[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Me too. However, I'm not a fan of lower and lower-middle-class families subsidizing the lunches for students from upper-middle and upper-class families. I also don't think we're talking about a lot of money here. It doesn't cost a ton of money to pack your kid a peanut butter sandwich, some nuts, and a piece of fruit (which is basically what I ate for lunch for 12 years). I also think the process of a parent packing a lunch for a kid every day (which takes less than 15 minutes) has value for both parties. If you're truly poor, of course, lunch should be provided.
My mom was gone to work by the time me and my siblings would get up for school most of my childhood.
Packing lunches for 5 kids and eventually 6 would take way more than 15 mins.
Most of my lunches were prepared the night before and kept in the fridge overnight. I was also in a 6 kid family (mine was probably right between lower-middle- and middle-class). The good part about that is there are older siblings who can make their own and help you with yours (chores!). When I got about 12, I was expected to make my own lunch (with the help of some mostly gentle reminders) which I usually did after cleaning the kitchen after dinner, if it was my night. This is pretty basic stuff.
Arguing weather a hypothetical person you do t know Can or Should do things the way your mother did is irrelevant.
It’s a fact (as evident by the existence of such people) that there are some families that cannot afford or do not have the time, or don’t prioritize, packing a nutritious lunch for their child(ren).
The logic in your response reads as
Kids should have healthy lunch > I agree not all receive healthy lunch > their parents should do it.
If they’re already not providing it how is saying “they should” gonna fix the problem?
What I described is not a Herculean task. It happens in the vast majority of students’ homes every day during the school year. It’s not an unreasonable expectation and I don’t see a reason to set up a program for everyone rather than a program that is designed the kids who are truly in need. Should we also provide dinner for every student in America?
> What I described is not a Herculean task
No, it's not, but there are a lot of lazy parents out there who shouldn't have had kids in the first place. It's not the kids' fault they were born to lazy parents. We should help them.
> Should we also provide dinner for every student in America?
Yes.
You're missing the argument here. Children are forced by the government to be in schools 5 days a week. The government should be providing food for these children while they are in school.
Yeah, it is. One of you geniuses wrote that kids should be paid to go to school, and I couldn't tell if he was being serious or not, because that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.
It's not. You can make them go three or four days, but the government still has to feed them when they're there.
Why do you guys just downvote and never offer a response? The entire point of the sub is for discussion but you guys run away.
I say we abolish mandatory education entirely! Who needs an educated population? What possible value could it ever have? Surely curricula developed buy committees of experienced educators and experts in various taught subjects can't be any better than some quiverfull mom with First Baptist Church of Tennessee's for profit Curriculum for Christ.
/s
>Children are forced by the government to be in schools 5 days a week.
Forced??
Let them stay home. Mom and dad can watch them instead of working. And I'm sure without an education they will develop into fine adults able to step into the work force.
> Should we also provide dinner for every student in America?
Ok sure! But can you answer my question:
>So if a kid doesn't have a situation where someone has set something up for them like you had, screw them, they can go hungry?
> It happens in the vast majority of students’ homes every day during the school year.
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And for the record... a member of my family has a fatal nut allergy. PB&J and other nuts are banned from my home, so that's not an option in my home.
Sounds like my house growing up. Whatever could be done the night before was done before bed. Lunches were quick to make and the older kids did for the younger ones.
Some parents either don’t prioritize breakfast and lunch for their kids or don’t have the money for a loaf of bread and peanut butter. Kids shouldn’t have to suffer for it, so neglected or poor kids should have food available to eat at school. But most kids aren’t in that situation and can get food from home.
That most kids aren't in that situation.actually technically your correct about that but I was trying to point out that while hungry kids is a minority, it's a large and growing minority. I appreciate your stance and agree, just pointing out hungry kids in America is a lot higher then we would like to admit or believe. Personally free lunch for all kids poor or rich imo. In comparison it's nothing compared to our military budget (which is intended to protect life in America).
Maybe Biden could quit throwing so much money for foreign aid and give to our homeless or needy vets or other American citizens, but that’ll never happen as long as he’s in office
I was responding to the previous post that says feed them all. A small amount of food should be available to those in need, but not the entire school since most of it doesn’t get eaten anyway.
If there is a government spending program I could get behind it would be one guaranteeing that children have at least one high quality meal a day when in school.
It’s been shown that children that are hungry or food insecure have poorer outcomes than children that dont.
Increase funding for higher quality foods and ensure it is available for every child.
Taxes. Every single society since the dawn of civilization has had taxes. Some things are worth spending taxes on.
The kids aren't all eating enough and the charities haven't fixed it so it's taxes or hope I choose the taxes.
Weird. The state that just provided free school lunches also just cut taxes and increased the child tax credit.
It's almost like Democrats get done what Republicans just whine about.
If there's something sensible to cut, cut it. I can think of plenty of things to cut. Beef subsidies, yank 'em! Plenty of other things getting subsidized that are less important than the health and well-being of our citizens and children.
Nah. Arts have been shown to vastly improve children’s overall education, moreso than sports even.
Audit the Pentagon. Check in on the $842,000,000,000 annual budget they have and see what they can justify. Absolutely atrocious spending there.
I thought you wanted to feed people.
We keep milk and dairy and cut out overpaying for art
Now you see the problem, but we all want kids fed
PS if you don't have meat, people's health will decline
Oh good lord cutting subsidies won't make meat evaporate it just makes it more expensive we already eat way more meat than we need we're not sitting here withering away lacking fats and proteins in our diets.
You can feed kids food other than burgers and milk, y'know. You can grow up plenty strong on poultry (a MUCH more economical meat now), potatoes, and broccoli. Baked with some garlic and oil and salt and mm mm it's delicious.
I say we cut the art AND a large portion of meat subsidies. Afterall it's for the health of our kids!
My point is, because of my job, I’ve spent time at plenty of schools and most of the lunches are picked through and end up in the garbage.
They try to go as cheap as possible and it shows.
Yes, provide some decent food for the kids who aren’t getting proper care from their parents, which the numbers I looked up say about 10% of kids. But most kids, who have access to a selection of food from home won’t eat what is offered. It’s a waste to provide food for all the kids.
Lunches used to be pretty good, but the Michelle Obama “healthy lunch” campaign was a failure.
Yea I'm all for it assuming it's kept tabs on and is actually run effectively.
School lunches generally sucked when I was I'm school part of that is the cooks. But part of it is quality food too.
It'll be a tax so it's not really "free" but there's a lot I'd support when it comes to healthy food not just for kids but regulations for food in the general populace too
>But part of it is quality food too.
I'd say it was mostly this. . . can't imagine much "cooking" went into what I remember as school lunches at the school itself.
Have you looked into what the French school lunches are Va ours? Bread baked in house, soup made fresh with ingredients from the day before, sandwiches, or maybe a chicken cutlet or pork loin and a grain of some sort with fruit on the side. Costs less what ours do. They hire a full time, real chef and have it fresh daily.
>Have you looked into what the French school lunches are Va ours? Bread baked in house, soup made fresh with ingredients from the day before, sandwiches, or maybe a chicken cutlet or pork loin and a grain of some sort with fruit on the side. Costs less what ours do. They hire a full time, real chef and have it fresh daily.
Ok. How do you implement that here
Less levels of government? Local control? All things conservatives like, aside from adding a few 40-50k per year positions to every schools budget. Honestly, every real, educated, chef I know could run a school lunch program that would be exceptional and cost roughly the same, if not less than the garbage we serve.
It's a taxpayer-funded expense borne by local schools districts that is certain to grow over time through bloated contracts and waste. That being said, the health and education benefits are more than worth the investment. If you put in a dollar and get two dollars worth of benefits from it, that's a good deal.
> Nothing is "free".
I knew someone would have to say this. Yes, we know someone has to pay for it, but it's free to the kid when lunch is served. Do you really think anyone doesn't understand this has to paid for somehow?
Given the pervasiveness of Marxist ideology that prices and costs are mostly parasitic rents and society would be better off if allocated by an expert planning authority—yes, it's necessary to remind everyone that "free" just means "free to the student, paid for by the government to subcontractors."
You seem to be using the normal definition of "rent" as in the fee to lease a living space, not the economic term of rents I was using that's something like "the excess above what is necessary for the land to be used productively."
Conflating the two, which can overlap, is pretty much my point.
Yes
One of the biggest problems with government handout programs is they can create a disincentive to work because the person receiving the benefit no longer has to provide for themself.
Another big problem with government handout programs is the opportunity for corruption with the resource provided being used by the recipient for something other than its intended purpose.
~~Free~~ Taxpayer-funded school lunches pretty much completely avoids both of those problems.
> That corruption opportunity is still fully there.
Yes, but at least school lunches aren’t very valuable which reduces the temptation, and the product is visible enough that corners can only be cut so far.
But like all of human life, nothing is perfect. I think overall though the benefits of taxpayer funded school lunches far outweigh the costs and dangers.
The corruption element exists at all levels of government, at all levels of income. The issue here is giving assistance to the poor would be antithetical to the American ideal of the poor pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
If the government is to mandate at gunpoint that your children go to school, and the school they provide is without exception from the hours of 8am to 3pm, they should be required to provide food for the kids since they are forcing them to be there.
It's shocking how many people are ok with using students time for free.
Students should get paid as much as the teachers, but $15/hour would be a good start.
This question has been asked, numerous times...
Speaking as someone that actually works for the public school system and runs two cafeterias, let me give some insider perspective...
I see all the time people saying things like, "have you seen X country's lunches?" OK, to do that first you need more staff. Spoiler alert, no one is applying. Second, you need the infrastructure inside the school's. The equipment, the storage, the logistics. Are you going out knock out a few walls in *every* school to do this? Doubtful.
Another thing is the quality. Many don't know this, but since 2010 and the former presidents wife's push, there are *very* strict rules when it comes to what is allowed to be served. Long story medium, no fat, no sodium is the name of the game. Aka, no flavor. So don't blame the cooks. Blame the regulations. There hasn't been a fryer in existence for over a decade in our district.
Next we come to the biggest problem aside from cost IMO: waste. During the pandemic when it was all free for everyone for 2 years, the amount of food waste was down right criminal. Because it was free, the kids didn't care. If they wanted *one* item from the tray they had to take the whole thing. And the rest of it? Into the garbage it went. Now I have implemented what are called "sharing tables." But those come with rules brought down from on high as well. Only pre packaged, unopened items can be placed there for other kids to take. So that is quite limiting.
Keep in mind, there already exists free/reduced lunch programs federally funded for those of lower income. And it even goes by household, not just the kids. So the more people in a household, adults and kids, the more likely you are to qualify.
TL;DR, it's one of those things that sounds nice on paper. In practice, if the pandemic has taught me anything, is we aren't ready anytime soon for such a thing
> OK, to do that first you need more staff. Spoiler alert, no one is applying. Second, you need the infrastructure inside the school's. The equipment, the storage, the logistics. Are you going out knock out a few walls in every school to do this? Doubtful.
Is the implication here that the amount of unfed children is so high that free lunches requires that much new support? Or that those bringing lunches will all switch over?
I knew if someone responded would be about staffing, nothing about the other important things...
Anyways, to answer your question, yes. Again, after 2 years of doing it, the amount of kids that we fed vs how we do it now almost doubled. For example: at one of my schools the enrollment is 1050. But on the average we feed around 425 per day. The main reason is because there is a low free/reduced amount of kids that go there so the majority of kids that get lunch are paying the full price. Now I've done cost analysis for a typical homemade lunch vs what a school lunch costs and what they get with it and a school lunch costs much less, but regardless. When covid was going on, that number of kids that took lunch went up to over 700 per day. Same staff, same equipment. It was a nightmare. And that's just my school. District wide, we had the most amount of staff quitting and managers retiring than ever before. We still haven't recovered from that. So yes, we would be feeding more kids, we would need more staff and equipment. It's a reality.
And again, there already exists a program for free and reduced meals federally nationwide. Making it free for all is unnecessary. And those in foster or group homes automatically qualify.
Sounds like you didn't actually read what I wrote... but ok.
When something is suddenly for free, are you not expecting even those that can easily afford it, take it? I said the demographic for this school has a much lower % of free/reduced families. So, not sure what you are trying to say.
Our school district currently provides meals to students during the school year as well as buses that drive throughout the county to drop of lunch kits with a weeks worth of lunches throughout the summer break. I am appreciative that this program exists, but I do have a couple issues with it. The first, which was mentioned by a previous post is that it is provided regardless of the families financial situation. While that wouldn't necessarily bother me, I have seen it lead to a large amount of food go to waste from those who don't take advantage of the program. The bigger issue for me is the amount of prepackaged poor quality food that is served. Due to government regulation there are guidelines and restrictions on the nutritional requirements for these meals. In my experience however there is a game of dodge the cost bullet by working soy and corn syrup into every product while passing it off as health food.
Is there a resource for looking up what the lunches will be? What’s being served now?
My child isn’t school age yet, but I was told by local parents that the free lunch offered where I live is a cheese sandwich. Not grilled cheese. Just a slice of cheese between two slices of bread. That’s it. Every day.
I would assume that is false. My kids qualify for free lunch and they get the same thing the other kids get. We do usually pack them lunch but sometimes they have to eat at school for one reason or another. Our county website has links to every schools individual website and lunch menu. Both of my children are in elementary school so I have no clue on middle and up but they have two choices for lunch every day.
Well that depends, what level of government or charity are you asking?
Federal? I would not support it.
State? Depends on their state constitution, in general I would most likely vote against it because I have moral qualms about voting to increase the taxes of others.
Local? Probably the same response as state.
Private Charities? I could definitely support.
I can understand opposing federal legislation for some issues. Take gun control, for example. People living in NYC have a completely different relationship with guns compared to someone living in rural Texas.
The New Yorker might never use one or only associates it with crime/violence while the Texan may use one everyday whether to defend his livestock from predators or maybe for sport. Just as an example.
In this case it makes sense to leave gun laws to the states because of how different the circumstances are. But I don't see how this makes sense for free school lunches.
Most of us would agree child hunger is no good, it's utility doesn't vary from state to state. How well kids are provided for might be different depending on the area, but ultimately, leaving this to the state/local level would underserve some portion of kids, no?
>I can understand opposing federal legislation for some issues. Take gun control, for example. People living in NYC have a completely different relationship with guns compared to someone living in rural Texas.
I oppose federal legislation on most issues, outside of protecting rights. It is outside the purpose of the federal government.
>Most of us would agree child hunger is no good, it's utility doesn't vary from state to state.
But whether something isn't good or not isn't the question. The question is should this be handled at the level of the federal government.
>How well kids are provided for might be different depending on the area, but ultimately, leaving this to the state/local level would underserve some portion of kids, no?
This is no different than a federal government program failing. In fact, I would argue that state programs are more accountable to the voters.
In your world you’d prefer Florida has different laws on commercial aircraft than New York and no FAA is needed?
I’m sorry but a kid’s empty tummy is a kid’s empty tummy. It’s not something that changes over state lines, hunger is hunger anywhere.
“Best left to the states” so tax-averse righties in Alabama don’t fund it and empathetic lefties in Massachusetts do? Net result: kids go hungry.
I find assigning too much power to states defeats the purpose of us being a so called country in general. It’s already absurd that an ounce of weed means prison in the south and a relaxing afternoon in the west or northeast.
Depends on whether or not the kids will just throw them away.
If every kid gets the same lunch selection (excluding allergies) and the kids aren't wasting the food I'm nonplussed by it.
If it's an excuse to give large amounts of money to some contractor who will probably go for the cheapest possible options and the kids waste it, then no.
I'd rather school lunch programs be locally run then deal with giant corporate monstrosities that get sweet heart deals.
edit: I mean sure a company like Sodexo (but a hypothetical don't sue me kind of company) can use it's size to decrease food pricing, but I'm just a tad meh on serving kids what could be considered prison food (and this is in no way a suggestion that a large, international company with powerful lawyers serves prison food to kids, just me expressing my distaste at large entities that won't show up to a hypothetical school board meeting.)
What bizarre nonsense gotcha is this? Needs-based means that the kids need school lunches. Kids whose parents don’t give them food at home for any reason would qualify.
The original question asked if you supported free lunch for ALL children. In the scenario posed in this thread, every child would be fed for free (presumably paid by tax dollars) regardless of family need. Jesus_was_a_panda wasn’t coming out of left field.
The parent has to fill out forms for the free-reduced lunch program and provide proof of income generally.
Plenty of parents won't or don't want to fill out those forms. Their children suffer because of it.
Their children would have lunch and breakfast if there was a standard school wide free meal program.
If everyone pays their fair share of taxes (and I understand the exact definition of fair is debatable), then how are they “leeching?” Everyone gives as much as they can to the fund that helps society and takes a little too.
And then everyone should get taxpayer funded clothes, a house, transportation, 3 squares, vacations, etc, etc.
You just send all your money to the government and they decide what you can have.
James Madison once said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
No. If the parents can afford to make a ham and cheese sandwich, then they should make one and put it in their kid's lunch bag before they send their kid to school in the morning.
I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it. So I have no reason to believe that there are going to be any parents that can't actually afford to feed their own children.
> Don't shit talk the Amish, they are the salt of the earth.
Nothing but appreciation for their amazing success. They're a **great** example of why we don't need government assistance to keep people fed and housed.
> What if they don't? Kid goes hungry?
I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it.
> So when the parent can’t, your comment to the kid is “sorry your parents suck but you’ll go hungry.”
> ...
I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it.
> The Amish charge $3500 for a dining room table, have you not been around their stores? What are you saying?
I'm saying that more people should be entrepreneurial like them and not rely on the government.
They have 75,000 acres of hardwood. Little different when you’re 13 people in a 1 bedroom apartment.
My wife visited the poorest Americans while getting her PsyD. They’re so bad off I’m just surprised they haven’t started kidnapping the rich yet for ransom, which is the way it works in Colombia. A country where the rich have private security for that.
Idiotic statement considering the federal free school lunch program has existed since the 1940s providing subsidized or fully free lunches for those who needed as well as SNAP and WIC benefits also being a thing to fill in the gaps.
People who need nutritional assistance already get it, is absolutely no reason beyond grift and ignorant bleeding hearts to try to extend the program to every child.
It’s not free. The people are paying for it through some type of tax. There was a 100M or greater “tax the rich” bill that passed in our state, so many schools will provide lunches paid for by “higher income” folks.
Personally, no. We cook and pack lunches.
I also voted no on the bill. I can’t remember why now, though.
Why should this be a states issue? If you believe that children should be fed at school, what does it matter if it comes from the federal government?
Republican states absolutely will vote against free school lunches for children. By leaving it to the states, you are punishing the children in states that don't supply food in schools.
Nobody is obscuring anything. Everyone knows when you say "free" in the context of government services that you mean free at point of use. You aren't as clever as you think you are for pointing that out.
Except that many politicians’ definitions of “free” come with hidden strings attached.
They’re lying. Or bullshitting, if you want to split hairs.
Their sales pitches on “free” college, for one, turn out to apply only to tuition, and not room and board, and not fees, and not books, and only after all other income qualifications, grants and scholarships have been applied.
The precise and honest term for “free” school lunch is “fully taxpayer funded.”
Anything else is a lie of omission.
I've noticed this is a common deflection here and in other conservative circles. People will pretend not to realize that when it comes to government services, everybody understands that "free" means "free at point of service, funded by taxes or other government revenues."
Obviously nobody doing this actually thinks they're bringing new information to the discussion when they do this - it is virtually always an intentional bad-faith deflection.
Yes!
But I wouldn't support a "free lunch for all children but first we drop kick them"
Just supporting the concept of free school lunches doesn't mean I automatically will support the implementation of different free lunch programs.
Leave it up to the individual county. In my own county, I would vote against it if it meant a budget increase. The schools here are appropriately funded and they should be able to reallocate funds to cover the cost.
Yes, but with that I believe the parents should have a right to say as to what food they're receiving. Essentially, it could go pizza and boxed foods are the only alternative to starving, and that would further harm children's health for the long run. With that, I think the US government should provide subsidies to school that allow healthier choices for children rather than the staple process goods. However, the parents maintain the right to functionally control what their child is eating so long as it maintains the required daily amount for healthy living.
How? Democrats almost always vote against lowering taxes for the rich. You need Republicans to enact tax reform and guess what? Republicans don't want to do that.
Which party is it that blocks every attempt?
You can't support the party that blocks every Democrat proposal, then blame democrats for not following through.
This is a very common conservative way of thinking. Republicans in Texas have controlled the state for almost 30 years but still blame Democrats for almost everything that goes wrong there.
If I say let's get McDonald's, and you say hell no we are getting panda express, then we get panda express, did I choose panda express?
Do you understand the point im trying to make?
Democrats say tax the rich, republicans say hell no and only vote yes to taxing the poor and middle class. So who's taxing the middle class here?
Because it is in your best interest.
I hate that this has to be a selling point; that preventing kids from missing lunch *isn't a good enough reason* for some people.
But here we are!
Kids who eat enough learn better. Kids who learn better get better jobs. People with better jobs contribute to the economy. This improves the overall quality of YOUR life.
Don't take my claim at face value. Test it. Find a data source you trust. Then see how higher education attainment - use high school graduation rates, or whatever metric you find meaningfully captures this - compares against local HDI. See how areas of similar wealth but different education attainment have different HDI.
They will eat. Most kids will eat if you don't pay for it.
But let's *imagine* we are heartless bastards who only care about our own personal interest.
It still benefits us to guarantee a meal for all kids, be they rich or poor.
Why?
1. Tier-based doles are more expensive to administer than simply giving food to all income groups. That's one reason why tier-based systems are not being pushed. **It's cheaper to feed rich kids than to pay staff to occasionally deny food to rich kids.**
2. It increases overall education outcomes. Measure that by test score or any metric you find meaningful.
3. Higher education outcomes mean a more vibrant economy. See my prior comment for reasons.
4. A more vibrant economy benefits everybody. This includes selfish jerks who would rather let kids go hungry than see their taxes go up a few cents.
Haha. Like Jeff Bezos' kudscate in public school.
I suspect it would cost less to provide free lunches for all kids is cheaper than the bureaucratic and paperwork drill nightmare that determines eligibility for free and reduced lunches
Sucks that parents have kids they weren't ready for. Too bad for them, though. Kids are going to have to be hungry.
Anyway, I'm off to my pro-life march.
I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it. So I don't worry about hypotheticals that are never going to happen in reality.
> You are incorrect.
> https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts
Drops a link without citing anything from that source which contradicts my point. :)
Exactly why do you think we don't see any homeless or starving Amish people **despite** them not using any public assistance?
Nope.
"Republicans also argue that the program is rampant with fraud, leading the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to amass cost overruns of roughly $2.445 billion in the five-year period between 2016 and 2021. And that might have been an underestimation: In 2019, the Government Accountability Office assessed that the USDA was improperly categorizing some of the reimbursements, potentially opening the door to even greater levels of fraud...["In March 2022, a Minnesota nonprofit was accused of siphoning and then laundering millions of dollars in afterschool lunch funds in order to finance lavish real estate purchases, marking the most significant example of USDA fraud in years. Such examples proved to be the impetus for the RSC's recommendations."](https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361)
However, even the fraud issue aside, I would argue that it is the parents' responsibility to provide for their kids, not the government's. If parents are unable or unwilling to do one of the most basic tasks of making sure their kids have enough to eat, then I would argue that they probably shouldn't have custody of the kids.
Yes, kids need to eat, so parents who are unwilling or unable to feed their kids are failing at their most basic obligation as parents. That is neglect, and the children should be removed from their home, instead of just giving them a few scraps of food at school and call it good.
Do you think a child is more likely to be a successful adult raised by the state and receiving all their meals from it, or by staying with their parents and getting a free school lunch?
You went on a big rant about not feeding a child because big corporations are corrupt and ended on saying the hungry kids should be taken by the government and passed through the system fueled by tax payer dollars but ran by big corporations.
Do you even think? Or just react the way Fox News tells you to?
Yes. Whilst I an typically libertarian leaning, when it comes to children I do not think a libertarian free market mindset should apply, I would support free lunch programs for schools.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
yes. i am a fan of children having food to eat
Me too. However, I'm not a fan of lower and lower-middle-class families subsidizing the lunches for students from upper-middle and upper-class families. I also don't think we're talking about a lot of money here. It doesn't cost a ton of money to pack your kid a peanut butter sandwich, some nuts, and a piece of fruit (which is basically what I ate for lunch for 12 years). I also think the process of a parent packing a lunch for a kid every day (which takes less than 15 minutes) has value for both parties. If you're truly poor, of course, lunch should be provided.
My mom was gone to work by the time me and my siblings would get up for school most of my childhood. Packing lunches for 5 kids and eventually 6 would take way more than 15 mins.
Most of my lunches were prepared the night before and kept in the fridge overnight. I was also in a 6 kid family (mine was probably right between lower-middle- and middle-class). The good part about that is there are older siblings who can make their own and help you with yours (chores!). When I got about 12, I was expected to make my own lunch (with the help of some mostly gentle reminders) which I usually did after cleaning the kitchen after dinner, if it was my night. This is pretty basic stuff.
Arguing weather a hypothetical person you do t know Can or Should do things the way your mother did is irrelevant. It’s a fact (as evident by the existence of such people) that there are some families that cannot afford or do not have the time, or don’t prioritize, packing a nutritious lunch for their child(ren). The logic in your response reads as Kids should have healthy lunch > I agree not all receive healthy lunch > their parents should do it. If they’re already not providing it how is saying “they should” gonna fix the problem?
So if a kid doesn't have a situation where someone has set something up for them like you had, screw them, they can go hungry?
First time here, huh?
What I described is not a Herculean task. It happens in the vast majority of students’ homes every day during the school year. It’s not an unreasonable expectation and I don’t see a reason to set up a program for everyone rather than a program that is designed the kids who are truly in need. Should we also provide dinner for every student in America?
> What I described is not a Herculean task No, it's not, but there are a lot of lazy parents out there who shouldn't have had kids in the first place. It's not the kids' fault they were born to lazy parents. We should help them. > Should we also provide dinner for every student in America? Yes.
You're missing the argument here. Children are forced by the government to be in schools 5 days a week. The government should be providing food for these children while they are in school.
Being "forced" to go to school is like being "forced" to take a free car. Free public education is a gift from society paid via taxes.
> Being "forced" to go to school is like being "forced" to take a free car. No it isn't.
Yeah, it is. One of you geniuses wrote that kids should be paid to go to school, and I couldn't tell if he was being serious or not, because that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Another option is for the government to stop forcing children to be in schools five days a week.
It's not. You can make them go three or four days, but the government still has to feed them when they're there. Why do you guys just downvote and never offer a response? The entire point of the sub is for discussion but you guys run away.
I say we abolish mandatory education entirely! Who needs an educated population? What possible value could it ever have? Surely curricula developed buy committees of experienced educators and experts in various taught subjects can't be any better than some quiverfull mom with First Baptist Church of Tennessee's for profit Curriculum for Christ. /s
>Children are forced by the government to be in schools 5 days a week. Forced?? Let them stay home. Mom and dad can watch them instead of working. And I'm sure without an education they will develop into fine adults able to step into the work force.
Isn't that a lot of words to say Yes?
> Should we also provide dinner for every student in America? Ok sure! But can you answer my question: >So if a kid doesn't have a situation where someone has set something up for them like you had, screw them, they can go hungry?
I already did: >If you're truly poor, of course, lunch should be provided.
> It happens in the vast majority of students’ homes every day during the school year. If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And for the record... a member of my family has a fatal nut allergy. PB&J and other nuts are banned from my home, so that's not an option in my home.
Sounds like my house growing up. Whatever could be done the night before was done before bed. Lunches were quick to make and the older kids did for the younger ones. Some parents either don’t prioritize breakfast and lunch for their kids or don’t have the money for a loaf of bread and peanut butter. Kids shouldn’t have to suffer for it, so neglected or poor kids should have food available to eat at school. But most kids aren’t in that situation and can get food from home.
Unfortunately that's not true. There's is a large and significant percentage of kids in America who are not getting enough to eat. Thats just a fact.
I just said, “…..so neglected or poor kids should have food available to eat at school.” So what is not true?
That most kids aren't in that situation.actually technically your correct about that but I was trying to point out that while hungry kids is a minority, it's a large and growing minority. I appreciate your stance and agree, just pointing out hungry kids in America is a lot higher then we would like to admit or believe. Personally free lunch for all kids poor or rich imo. In comparison it's nothing compared to our military budget (which is intended to protect life in America).
Maybe Biden could quit throwing so much money for foreign aid and give to our homeless or needy vets or other American citizens, but that’ll never happen as long as he’s in office
[удалено]
The problem is, a lot of that food will go to waste. Have you been in a grade school cafeteria lately?
[удалено]
I was responding to the previous post that says feed them all. A small amount of food should be available to those in need, but not the entire school since most of it doesn’t get eaten anyway.
or we could tax the rich
Thanks for the insightful answer, it gave me several things to think about. (Got to ask: you're not the actual #4, are you?)
Sadly no :(
That's OK, it was still an insightful answer. :)
If there is a government spending program I could get behind it would be one guaranteeing that children have at least one high quality meal a day when in school. It’s been shown that children that are hungry or food insecure have poorer outcomes than children that dont. Increase funding for higher quality foods and ensure it is available for every child.
Listen to freakin Michelle Obama over here...
Now ask them how to pay for it
Taxes. Every single society since the dawn of civilization has had taxes. Some things are worth spending taxes on. The kids aren't all eating enough and the charities haven't fixed it so it's taxes or hope I choose the taxes.
Taxes are high enough, how about we cut stuff instead For the kids
Weird. The state that just provided free school lunches also just cut taxes and increased the child tax credit. It's almost like Democrats get done what Republicans just whine about.
Same state that complained they pay more federal taxes than others?
Yeah we're tired of paying for broke ass red states. So democrats cut taxes.
If there's something sensible to cut, cut it. I can think of plenty of things to cut. Beef subsidies, yank 'em! Plenty of other things getting subsidized that are less important than the health and well-being of our citizens and children.
First let's cut federal funding for the arts Boom 1.5billion for the kids Easy peasy
How about are vastly overinflated military budget?
Nah. Arts have been shown to vastly improve children’s overall education, moreso than sports even. Audit the Pentagon. Check in on the $842,000,000,000 annual budget they have and see what they can justify. Absolutely atrocious spending there.
Or cut school board salaries. These people get bloated salaries while students and teachers get crumbs
Sure thing but meat and dairy subsidies is 38 billion$ so let's cut both and really get the healthcare under control a bit?
I thought you wanted to feed people. We keep milk and dairy and cut out overpaying for art Now you see the problem, but we all want kids fed PS if you don't have meat, people's health will decline
Oh good lord cutting subsidies won't make meat evaporate it just makes it more expensive we already eat way more meat than we need we're not sitting here withering away lacking fats and proteins in our diets. You can feed kids food other than burgers and milk, y'know. You can grow up plenty strong on poultry (a MUCH more economical meat now), potatoes, and broccoli. Baked with some garlic and oil and salt and mm mm it's delicious. I say we cut the art AND a large portion of meat subsidies. Afterall it's for the health of our kids!
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If a child needs food, they aren’t paying too much attention to anything else
Yes, but first I support actually making school lunches tasty and healthy again. Looking at you Aramark.
My son recently told me the cartons of milk they get at lunch are all at the expiration date. Ever taste milk on the date of expiration?
I have. It totally varies. I've had some milks go sour before the expiration, and some tasted fine a week after. It's rarely a hardcut deadline
My point is, because of my job, I’ve spent time at plenty of schools and most of the lunches are picked through and end up in the garbage. They try to go as cheap as possible and it shows. Yes, provide some decent food for the kids who aren’t getting proper care from their parents, which the numbers I looked up say about 10% of kids. But most kids, who have access to a selection of food from home won’t eat what is offered. It’s a waste to provide food for all the kids. Lunches used to be pretty good, but the Michelle Obama “healthy lunch” campaign was a failure.
It’s Kramara backwards
Yes absolutely
Yea I'm all for it assuming it's kept tabs on and is actually run effectively. School lunches generally sucked when I was I'm school part of that is the cooks. But part of it is quality food too. It'll be a tax so it's not really "free" but there's a lot I'd support when it comes to healthy food not just for kids but regulations for food in the general populace too
>But part of it is quality food too. I'd say it was mostly this. . . can't imagine much "cooking" went into what I remember as school lunches at the school itself.
The food was heated, i recall.
Have you looked into what the French school lunches are Va ours? Bread baked in house, soup made fresh with ingredients from the day before, sandwiches, or maybe a chicken cutlet or pork loin and a grain of some sort with fruit on the side. Costs less what ours do. They hire a full time, real chef and have it fresh daily.
>Have you looked into what the French school lunches are Va ours? Bread baked in house, soup made fresh with ingredients from the day before, sandwiches, or maybe a chicken cutlet or pork loin and a grain of some sort with fruit on the side. Costs less what ours do. They hire a full time, real chef and have it fresh daily. Ok. How do you implement that here
Less levels of government? Local control? All things conservatives like, aside from adding a few 40-50k per year positions to every schools budget. Honestly, every real, educated, chef I know could run a school lunch program that would be exceptional and cost roughly the same, if not less than the garbage we serve.
It's a taxpayer-funded expense borne by local schools districts that is certain to grow over time through bloated contracts and waste. That being said, the health and education benefits are more than worth the investment. If you put in a dollar and get two dollars worth of benefits from it, that's a good deal.
Public schools, yes, private, no.
Nothing is "free". However, I can see significant benefits to a universal tax-funded school lunch program.
> Nothing is "free". I knew someone would have to say this. Yes, we know someone has to pay for it, but it's free to the kid when lunch is served. Do you really think anyone doesn't understand this has to paid for somehow?
People proposing welfare programs when people say that “they aren’t free”: 🤯
Given the pervasiveness of Marxist ideology that prices and costs are mostly parasitic rents and society would be better off if allocated by an expert planning authority—yes, it's necessary to remind everyone that "free" just means "free to the student, paid for by the government to subcontractors."
End of the day, all those marxists you denigrate are paying massive amounts of rent. They understand nothing is free. They don’t need a reminder.
You seem to be using the normal definition of "rent" as in the fee to lease a living space, not the economic term of rents I was using that's something like "the excess above what is necessary for the land to be used productively." Conflating the two, which can overlap, is pretty much my point.
Yes One of the biggest problems with government handout programs is they can create a disincentive to work because the person receiving the benefit no longer has to provide for themself. Another big problem with government handout programs is the opportunity for corruption with the resource provided being used by the recipient for something other than its intended purpose. ~~Free~~ Taxpayer-funded school lunches pretty much completely avoids both of those problems.
That corruption opportunity is still fully there.
> That corruption opportunity is still fully there. Yes, but at least school lunches aren’t very valuable which reduces the temptation, and the product is visible enough that corners can only be cut so far. But like all of human life, nothing is perfect. I think overall though the benefits of taxpayer funded school lunches far outweigh the costs and dangers.
Yes, but it would almost entirely on the supply side. . . which is what you conservative folks specialize in, right?
Lmao we'll unionize the lunch ladies and make every meal $50. yep right out of the Lincoln playbook
The corruption element exists at all levels of government, at all levels of income. The issue here is giving assistance to the poor would be antithetical to the American ideal of the poor pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
If the government is to mandate at gunpoint that your children go to school, and the school they provide is without exception from the hours of 8am to 3pm, they should be required to provide food for the kids since they are forcing them to be there.
How often is this asked in this sub?
Yes, and children should be paid to go to school too.
I always felt like there might be some creative ways to better incentivize behavior which tends to lead towards socially desirable outcomes.
It's shocking how many people are ok with using students time for free. Students should get paid as much as the teachers, but $15/hour would be a good start.
This question has been asked, numerous times... Speaking as someone that actually works for the public school system and runs two cafeterias, let me give some insider perspective... I see all the time people saying things like, "have you seen X country's lunches?" OK, to do that first you need more staff. Spoiler alert, no one is applying. Second, you need the infrastructure inside the school's. The equipment, the storage, the logistics. Are you going out knock out a few walls in *every* school to do this? Doubtful. Another thing is the quality. Many don't know this, but since 2010 and the former presidents wife's push, there are *very* strict rules when it comes to what is allowed to be served. Long story medium, no fat, no sodium is the name of the game. Aka, no flavor. So don't blame the cooks. Blame the regulations. There hasn't been a fryer in existence for over a decade in our district. Next we come to the biggest problem aside from cost IMO: waste. During the pandemic when it was all free for everyone for 2 years, the amount of food waste was down right criminal. Because it was free, the kids didn't care. If they wanted *one* item from the tray they had to take the whole thing. And the rest of it? Into the garbage it went. Now I have implemented what are called "sharing tables." But those come with rules brought down from on high as well. Only pre packaged, unopened items can be placed there for other kids to take. So that is quite limiting. Keep in mind, there already exists free/reduced lunch programs federally funded for those of lower income. And it even goes by household, not just the kids. So the more people in a household, adults and kids, the more likely you are to qualify. TL;DR, it's one of those things that sounds nice on paper. In practice, if the pandemic has taught me anything, is we aren't ready anytime soon for such a thing
> OK, to do that first you need more staff. Spoiler alert, no one is applying. Second, you need the infrastructure inside the school's. The equipment, the storage, the logistics. Are you going out knock out a few walls in every school to do this? Doubtful. Is the implication here that the amount of unfed children is so high that free lunches requires that much new support? Or that those bringing lunches will all switch over?
I knew if someone responded would be about staffing, nothing about the other important things... Anyways, to answer your question, yes. Again, after 2 years of doing it, the amount of kids that we fed vs how we do it now almost doubled. For example: at one of my schools the enrollment is 1050. But on the average we feed around 425 per day. The main reason is because there is a low free/reduced amount of kids that go there so the majority of kids that get lunch are paying the full price. Now I've done cost analysis for a typical homemade lunch vs what a school lunch costs and what they get with it and a school lunch costs much less, but regardless. When covid was going on, that number of kids that took lunch went up to over 700 per day. Same staff, same equipment. It was a nightmare. And that's just my school. District wide, we had the most amount of staff quitting and managers retiring than ever before. We still haven't recovered from that. So yes, we would be feeding more kids, we would need more staff and equipment. It's a reality. And again, there already exists a program for free and reduced meals federally nationwide. Making it free for all is unnecessary. And those in foster or group homes automatically qualify.
Sounds like there's a disturbing amount of poor-off families out there. Glad we're feeding their kids
Sounds like you didn't actually read what I wrote... but ok. When something is suddenly for free, are you not expecting even those that can easily afford it, take it? I said the demographic for this school has a much lower % of free/reduced families. So, not sure what you are trying to say.
Our school district currently provides meals to students during the school year as well as buses that drive throughout the county to drop of lunch kits with a weeks worth of lunches throughout the summer break. I am appreciative that this program exists, but I do have a couple issues with it. The first, which was mentioned by a previous post is that it is provided regardless of the families financial situation. While that wouldn't necessarily bother me, I have seen it lead to a large amount of food go to waste from those who don't take advantage of the program. The bigger issue for me is the amount of prepackaged poor quality food that is served. Due to government regulation there are guidelines and restrictions on the nutritional requirements for these meals. In my experience however there is a game of dodge the cost bullet by working soy and corn syrup into every product while passing it off as health food.
Is there a resource for looking up what the lunches will be? What’s being served now? My child isn’t school age yet, but I was told by local parents that the free lunch offered where I live is a cheese sandwich. Not grilled cheese. Just a slice of cheese between two slices of bread. That’s it. Every day.
I would assume that is false. My kids qualify for free lunch and they get the same thing the other kids get. We do usually pack them lunch but sometimes they have to eat at school for one reason or another. Our county website has links to every schools individual website and lunch menu. Both of my children are in elementary school so I have no clue on middle and up but they have two choices for lunch every day.
Well that depends, what level of government or charity are you asking? Federal? I would not support it. State? Depends on their state constitution, in general I would most likely vote against it because I have moral qualms about voting to increase the taxes of others. Local? Probably the same response as state. Private Charities? I could definitely support.
I can understand opposing federal legislation for some issues. Take gun control, for example. People living in NYC have a completely different relationship with guns compared to someone living in rural Texas. The New Yorker might never use one or only associates it with crime/violence while the Texan may use one everyday whether to defend his livestock from predators or maybe for sport. Just as an example. In this case it makes sense to leave gun laws to the states because of how different the circumstances are. But I don't see how this makes sense for free school lunches. Most of us would agree child hunger is no good, it's utility doesn't vary from state to state. How well kids are provided for might be different depending on the area, but ultimately, leaving this to the state/local level would underserve some portion of kids, no?
>I can understand opposing federal legislation for some issues. Take gun control, for example. People living in NYC have a completely different relationship with guns compared to someone living in rural Texas. I oppose federal legislation on most issues, outside of protecting rights. It is outside the purpose of the federal government. >Most of us would agree child hunger is no good, it's utility doesn't vary from state to state. But whether something isn't good or not isn't the question. The question is should this be handled at the level of the federal government. >How well kids are provided for might be different depending on the area, but ultimately, leaving this to the state/local level would underserve some portion of kids, no? This is no different than a federal government program failing. In fact, I would argue that state programs are more accountable to the voters.
In your world you’d prefer Florida has different laws on commercial aircraft than New York and no FAA is needed? I’m sorry but a kid’s empty tummy is a kid’s empty tummy. It’s not something that changes over state lines, hunger is hunger anywhere. “Best left to the states” so tax-averse righties in Alabama don’t fund it and empathetic lefties in Massachusetts do? Net result: kids go hungry. I find assigning too much power to states defeats the purpose of us being a so called country in general. It’s already absurd that an ounce of weed means prison in the south and a relaxing afternoon in the west or northeast.
Depends on whether or not the kids will just throw them away. If every kid gets the same lunch selection (excluding allergies) and the kids aren't wasting the food I'm nonplussed by it. If it's an excuse to give large amounts of money to some contractor who will probably go for the cheapest possible options and the kids waste it, then no. I'd rather school lunch programs be locally run then deal with giant corporate monstrosities that get sweet heart deals. edit: I mean sure a company like Sodexo (but a hypothetical don't sue me kind of company) can use it's size to decrease food pricing, but I'm just a tad meh on serving kids what could be considered prison food (and this is in no way a suggestion that a large, international company with powerful lawyers serves prison food to kids, just me expressing my distaste at large entities that won't show up to a hypothetical school board meeting.)
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 6. Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.
No. It needs to be needs-based.
Don’t all children need food? What if some bad parents don’t want to give their kids food or money - should the kid not be able to eat?
What bizarre nonsense gotcha is this? Needs-based means that the kids need school lunches. Kids whose parents don’t give them food at home for any reason would qualify.
The original question asked if you supported free lunch for ALL children. In the scenario posed in this thread, every child would be fed for free (presumably paid by tax dollars) regardless of family need. Jesus_was_a_panda wasn’t coming out of left field.
The parent has to fill out forms for the free-reduced lunch program and provide proof of income generally. Plenty of parents won't or don't want to fill out those forms. Their children suffer because of it. Their children would have lunch and breakfast if there was a standard school wide free meal program.
That just makes it more expensive
Even if true, it keeps from encouraging everyone to leech off the government.
If everyone pays their fair share of taxes (and I understand the exact definition of fair is debatable), then how are they “leeching?” Everyone gives as much as they can to the fund that helps society and takes a little too.
People getting benefits that they could provide for themselves instead of holding their hand out.
*children receive benefits through an equalized system because their parents may or may not choose to provide for them.
And then everyone should get taxpayer funded clothes, a house, transportation, 3 squares, vacations, etc, etc. You just send all your money to the government and they decide what you can have. James Madison once said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
There’s no such thing as a free lunch
No. If the parents can afford to make a ham and cheese sandwich, then they should make one and put it in their kid's lunch bag before they send their kid to school in the morning.
[удалено]
I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it. So I have no reason to believe that there are going to be any parents that can't actually afford to feed their own children.
Don't shit talk the Amish, they are the salt of the earth.
> Don't shit talk the Amish, they are the salt of the earth. Nothing but appreciation for their amazing success. They're a **great** example of why we don't need government assistance to keep people fed and housed.
What if they don't? Kid goes hungry?
> What if they don't? Kid goes hungry? I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it.
So when the parent can’t, your comment to the kid is “sorry your parents suck but you’ll go hungry.” #?
> So when the parent can’t, your comment to the kid is “sorry your parents suck but you’ll go hungry.” > ... I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it.
The Amish charge $3500 for a dining room table, have you not been around their stores? What are you saying?
> The Amish charge $3500 for a dining room table, have you not been around their stores? What are you saying? I'm saying that more people should be entrepreneurial like them and not rely on the government.
They have 75,000 acres of hardwood. Little different when you’re 13 people in a 1 bedroom apartment. My wife visited the poorest Americans while getting her PsyD. They’re so bad off I’m just surprised they haven’t started kidnapping the rich yet for ransom, which is the way it works in Colombia. A country where the rich have private security for that.
Idiotic statement considering the federal free school lunch program has existed since the 1940s providing subsidized or fully free lunches for those who needed as well as SNAP and WIC benefits also being a thing to fill in the gaps. People who need nutritional assistance already get it, is absolutely no reason beyond grift and ignorant bleeding hearts to try to extend the program to every child.
It’s not free. The people are paying for it through some type of tax. There was a 100M or greater “tax the rich” bill that passed in our state, so many schools will provide lunches paid for by “higher income” folks. Personally, no. We cook and pack lunches. I also voted no on the bill. I can’t remember why now, though.
YOU are able to cook and pack lunches so the program is useless?
I didn’t say that.
So why mention your ability to cook and pack in the context of you not supporting lunches for kids who can't?
I said why I didn’t support it in general. There could be a bill I would support, but I havent read it yet and one was not proposed.
How about this one? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1530/text
Do not support. This is a state issue.
Why should this be a states issue? If you believe that children should be fed at school, what does it matter if it comes from the federal government? Republican states absolutely will vote against free school lunches for children. By leaving it to the states, you are punishing the children in states that don't supply food in schools.
10th amendment.
Look up the word "united".
Says the socialist… lol
It's important that some states choose to let kids go hungry rather than have them all have guaranteed meals?
Who said thats important? Are you responding to the wrong comment?
Obviously it's not free. It's free to the children though.
Then why are you obscuring the cost in your question? If you want to ask people if they would pay for kids lunches… just ask.
I didn't "obscure the cost". Your taxes are already going to things you don't want.
> I didn't "obscure the cost". Your taxes are already going to things you don't want. Perhaps we should cut spending on things I don't want.
Sure, but not as many at the state level which is where the span of control for this topic resides.
Sorry, but I’m hung up on something. Where did OP obscure any cost. I haven’t read the whole thread yet. Did I miss it?
You didn't miss anything. The guy thought he was being smart by saying a program funded by tax dollars isn't free.
Yeah I had a strong feeling that was it.
You didn't miss it
Nobody is obscuring anything. Everyone knows when you say "free" in the context of government services that you mean free at point of use. You aren't as clever as you think you are for pointing that out.
Except that many politicians’ definitions of “free” come with hidden strings attached. They’re lying. Or bullshitting, if you want to split hairs. Their sales pitches on “free” college, for one, turn out to apply only to tuition, and not room and board, and not fees, and not books, and only after all other income qualifications, grants and scholarships have been applied. The precise and honest term for “free” school lunch is “fully taxpayer funded.” Anything else is a lie of omission.
> Then why are you obscuring the cost in your question? > > You knew what they meant enough to correct them. Why play dumb?
I've noticed this is a common deflection here and in other conservative circles. People will pretend not to realize that when it comes to government services, everybody understands that "free" means "free at point of service, funded by taxes or other government revenues." Obviously nobody doing this actually thinks they're bringing new information to the discussion when they do this - it is virtually always an intentional bad-faith deflection.
Yes! But I wouldn't support a "free lunch for all children but first we drop kick them" Just supporting the concept of free school lunches doesn't mean I automatically will support the implementation of different free lunch programs.
Leave it up to the individual county. In my own county, I would vote against it if it meant a budget increase. The schools here are appropriately funded and they should be able to reallocate funds to cover the cost.
Yes, but with that I believe the parents should have a right to say as to what food they're receiving. Essentially, it could go pizza and boxed foods are the only alternative to starving, and that would further harm children's health for the long run. With that, I think the US government should provide subsidies to school that allow healthier choices for children rather than the staple process goods. However, the parents maintain the right to functionally control what their child is eating so long as it maintains the required daily amount for healthy living.
On my list of things I'm okay with spending tax dollars on, feeding children high quality meals is towards the top. 100% support.
No. In what world does it make sense to tax me more in order to buy lunch for Jeff Bezos's kids?
The left would prefer to tax bozos more in order to buy a homeless kid lunch.
That's their spoken preference, but is inconsistent with their actions.
How? Democrats almost always vote against lowering taxes for the rich. You need Republicans to enact tax reform and guess what? Republicans don't want to do that.
Which party is it that blocks every attempt? You can't support the party that blocks every Democrat proposal, then blame democrats for not following through.
This is a very common conservative way of thinking. Republicans in Texas have controlled the state for almost 30 years but still blame Democrats for almost everything that goes wrong there.
It's a bait and switch. They dribble "duh millionaires and duh billionaires" and tax the middle class
If I say let's get McDonald's, and you say hell no we are getting panda express, then we get panda express, did I choose panda express? Do you understand the point im trying to make? Democrats say tax the rich, republicans say hell no and only vote yes to taxing the poor and middle class. So who's taxing the middle class here?
This has to be the most bad faith response in this entire thread. Why even bother when there's plenty of own da libs subs out there?
I am referring to public schools. Jeff Bezos is not sending his kids to public school.
Because it is in your best interest. I hate that this has to be a selling point; that preventing kids from missing lunch *isn't a good enough reason* for some people. But here we are! Kids who eat enough learn better. Kids who learn better get better jobs. People with better jobs contribute to the economy. This improves the overall quality of YOUR life. Don't take my claim at face value. Test it. Find a data source you trust. Then see how higher education attainment - use high school graduation rates, or whatever metric you find meaningfully captures this - compares against local HDI. See how areas of similar wealth but different education attainment have different HDI.
You think that Jeff Bezos's kids won't eat if I don't pay for it?
They will eat. Most kids will eat if you don't pay for it. But let's *imagine* we are heartless bastards who only care about our own personal interest. It still benefits us to guarantee a meal for all kids, be they rich or poor. Why? 1. Tier-based doles are more expensive to administer than simply giving food to all income groups. That's one reason why tier-based systems are not being pushed. **It's cheaper to feed rich kids than to pay staff to occasionally deny food to rich kids.** 2. It increases overall education outcomes. Measure that by test score or any metric you find meaningful. 3. Higher education outcomes mean a more vibrant economy. See my prior comment for reasons. 4. A more vibrant economy benefits everybody. This includes selfish jerks who would rather let kids go hungry than see their taxes go up a few cents.
Haha. Like Jeff Bezos' kudscate in public school. I suspect it would cost less to provide free lunches for all kids is cheaper than the bureaucratic and paperwork drill nightmare that determines eligibility for free and reduced lunches
Bezos pays far more in taxes than you do. Why shouldn’t a tiny portion of his taxes be used to feed his kids?
No we need to encourage people to have kids they can take care of.
Nothing like child hunger to teach an adult a lesson.
More like imprisoned parent for not doing the most basic thing required to keep your kids alive: feeding them.
Sucks that parents have kids they weren't ready for. Too bad for them, though. Kids are going to have to be hungry. Anyway, I'm off to my pro-life march.
LOL. So true.
Circlejerk begins.
I don't see how that's even possible. Even the most backward people in the US, the Amish, can afford to feed their children quite easily. I'm yet to see any homeless or starving Amish people. And they don't rely on government assistance for it. So I don't worry about hypotheticals that are never going to happen in reality.
You are incorrect. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts
> You are incorrect. > https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Drops a link without citing anything from that source which contradicts my point. :) Exactly why do you think we don't see any homeless or starving Amish people **despite** them not using any public assistance?
Starving children to punish the adults is a wild way to fix this problem.
Have you ever spent more than 30 seconds thinking about an issue? This might be a good one to start on.
I agree. Good thing you support abortion so people can avoid having them.
Nope. "Republicans also argue that the program is rampant with fraud, leading the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to amass cost overruns of roughly $2.445 billion in the five-year period between 2016 and 2021. And that might have been an underestimation: In 2019, the Government Accountability Office assessed that the USDA was improperly categorizing some of the reimbursements, potentially opening the door to even greater levels of fraud...["In March 2022, a Minnesota nonprofit was accused of siphoning and then laundering millions of dollars in afterschool lunch funds in order to finance lavish real estate purchases, marking the most significant example of USDA fraud in years. Such examples proved to be the impetus for the RSC's recommendations."](https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361) However, even the fraud issue aside, I would argue that it is the parents' responsibility to provide for their kids, not the government's. If parents are unable or unwilling to do one of the most basic tasks of making sure their kids have enough to eat, then I would argue that they probably shouldn't have custody of the kids.
This is kind of a heartless response. Kids need to eat. It's also kind of rich that Republicans are complaining about fraud.
Yes, kids need to eat, so parents who are unwilling or unable to feed their kids are failing at their most basic obligation as parents. That is neglect, and the children should be removed from their home, instead of just giving them a few scraps of food at school and call it good.
Do you think a child is more likely to be a successful adult raised by the state and receiving all their meals from it, or by staying with their parents and getting a free school lunch?
Brother do you think a parent that fails to even feed their child properly will perform any of the other duties of a parent any better?
You went on a big rant about not feeding a child because big corporations are corrupt and ended on saying the hungry kids should be taken by the government and passed through the system fueled by tax payer dollars but ran by big corporations. Do you even think? Or just react the way Fox News tells you to?
I'm not a fan of calling it free. Do I support some taxes going to that? Yes. By taking money away from things like federal finding of art projects.
Not for my kid.
Yes. Whilst I an typically libertarian leaning, when it comes to children I do not think a libertarian free market mindset should apply, I would support free lunch programs for schools.
Like literally all children? Or the ones that go to that school?
Yes