices, and so on.
I was from a rather poor family and we probably didn’t go to the doctor but very few times in my entire 17 years at home. One time my mother took my sister to the doctor because she had been coughing and coughing and was having trouble breathing and he said we need to put her in the hospital. She has pneumonia and my mother went to the pharmacist and got some medicine and brought her home. She lived long past that illness.
Here’s a scenario, it’s morning, parents are rushing around getting ready for work, oops, no time to feed the kids a healthy breakfast or pack a lunch, hey kids, just catch breakfast at school. Phew, one less thing to worry about. Lucky parents, one fewer responsibility.
I’m 100% positive the breakfasts are healthy and delicious too. Not!!!
My opinion: double the salaries for men and let the moms stay at home. Mom used to make wonderful lunches for their kids, and everything was always organic and homemade from scratch.
There are probably a few out there, but many parents are both working fulltime low pay jobs just to live. Shoot, a 1 bdrm apartment here in Central FL is $1400/mo. No way you can survive these days without working all the time just to pay to live.
Inflation and high costs partly because of taxes are big contributors. The more the cost of living goes up the more people will clamor for government intervention so imo it’s by design at least partly.
I dont like feeding kids at school on tax payer dolalrs….. but honestly I do not think this is how it is. Its people living on McDonalds salaries or those who work at say a clothing store etc. Fill in a low income job.
But you failed to mention that the lowest wage an employer can pay is $20 an hour. These are the reasons that some of the people are illegally coming across our border.
Ppl don't understand simple economics!! Good grief. Raising income raises costs. Printing money makes money worthless unless you only print at much as you have gold in the bank to back it up. Period. It's history for 1000s of years.
That is fair....and sadly, it is often the case that school is the only "square" meal kids get in a day, and most schools serve a lot of garbage....but garbage food is better than no food ultimately.
3 meals a day in some areas of CA, year around, and not just kids from lower income families. The reports of the quantity of wasted food are outrageous. And of course, no share-zies with the homeless. They have their own NGOs. And the illegals receive cash cards. BTW, due to the food banks, WIC, and many other other government programs, I would bet my house that there are zero hungry kids in CA that are not part of a mentally ill or drug addicted family. Oh wait…. Perhaps those resources could be better spent elsewhere?
When I served on a school board in California, it was reported to me that the kids were throwing their school breakfasts away. They didn’t need them or want them.
Yes, its pretty standard to require kids to take a minimal amount of food that covers certain food groups, whether they eat it or not. The amount of food that is discarded and wasted is mind blowing.
This is what I actually observed for years doing faculty-required cafeteria duty in a Phila suburban middle school. And kids threw the juice boxes on the stairway as they left cafeteria to go to 1st period class.
I question How they determine the supposed need. I have no doubt some children are actually in danger of going hungry but when they throw out numbers like “x thousand children go hungry every day” how do they even determine that?
We lived below the poverty line nearly every year we raised four kids and homeschooled on a shoe string. Who had it better than us? NOBODY!!
No need to feel sorry for homes full of love, laughter, and a stretch. We felt sorry for ourselves at times but God always provided what we NEEDED though many times we did without common things others did like school sports (WHO CAN AFFORD TO PLAY?!) and soda pop (or however you say that), or cable tv, fast food and weekend dinners. We have never owned a new car or furniture. But I did get a new setting machine once! 🙌🏻 And new mattresses "once and for all." 😁
The problem is that they are not just feeding low income students. They are feeding ALL students. In many areas, it is against school policy for a child to bring their own food to school. The government is taking a parent's right to provide for their children. They are conditioning people to expect the government to take care of themselves, one small step at a time, starting in grade school.
An objection I have is that the government is not just helping, but also taking away a parent's responsibility to provide for their child. It is the expectation now that the school will provide the meals for children, not the parents. In my area, during summer vacation and the different breaks and holidays during the year, the school district still provides meals. Now, I am not against feeding hungry children. But if a parent is that poor that they can't feed their child, they are in most cases already receiving money to feed their child through the Food Stamp program. Having been brought up by a single parent who lived through the Depression, I learned as a child from my mother to be very resourceful and thrifty. My mother knew how to stretch her money. But todays low income parents don't have to be resourceful or teach their children to be thrifty. After-all, the responsibility is the government's to provide for their children, not theirs. And if you don't believe me, go to any Walmart on the day the EBT cards have been freshly infused and take a glance at what qualifies as food expenses in the shopping carts.
I worked at a convenience store one summer and the people who paid with food stamps always bought junk food and not only that, bought it at the most expensive place in town instead of going down the street a half a mile to the actual grocery store.
Was unaware of the EBT card-infusions, but in decades past, when food stamps were a "thing", noticed the high-priced items (e.g., Green Giant veg, not store brand) in the carts of the stamp-holders. For me/us, only the store brand.
But but but parents cannot be trusted to provide their kids with a meal that contains officially-approved nutritious ingredients. Mike Obama saw to that over a decade ago.
O-Johnny! Should the education department also put new tires on the cars of low income families so their 8-year olds could get to school safely? And buy jackets for them so they could be warm at school? Every child should have necessities for living, but the government’s job is to protect, not to provide. And the education department’s job SHOULD BE to educate, not endlessly extend their reach to non-educational income streams, like food, to fund their woke garbage and shove it down 8-year olds’ throats. The public school system has reached a cadaverous state and needs to be razed and scraped to make way for private schools and other creative ways to prepare our children to make their way through life knowing their true identity in their Creator, and their purpose.
“Razed and scraped.” Yes! And God indeed has given each of us an identity and made each of us for a purpose. The godless “schools” are not the path to finding it.
I used to do cafeteria duty (by choice, actually). So many students were on 'free and reduced--price lunch" and breakfast. The waste was upsetting to me, Assistant principal pointed out that some children, with Mercedes in their driveway, had joined that program because parents had suffered employment difficulties. Nothing like parents planning for a rainy day. (And I really lost any respect for that principal, too).
This is typical of high income educated people - although the Mercedes could have been leased... I remember reading this years ago - a real eye opener and the writer learned absolutely NOTHING from what happened:
This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps
That sounds about right. I was doing a graduate ‘capstone’ project on why my Latin student population was so heavily skewed to immigrants (i.e, what was it about Latin that immigrant parents but not American parents recognized?). Was required to meet with assistant superintendent before proceeding, was told that I was forbidden to ask how long the student had been in US. In case child/parents were here illegally. Please note—this was in Dec/Jan. 2011.
this used to be termed parental neglect, but now these waifish wards are womb to tomb the responsibility of the Progressive State. Mainstreamed by media, and every grant grabbing grifter to end childhood hunger in America; one out of every 3 children faces food scarcity blah blah blah even while our Ag Lands are under attack, our food is crapified, on and on.
Johnny-O is a classic "reply guy", the internet is lettered with these types. Their responses always have three components: 1) half truths, 2) arguing a point you never made, and 3) arrogant condescension. Reply Guy comments are not meant to advance the conversation but score a cheap burn and show off how smart they are. They do neither but just piss people off and drive away people in their lives.
Vox Day described this phenotype perfectly as the Gamma Male. They are miserable, desperate for attention, and can't understand why no one likes them. Imagine having a conversation with someone face to face who acts like this. Would you want to talk to them again?
Your response Becky was intelligent and thoughtful, but undeserved. Don't waste your time responding in good faith to people who behave like this. I know some people will think this comment is mean, and it probably is. But the truth often is.
Dam, you got me too Jeff C. But even if only throwing pointed daggers into the conversation at times can spur some brighter and constructive persons along (as they are action-oriented doer types) then maybe we "reply guys" can have a positive role at times, and perhaps we occasionally do contribute to the conversation (?)
My! When I was a kid in the 1950's we did not have all these 'programs' and we were not all 'entitled' to anything. You either bought lunch or brought it in a brown paper bag. Most often, I brought lunch ... and my family were well to do mill owners. And I never felt deprived for eating like every one else. And I did not squawk one bit because I liked peanut butter and jellies sandwiches even if they were perhaps not the most nutritious thing a kid could eat.
Also, I wish kids could have gotten jobs like they once did before the Roosevelt mentality mid-20th century began to set in. Learning responsibility and having my own money would not have hurt me one bit. It would have helped.
Hot dogs when I was a kid cost about twenty-five cents. Something like that. Now what to they cost? I don't know because I won't pay two, three or more dollars for a hot dog. And that's where all our 'entitlement' mentality has gotten us ... plus the MIC and perpetual war mongering, government Health Terrorism and Control, with the 'money' inflated away to zilch! Me? I rather have pay your own way and bye-bye Nanny. And besides, kids in the my town? Nobody was starving and looking skin and bones just arrived from the concentration camp. Nobody!
I wouldn't feed my dog the ultra-processed Food Like Substances they give kids in schools and people in hospitals. If it were real food - I'm all for it... but this chemical "stuff" is not food and creates mental and physical problems.
Dreading going on Facebook today, I can just hear my artist friends’ ranting against DeSantis. Jeff, your explanation convinced me you are right, maybe I’ll cut and paste it as a response, giving you credit of course.
One downside, I think people may go after other non-profits though. I have heard rumblings about churches and their nonprofit status.
It’s not just low income kids…her in CO, it’s ALL kids. We already had free and reduced lunch and breakfast for low income kids, but now ALL kids eat free. And most just take a few bites and then toss their meal. It’s a huge expense, a waste of $$, and a waste of food.
Feeding low income kids - what a horrible thing. Maybe those lazy 8 year olds could get a job and feed themselves.
Kids are innocent. I have every sympathy for what adults and government have done to them. Our schools feed kids even in summer when school is out. My point would be that we need to stop funding and expanding a system where “education” takes over as yet another government program to facilitate dependency and dysfunction. It’s a classic argument that conservatives aren’t compassionate, but the truth is that they seek solutions, not endless, painful extension of a problem through enabling it. Build the fence at the top of the cliff. Then you don’t need hospitals at the bottom of it.
During the depression most kids went to school without shoes and I’m sure many of them were hungry. But they learned the basics of education that allowed them to pursue a better future.
Now we’re feeding their stomachs while starving their minds.
Hunger is a great motivator as well...also teaches gratefulness. I don't want kids to go hungry, but no way the gov't should be feeding them. Isn't that what our local churches are for?
I disagree. We need to have some sort of safety net for hungry children. Obviously, the churches didn’t do a very good job or there wouldn’t have been any intervention.
The churches and other organizations did a great job. Government stepped in, taxes increased to cover social programming costs, and church donations a long w donations to other charitable organizations decreased because people believe the government is taking care of people. Not its job. Not in the constitution. The federal government has two jobs. TWO. Protect its borders (so it can protect its people and their freedoms and liberties) and create and preserve infrastructure. That’s it. That’s the job. Shutter the DoE and all of the other BS government entities. The people will provide…they always do.
There was an intervention because the Democrats know how to pull up the heartstrings!
Churches aren't perfect. Churches demanded accountability.
My exact same thought. I went to a country school and there were lots of poor kids there and I don’t remember anyone going hungry.
I was going to say the very same thing!
Truth! And we're feeding them garbage to boot.
Those kids were more loved by parents than government teachers.
Not true in all cases. I taught special education and some of those children were horribly neglected or treated shabbily by their parents. In some cases, I cared about those children much more than their parents.
I have generations of teachers in my family. If course it isn't true in ALL CASES. I also think that gov stepping in to become parents makes hateful lazy parents instead of good ones. Sex education has nothing right about it as it lacks the ability to teach love and only sparks desires to satisfy self by teaching sexual grooming.
Children learn better when they’re a bit hungry. It is a fact.
Another great comment - thanks for sharing.
You were around then?
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Yes that’s also my objection, expanding the role of schools—where does it end? Clothe them (with name brands so they don’t feel left out or demeaned, naturally)? House them? They’re already talking about medical care on schools. At what point does the state take over the children completely, with this creeping expansion?
In the early 90's the Karens of my children's elementary school were soliciting for winter coats for low-income children. But they specified that the coats had to be brand-new. My children were wearing hand-downs and thrift-store winter coats. ???? Instilling in poor children a sense of entitlement.
Exactly! I stopped donating to local causes like “A Gift for Every Child”, in which an ‘underprivileged’ child’s name, age and gift preference was placed on a card on the Christmas tree. They asked for expensive, brand name gifts, things I didn’t buy for my own children. I never thought that a PlayStation was a necessary thing in our household.
And this entitlement mentality has been fostered for at least 30-40 years, so we have a generation of those folks, expecting that ‘someone’ will provide not only their needs, but their wants as well.
Yes, I have seen far too much of this as well. It’s all because of the desire to make sure kids are “not being left out” or “not being made fun of” because they don’t have “what everyone else [meaning the “popular” kids] has.” I wish we could focus the mindset more on not being so superficial and not judging based on possessions. I hate how this all feeds into and encourages that mentality 😕
This is the left’s MO. If everyone doesn’t have something, no one should. Remember the “studies” showing that kids from happy families had an unfair advantage over kids who weren’t? It was a NYT article, and suggested kids from unhappy families should have lower educational standards (hoops and challenges to jump) and be given other advantages like scholarships and such. The left tries to “level” everything but all it does is capsize the ship.
You and I could be good friends, I think!
I’m sure we could! I often wish we could have an in-person coffee. Some of us have so much in common!
🎯! We may already be there!
In my small town everyone knew who was on welfare and the families who were always had the nicest newest bikes for the kids and brand name clothing (among other things) 🤔 Whereas working poor families had hand me downs and thrift store items.
That was me - and to this day I'm still a thrift store shopper and advocate. I've studied fashion and imaging consulting for years and I know how to dress. People always compliment me on my sense of style and they are often shocked when I tell them I shop at thrift/consignment stores. Sometimes I can't believe what people give away or consign. I actually made a business out of it when I decided to owned and operated a ladies consignment boutique for nearly 20 years. I made a pretty good living selling used clothing and accessories so I'm thankful for the experience I received because I was raised as a poor welfare kid. I did not remain on the welfare system - I was on my own from the age of 17 and was an entrepreneur - the thought of having a boss didn't sit well with me at all.
I have many expensive items of clothing - one of my favorite suits is 3-button navy Brooks Brothers suit that I paid $50 for at an upscale consignment store. (It was at least $900 when new.) My suit wardrobe includes Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and many others. All purchased second hand.
At this moment I'm wearing a navy Lacoste polo shirt, some Tabasco khaki shorts and Sperry Top-Siders. All purchased used - but many of which are still with the original tags.
I realized a long time ago, that except for a brief moment, all clothes are used clothes. It's stupid to waste money on brand new designer wear when you can buy the exact same items for like 60-90% off.
Buying "gently worn" used is tougher for men than women, at least in our semi-rural area. Men wear stuff until it disintegrates ... whereas some women think "Oh, I cannot wear that again, I've been seen in it already!" and donate it.
And before y'all label me a sexist for that observation, it was made by my wife and not by me. She has a spiffy wardrobe of quality casual stuff (most looking like it was worn once) bought for pennies on the dollar at thrift shops.
You are not a sexist - you are absolutely right - my husband says the same thing, especially of more rural areas. When we go to the big cities we always source out the thrift/consignment stores and he finds great stuff there, but obviously I find way more, that's just the way it goes. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
Agree. Have wished husband could get the male equivalent of fine clothing I wear from thrift stores. Difficult for a male.
I am not bothered by the “I’ve been seen in it already”’thing but my style and needs change more frequently than my husband’s do.
I appreciate you! Some of us have no style! 😁🙋♀️
Thanks, Fred. More thoughts on this, but won't go into them now. However, in my mind, the same is true for used cars. Only twice in our married (52 years) life have we bought a new car--and then, only because the new car had what we needed (1978 Subaru--still could use less-expensive leaded gas and then, 1987 Ford Aerostar--because with 3rd baby, we needed a larger vehicle, and only the Aerostar [which proved to be something of a lemon] had the leg room needed by a tall husband.
Exactly!!! And good for you for figuring that out. I just bought a pair of embellished Brazilian Rox Jeans at a consignment store that still had the original price tag of $380 on them - I paid $40. Yey!
That’s great and I admire that you have gotten such great finds. I have found that it takes so many visits to the second hand shops and so much time combing through the “junk” that I just don’t have the patience nor do I want to spend the time.
That was my attitude toward yard sales--although thrift shop clothing was much more efficient.
Go to high end neighborhoods and the ones who support Cancer.
Yes--on my return to 'teaching', with need for professional dress, I found the tony Phila suburb Bryn Mawr Hospital Thrift Shop tp be the "once and done". Colleague , envious, remarked on my appearance--how to? Answer: I purchase clothing pre-chosen by women of taste and means.
I actually buy most things online these days. I have done Thrifting, but you're right - that's time consuming and often results in not finding what you're after.
Online I can search for exactly what I'm looking for, and specify if I want "New with Tags,' or the exact color, brand, etc.
I had my luggage stolen in Spain recently. So I had to replace several items.
Told my wife what I needed, and it showed up in the mail.
One of the items was a white Lacoste short sleeve, retails for $110.
Paid $44 (tax and shipping included) for a new one with tags and still with creases, never washed or worn.
That’s awesome (what you needed showing up in the mail not the stolen luggage, of course!).
See, I really need to try things on for the most part so I generally avoid buying clothing online except in very specific circumstances.
I like the way you dress! Preppie all the way! ♥️
It's the age I grew up in. At one time, I owned 3 copies of "The Preppy Handbook."
Today I could easily model for "Prep Persona No. 5: the County Club Years.' Page 192. (Ask me how I know.)
I love that! You used your experience in a positive way and gained useful knowledge and insights. The people on welfare in my town (which was tiny so everyone knew everyone else’s business) were the definition of deadbeats. Didn’t work, didn’t want to work, perpetually on the government dole. While do many around them worked really hard and struggled 😕
It was that perception that made it embarrassing for me to use food stamps and medicaid for my son while I was in college as a single mom. But I did it to give him and me a better future. Not all ppl were deadbeats...I still worked 16-20hrs a week holding down a 20+ hour curriculum. And I paid my loans all back (only borrowed 30k for pharmacy school). Paid back those food stamps and any medicaid he used via taxes many many times over. My caseworker used to tell me she wished she had a hundred ppl like me instead of what she usually deals with. But yeah. An atypical example for sure. Still was embarrassing tho. And I still went without because my income was such I only qualified for a small stipend. I was a lot skinnier then. 😉
Key word, you were embarrassed! It used to be that people that had to take a handout or up, were ashamed. I don’t see that anymore. I see those taking and scamming at the same time, instead of working. And if you are on assistance, I’m thinking nails and eyelashes and cell phones might be a tad expensive for the likes of those people. But apparently, it’s now a sense of arrogant pride.
Why feel embarrassed when your money comes from a nameless, faceless bureaucracy? It was different when, in the past, charity had to be taken from people you knew, and who may not have had much to give. That's the worst part of it.
Exactly!! When it was neighbors there was a sense of accountability. It helped build ties and also keep people honest to only ask for what they needed.
Back then, you got a coupon book of actual "food stamps" which is where the term came from. It took time to count them all out as they came in various denominations like money but they were glued into a booklet. Everyone around you could see what you were doing, knew what it was, and gave the stank eye as you used them. There were no cell phones to own, no debit cards, just checks, cash and credit cards which I didn't have. Even the cashier would glare. I wasn't even buying steaks believe me as I needed meals for a growing boy I bought fruit, vegetables, hamburger, chicken, eggs and milk.
You are the kind of person I am happy to help! It’s meant to be a temporary help not a way of life. I know the reality of generations on welfare from growing up where I did and seeing it first hand, and that’s my objection. The problem with the system is that it is more designed to enable that than give an incentive to get off the program. As your caseworker seemed to acknowledge 😕
I shop at thrift stores. I wear new/like new Chico’s, Talbots and other brands of upscale clothing. I’ve also found some nice antiques. I recently purchased a stapled plate from the 1870’s for a dollar because it was “damaged.” The company made dinnerware for Tiffany.
Most dirt poor, but no one was on welfare. And sharing was eagerly anticipated. Of course, the population was in the low hundreds. I still remember when free food for the poor showed up - most were offended, at least initially. Times have changed.
When you think about the government declaring a “war on poverty” in the 60s and decades later it’s gotten worse not better…
I'm from the government and I'm here to help.... Myself!
My mom used to be a guidance counselor and the kids they gave coats to would lose them constantly because they could just get another one. There's no gratitude or appreciation there.
I stopped volunteering to give Christmas gifts 🎁 to children because parents felt entitled to them.
People donated bikes and other nice toys. I imagine some of those people did without to make sure kids received their Christmas wishes. I gave out many gifts to parents and none of them said a word of thanks. I was shocked.
That’s awful 😕
It was! I thought that people would appreciate that others cared about their children and wanted to protect them from the harsh realities of life. But they just wanted to come in and grab their stuff and go. I think they felt like people that donated stuff were just to be taken advantage of. I don’t know quite how to explain their attitude. I wasn’t the only volunteer that noticed it. Whenever someone does something nice for me or my family, I try to let them know that I appreciate their kindness and thoughtfulness.
Unfortunately when people expect it as their due, this is the attitude you get 😕 My mom participated in a nonprofit that rehabbed houses and rented them to low income people. Some of the people just who had all of their rent paid for just trashed the place 😕 It’s very disheartening.
Nothing teaches gratitude more than going without things that aren't water, meat and veggies, clothing to fit the weather and maybe just a little too thin, and shelter from wind and sun and snow and rain.
Wow! I hadn’t heard that one. But it has all the marks of the truth I experienced. Throughout those years of exposure, I continued (and continue) to believe that “beggars can’t be choosers”. My children’s father was starting/running a high tech business; “salary” was an iffy thing—a paycheck a reason for great gratitude (to be honest—38 years later, that’s still true). Hence, Mama’s sewing machine and the thrift shop.
I stopped volunteering to give Christmas gifts 🎁 to children because parents felt entitled to them.
People donated bikes and other nice toys. I imagine some of those people did without to make sure kids received their Christmas wishes. I gave out many gifts to parents and none of them said a word of thanks. I was shocked.
Our 5 children are all successful adults now.
Way back in the day, we participated in the hedonistic, let's get them all they ever wanted for Christmas. But we came to realize this was misguided.
These days, I'm proud to say that my children who are scattered around the globe, are all my friends. We talk about serious things we laugh about unserious things. but we talk.
Though I did my best as their father, I had no reason to expect that they would turn out so well,. and impress me so much.
Deo gratias.
Fred, you give the credit correctly, where it is truly due.
😩
I believe that all school children in the US should wear uniforms!! So much pressure is off parents and children with uniforms! No wealth or fashion comparing!
No binary and gender garbage. Boys and girls uniforms, period.
The lack of discipline in this country is getting out of hand. Cell phones should be handed in at the beginning of the day too, or simply not allowed!
I agree! My grandchildren were privileged enough to attend a Christian elementary school where they wore uniforms every day. It gave me such an appreciation for the concept of school uniforms.
It eliminates all the stress and competition in the dress area at least. They focused their competition on academic performance which was a great thing!
I wore one for 8 years at a parochial school. Hated it then but I realize what a good thing it was for us.
My daughter wore one at her Catholic high school for high school. It was a true blessing, especially in high school!
Gag! 🙄
I believe that’s actually the objective; train them to look to government for every need/want.
Yup, I think so too, hence my objection. And it’s so easy to convince people this is all okay using the “don’t you care about the children??” manipulative argument 😕
Really? Can you look a 6 year old girl in the eyes and tell her it’s better if she goes hungry? The government shouldn’t help her at all. She ought to go begging to the church for help. I don’t mind paying taxes to feed hungry children. But that’s just me 🙄
School lunches totally suck. It’s not like they’re getting good meals.
No one said don’t feed kids. The DoE is failing and expanding a failure is more failure. The DoE system is broken. That’s the point.
Really? There were other comments saying we should flat out not feed them but I don’t have time too inclination to look for them.
SYFY
MamaApprovedBooks4Kids
5 hrs ago
Hunger is a great motivator as well...also teaches gratefulness. I don't want kids to go hungry, but no way the gov't should be feeding them. Isn't that what our local churches are for?
CathyRN
6 hrs ago
During the depression most kids went to school without shoes and I’m sure many of them were hungry. But they learned the basics of education that allowed them to pursue a better future.
Now we’re feeding their stomachs while starving their minds.
Parents are getting welfare and food to feed plus free meals at school! Hooray parents can sell the food or cards for drugs and sex.
Some parents are the working poor. Not all poor parents are on welfare.
Certainly but i was still paying for others to NOT feed their own. It shouldn't be a gov charity! Gov NEVER GIVES CHARITY. Ppl give. Organizations give to gain...something!
That isn’t what I said 🙄 Please don’t twist my words and interpret them to mean something different from what I wrote. Just because I’m not in favor of this particular solution doesn’t mean I want kids to starve. It’s not a binary choice between schools feeding kids and them not getting fed at all.
There are kids who are homeless too. And need clothes and medical care. What about building dormitories for homeless children and a store so they can get free clothes? And attach a medical center to the school while you’re at it too.
Your rection is exactly what I’m talking about—creeping government control is justified by appealing to people’s emotions and accusing people of being uncaring if they are not on board with expanding government services. Schools are not the only way to get children fed. And government is usually the most wasteful and least efficient way of getting anything done. I don’t want to pay more taxes for this not because I don’t want children to eat, but because I want to minimize government involvement in all of our lives. There is far too much waste, bureaucracy and ultimately less freedom once the government starts to put its tentacles into any aspect of life. For all the taxes we pay, we should have zero societal problems by now, but it seems like the more we pay, the more problems we have.
Btw. When child labor laws were passed, many people felt that the government should not intervene in their children’s lives. Parents wanted their very young children to work 10-12 hours in the mines and factories to help support them.
Of course they thought that, children contributed income to the household and they had to find a way to replace that somehow 😕 The idea was good but as always with the government, implementation was flawed. I wonder how many children subsequently went hungry because their income was suddenly missing from the household? A transition period to allow households to adjust m, or some other way to ease into it, would have been a better idea, but I am sure the people patting themselves on the back for “saving the children” didn’t ever consider that.
OMG 😳 please look at some of those pictures (search child labor) of children in mines and factories.
BTW wouldn’t the churches have fed the hungry children? Surely they wouldn’t let children starve. People say we don’t need government lunches because wonderful church people will feed them. Those 7 year-old children forced to work 10+ hours, 6 days a week, couldn’t have possibly have gone hungry with so many good samaritans in nearby churches to help them.
A society that doesn’t protect and provide for its children doesn’t have (or deserve) much of a future.
What does that have to do with what I said?? Did I say I thought they should be working like that? Why is it that you just react emotionally to those pictures (which I do as well, they’re heartbreaking) but refuse to acknowledge the reality of people’s lives that their children contributed to household income? Stating that truth does not mean I think child labor was a *good* thing. How do you think the parents made up for that income once it was taken away, I ask you again? Maybe the churches did feed them. But then again, do you think churches were equipped to handle a sudden massive influx of hungry people that weren’t there before?? I’m sure they weren’t. You can’t just wave a magic wand and suddenly find a way to provide for large numbers of hungry people. I’m sorry, that’s just completely unrealistic. That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful. This idea of sudden revolutionary change is never not fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences, because no one ever thinks that far ahead since they’re too busy crowing about how wonderful they are for supposedly solving a problem. The virtue signaling and emotion-driven decisions that have not been well thought out inevitably carry with them all kinds of issues downstream that sometimes can be as bad as or worse than the initial problem.
I agree with you that for as many taxes as we pay, we should have zero societal problems. However, please tell me your better solution for feeding hungry school children? I think government intervention is absolutely essential in some areas. One of them is in school lunches for poor children. I think it’s terribly cruel that some people here feel kids do better in school when they’re hungry. These are children -not adults. Although, I don’t think that the schools need to provide 2 or 3 meals a day for them.
Non profits? Churches as mentioned above? A combination of different approaches? Don’t we pay politicians and policy makers big money to come up with these kinds of solutions? Why is it up to me to do that? All I know is, since the government declared a so-called “war on poverty” things have only gotten worse even though we spend more money than ever.
Let me turn the question around to you—why do *you* believe government is the best way to help people? From what I have seen in my life, it’s usually the least effective means of solving any problem.
I also challenge how many children are actually “hungry.” How is that even determined? Do they ask kids? What is the basis for deciding this? And why can’t we just feed the ones who really are hungry instead of allowing those who are perfectly capable of providing meals to their children to freeload off of everyone else if they choose to? That’s my problem with all of these government programs, they use exorbitant amounts of money and only end up helping a small proportion of those in real need. I hear people say “oh well I would rather have the programs available even if some don’t need it and at least some in need will also be helped.” But that is totally ignoring the concept of opportunity cost. Despite what some people seem to think, funds are not unlimited. If we use part of our money to help people who don’t actually need it, then less money is available for people who truly do. I am not okay with that. I’m also not okay with financially supporting a cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy to distribute the funds and services to needy people.
Don’t feel obligated to respond, if you don’t want to take the time. It’s been a very interesting discussion that would be far easier in person than typing out long replies 😕 I am in the middle of a very busy week and I am not sure if I will be able to continue the exchange, as interesting and thought provoking as it’s been. 😕
The government is bloated and there is a lot of corruption. I do believe we, as a society, need to provide for those children that are truly in need.
Anyhow, I have the impression that you’re against any government involvement or intervention to help others suffering in life. I’m for basic safety nets. We aren’t getting anywhere in our conversations since our perspectives about life annd helping others are so different.
I believe life was much worse for many before government intervention. We would probably still have child labor, slavery, poor & dangerous working conditions, pregnant women going without prenatal care and more without government intervention. I’m not saying the government is run by perfect people or that there isn’t a lot of fraud, waste and abuse. I’m comparing life today for poor people compared to life in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.
Thank you for engaging with me. I’ve learned a lot from seeing your viewpoint. 🙂 Hope you have a good day.
I appreciate that. Thank you also and have a good day.
A few more thoughts since I have a minute. We do clearly have different world views. I’m not against any government involvement but I believe it should be a last resort and have safeguards in place to keep it from expanding too much. There were good reforms a century or so ago but now government is overly involved and getting more so all the time. I’ve seen the creeping interventionism across the decades and the overreach. Government is generally the worst option for solving problems. And so it should be used sparingly and judiciously. Which I absolutely do not think is the case nowadays and it hasn’t been so for a while.
I also think people are worse off in many ways now than several decades ago, despite the increased government programs. The cost of government makes it more difficult for people to live on smaller incomes. There are so many taxes and fees beyond income taxes that poorer families struggle more than they have in a long time. And it becomes a vicious circle that keeps poor people living in poverty instead of giving them opportunities to get out. It’s like with the Department of Education. We used to be top ranked in education but the more the government has gotten involved, the worse outcomes have gotten. More government does not equal better conditions. And a lot of the improvements you cited either have negatives to offset them (free prenatal care often means government coercion for shots and other interventions that aren’t necessary or beneficial—look at infant and maternal mortality rates in the US, “Despite spending two and half times more per person on health than the OECD average, the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. increased from 12 to 14 deaths per 100,000 live births from 1990 to 2015, putting the United States at 46th in the world.” from the Wilson Center website). Or they weren’t all due to government intervention but other factors—education by nonprofits, cultural changes such as hygiene practices, and so on.
❤️❤️❤️
I also believe that is the objective - it's in the marxism playbook...
My opinion: we should go back to letting children bring a bag lunch from home.
We need more individual responsibility .
We need less, way less, government nannying .
Seriously, in my small Catholic school, everyone brought their lunch. There was bread and peanut butter if you forgot.
I was from a rather poor family and we probably didn’t go to the doctor but very few times in my entire 17 years at home. One time my mother took my sister to the doctor because she had been coughing and coughing and was having trouble breathing and he said we need to put her in the hospital. She has pneumonia and my mother went to the pharmacist and got some medicine and brought her home. She lived long past that illness.
Medical care? Or forced injection
Well yes that but other things too.
WA state is already putting “health centers” in schools.
Even states like Indiana are trying to expand what schools can offer in terms of medical services.
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Here’s a scenario, it’s morning, parents are rushing around getting ready for work, oops, no time to feed the kids a healthy breakfast or pack a lunch, hey kids, just catch breakfast at school. Phew, one less thing to worry about. Lucky parents, one fewer responsibility.
I’m 100% positive the breakfasts are healthy and delicious too. Not!!!
My opinion: double the salaries for men and let the moms stay at home. Mom used to make wonderful lunches for their kids, and everything was always organic and homemade from scratch.
There are probably a few out there, but many parents are both working fulltime low pay jobs just to live. Shoot, a 1 bdrm apartment here in Central FL is $1400/mo. No way you can survive these days without working all the time just to pay to live.
It’s all part of the collapse of the family. That’s my worry about this. I agree, it’s outrageously expensive to live these days.
Inflation and high costs partly because of taxes are big contributors. The more the cost of living goes up the more people will clamor for government intervention so imo it’s by design at least partly.
Big Mike Obama made sure the breakfasts are (what Army vets call) shite on a shingle.
She/he’s a mess. Wonder if Big Mike forgot on purpose, to not tuck when on the Ellen Show.
Funny story, sometimes my dad would ask mom to make SOS! Gag!
I dont like feeding kids at school on tax payer dolalrs….. but honestly I do not think this is how it is. Its people living on McDonalds salaries or those who work at say a clothing store etc. Fill in a low income job.
But you failed to mention that the lowest wage an employer can pay is $20 an hour. These are the reasons that some of the people are illegally coming across our border.
Ppl don't understand simple economics!! Good grief. Raising income raises costs. Printing money makes money worthless unless you only print at much as you have gold in the bank to back it up. Period. It's history for 1000s of years.
That is fair....and sadly, it is often the case that school is the only "square" meal kids get in a day, and most schools serve a lot of garbage....but garbage food is better than no food ultimately.
3 meals a day in some areas of CA, year around, and not just kids from lower income families. The reports of the quantity of wasted food are outrageous. And of course, no share-zies with the homeless. They have their own NGOs. And the illegals receive cash cards. BTW, due to the food banks, WIC, and many other other government programs, I would bet my house that there are zero hungry kids in CA that are not part of a mentally ill or drug addicted family. Oh wait…. Perhaps those resources could be better spent elsewhere?
Exactly right, Fred!
When I served on a school board in California, it was reported to me that the kids were throwing their school breakfasts away. They didn’t need them or want them.
Yes, its pretty standard to require kids to take a minimal amount of food that covers certain food groups, whether they eat it or not. The amount of food that is discarded and wasted is mind blowing.
This is what I actually observed for years doing faculty-required cafeteria duty in a Phila suburban middle school. And kids threw the juice boxes on the stairway as they left cafeteria to go to 1st period class.
Most likely tasted bad.
Johnny, please see my comment below. Plenty of resources…that’s not the problem.
Oops - above! 😆🤣
If ppl aren't feeding their own children then they should have them taken away. Don't bite me. It's not that simple but yes it's very simple.
At least take away the extra money the government gives them to provide for their children.
This is a Gov lie.
I question How they determine the supposed need. I have no doubt some children are actually in danger of going hungry but when they throw out numbers like “x thousand children go hungry every day” how do they even determine that?
We lived below the poverty line nearly every year we raised four kids and homeschooled on a shoe string. Who had it better than us? NOBODY!!
No need to feel sorry for homes full of love, laughter, and a stretch. We felt sorry for ourselves at times but God always provided what we NEEDED though many times we did without common things others did like school sports (WHO CAN AFFORD TO PLAY?!) and soda pop (or however you say that), or cable tv, fast food and weekend dinners. We have never owned a new car or furniture. But I did get a new setting machine once! 🙌🏻 And new mattresses "once and for all." 😁
Well said. It’s more compassionate to fix a problem than to sustain it.
❤️❤️❤️❤️☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻
Bang on Becky - very well said. Thanks for sharing - I totally agree!
The problem is that they are not just feeding low income students. They are feeding ALL students. In many areas, it is against school policy for a child to bring their own food to school. The government is taking a parent's right to provide for their children. They are conditioning people to expect the government to take care of themselves, one small step at a time, starting in grade school.
An objection I have is that the government is not just helping, but also taking away a parent's responsibility to provide for their child. It is the expectation now that the school will provide the meals for children, not the parents. In my area, during summer vacation and the different breaks and holidays during the year, the school district still provides meals. Now, I am not against feeding hungry children. But if a parent is that poor that they can't feed their child, they are in most cases already receiving money to feed their child through the Food Stamp program. Having been brought up by a single parent who lived through the Depression, I learned as a child from my mother to be very resourceful and thrifty. My mother knew how to stretch her money. But todays low income parents don't have to be resourceful or teach their children to be thrifty. After-all, the responsibility is the government's to provide for their children, not theirs. And if you don't believe me, go to any Walmart on the day the EBT cards have been freshly infused and take a glance at what qualifies as food expenses in the shopping carts.
They shouldn’t be allowed to purchase any junk food. It’s a waste of taxpayer money.
I like WIC better as a program for that reason. Only certain foods are approved. The idea should be sustenance not treats.
I worked at a convenience store one summer and the people who paid with food stamps always bought junk food and not only that, bought it at the most expensive place in town instead of going down the street a half a mile to the actual grocery store.
Was unaware of the EBT card-infusions, but in decades past, when food stamps were a "thing", noticed the high-priced items (e.g., Green Giant veg, not store brand) in the carts of the stamp-holders. For me/us, only the store brand.
But but but parents cannot be trusted to provide their kids with a meal that contains officially-approved nutritious ingredients. Mike Obama saw to that over a decade ago.
I agree, that’s a huge problem.
O-Johnny! Should the education department also put new tires on the cars of low income families so their 8-year olds could get to school safely? And buy jackets for them so they could be warm at school? Every child should have necessities for living, but the government’s job is to protect, not to provide. And the education department’s job SHOULD BE to educate, not endlessly extend their reach to non-educational income streams, like food, to fund their woke garbage and shove it down 8-year olds’ throats. The public school system has reached a cadaverous state and needs to be razed and scraped to make way for private schools and other creative ways to prepare our children to make their way through life knowing their true identity in their Creator, and their purpose.
“Razed and scraped.” Yes! And God indeed has given each of us an identity and made each of us for a purpose. The godless “schools” are not the path to finding it.
Maybe the parents can feed them? You know, like what parents have done for thousands and thousands of year before gubment skools???
I used to do cafeteria duty (by choice, actually). So many students were on 'free and reduced--price lunch" and breakfast. The waste was upsetting to me, Assistant principal pointed out that some children, with Mercedes in their driveway, had joined that program because parents had suffered employment difficulties. Nothing like parents planning for a rainy day. (And I really lost any respect for that principal, too).
This is typical of high income educated people - although the Mercedes could have been leased... I remember reading this years ago - a real eye opener and the writer learned absolutely NOTHING from what happened:
This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/08/this-is-what-happened-when-i-drove-my-mercedes-to-pick-up-food-stamps/
Wow. And no sense of the future, so while the going was good they didn’t prepare for future “not good” times.
I was told by the person administering free lunch program that they are not allowed to verify the household income reported by the parent.
no stigma allowed; we're all equally complicit and served by our government masters. welfare for all
That sounds about right. I was doing a graduate ‘capstone’ project on why my Latin student population was so heavily skewed to immigrants (i.e, what was it about Latin that immigrant parents but not American parents recognized?). Was required to meet with assistant superintendent before proceeding, was told that I was forbidden to ask how long the student had been in US. In case child/parents were here illegally. Please note—this was in Dec/Jan. 2011.
Spanish is a Latin language so Spanish speakers will have a big advantage over black and whites and non-Latinos.
Latin = Medicine & Pharmacy jobs
And legal I should think?
I took Becky’s point as education and food distribution are different goals and mixing is scope creep. Not that feeding kids is bad.
Yes I understood the same.
this used to be termed parental neglect, but now these waifish wards are womb to tomb the responsibility of the Progressive State. Mainstreamed by media, and every grant grabbing grifter to end childhood hunger in America; one out of every 3 children faces food scarcity blah blah blah even while our Ag Lands are under attack, our food is crapified, on and on.
WP William: Always avoid alliteration!
Johnny-O is a classic "reply guy", the internet is lettered with these types. Their responses always have three components: 1) half truths, 2) arguing a point you never made, and 3) arrogant condescension. Reply Guy comments are not meant to advance the conversation but score a cheap burn and show off how smart they are. They do neither but just piss people off and drive away people in their lives.
Vox Day described this phenotype perfectly as the Gamma Male. They are miserable, desperate for attention, and can't understand why no one likes them. Imagine having a conversation with someone face to face who acts like this. Would you want to talk to them again?
https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-socio-sexual-hierarchy
Your response Becky was intelligent and thoughtful, but undeserved. Don't waste your time responding in good faith to people who behave like this. I know some people will think this comment is mean, and it probably is. But the truth often is.
The Reply Guys are trolls who earn a $oro$ payment for every response they generate from their server farm.
Dam, you got me too Jeff C. But even if only throwing pointed daggers into the conversation at times can spur some brighter and constructive persons along (as they are action-oriented doer types) then maybe we "reply guys" can have a positive role at times, and perhaps we occasionally do contribute to the conversation (?)
I don't recall hearing about so many kids needing food in my day or in my kids' day. Why aren't families feeding/taking care of their kids themselves?
Their parents are using the money to buy math and fentanyl and tattoos.
I could only wish they’d buy math! 😬😆
(Sorry, couldn’t resist a bit of fun with the typo! 😁).
My! When I was a kid in the 1950's we did not have all these 'programs' and we were not all 'entitled' to anything. You either bought lunch or brought it in a brown paper bag. Most often, I brought lunch ... and my family were well to do mill owners. And I never felt deprived for eating like every one else. And I did not squawk one bit because I liked peanut butter and jellies sandwiches even if they were perhaps not the most nutritious thing a kid could eat.
Also, I wish kids could have gotten jobs like they once did before the Roosevelt mentality mid-20th century began to set in. Learning responsibility and having my own money would not have hurt me one bit. It would have helped.
Hot dogs when I was a kid cost about twenty-five cents. Something like that. Now what to they cost? I don't know because I won't pay two, three or more dollars for a hot dog. And that's where all our 'entitlement' mentality has gotten us ... plus the MIC and perpetual war mongering, government Health Terrorism and Control, with the 'money' inflated away to zilch! Me? I rather have pay your own way and bye-bye Nanny. And besides, kids in the my town? Nobody was starving and looking skin and bones just arrived from the concentration camp. Nobody!
Correct, daverb. And there was never more than one obese kid in any class, if any obese, and that kid was always named. “Fatty”.
And all the food was organic and homemade from scratch. Kids were much healthier.
I wouldn't feed my dog the ultra-processed Food Like Substances they give kids in schools and people in hospitals. If it were real food - I'm all for it... but this chemical "stuff" is not food and creates mental and physical problems.
Dreading going on Facebook today, I can just hear my artist friends’ ranting against DeSantis. Jeff, your explanation convinced me you are right, maybe I’ll cut and paste it as a response, giving you credit of course.
One downside, I think people may go after other non-profits though. I have heard rumblings about churches and their nonprofit status.
A sleeve of Pop Tarts and a box of battery acid mixed with glucose, I mean, orange juice, is not FOOD.
Don’t forget Carnation Instant Milk, yea, that stuff didn’t sit well on the stomach.
or maybe their parents
It’s not just low income kids…her in CO, it’s ALL kids. We already had free and reduced lunch and breakfast for low income kids, but now ALL kids eat free. And most just take a few bites and then toss their meal. It’s a huge expense, a waste of $$, and a waste of food.
Reading is fundamental, so read it again.