1. I didn't say any kids should work for their lunches. I said that kids learning the meaning of TANSTAAFL is a good thing.
2. Further on in this thread, I said the parents should work for the "free" lunches, thereby teaching THEM about TANSTAAFL, as well.
We have a dropout rate in this country that is just alarming. These young adults sometimes aren't even qualified to flip hamburgers at a fastfood joints yet start families.
The talk about the rich versus poor in your comments and others in this thread are unfair. Anyone who is rich is someone who has more that you. The man/woman who spends several years achieveing a degree will obviously make more money than the one that couldn't finish high school.
The couple that put his/her lives on hold to have a family until they could afford it is going to be more financially prepared than the one who decided to become a single parent mother. Sure there are other scenarios that come into play where people because of no wrong of their own find themselves in need. But the majority that we are dealing with today who solely rely on welfare are single moms. They make up the majority of those who are classified as poor in this country.
Now these kids early on are taught that other folks are "suppose" to take care of them. Those with more are "suppose" to provide for them even though they invested time, money and hard work in his/herself and his mama didn't. Who better needs to learn a life lesson of personal responsibility? The one that makes more in income because he/she made all the right choices or the one that doesn't understand what personal responsibility means?
If someone can come up with programs to teach these kids there is no such thing as a free lunch because someone has to pay for them, would benefit society greatly.
Last edited by vesper; 12-19-13 at 10:04 PM.
Having said that, I think giving kids the opportunity to learn about TANSTAAFL is a good thing. Just don't tie it to something that's not their fault.
"Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" was my first.
I would be I favor of having these poor children's parents be the ones cleaning up the school so their children can eat free. Maybe then they will get a job and care for their own children without always needing a handout.
I agree, but it doesn't fix that by shaming their kids.We have a dropout rate in this country that is just alarming. These young adults sometimes aren't even qualified to flip hamburgers at a fastfood joints yet start families.
Of course, but the kid that comes from an upper middle class family has no idea what its like to be truly poor yet someone feels like they should pass blanket judgment on them. For example, I grew up quite poor. My kids grow up in an what would be considered demographically an upper middle class home. I am certainly happy that they get a lot more opportunities than I had when I was their age because of that. However, they have no idea what its like to be poor. It's a "free lunch" to them because they show up at school and the lunch money way pay for is in their account. I hope they all grow up to be successful. I also hope they do not grow up as sanctimonious as this congressman is.The talk about the rich versus poor in your comments and others in this thread are unfair. Anyone who is rich is someone who has more that you. The man/woman who spends several years achieveing a degree will obviously make more money than the one that couldn't finish high school.
I am all for teaching kids the value of hard work. I just think what the congressman is proposing is a despicable way of doing so. If you don't think most kids living in poverty don't know the value of a dollar, then you don't know anything about being poor.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)