• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In Baltimore schools, free meals for all

I'm not sure leaving them in a home that doesn't feed them is the best of choices either...

but yeah.. i don't have too much problem feeding the hungry kids.... though i'm not sure why feeding every child should be mandated.

in any event, this is just one more case, in a long line of cases, where the responsibility of parents is being usurped by schools/the state.
re: "though i'm not sure why feeding every child should be mandated."

+++

I'm very happy to see the lunch policy applied to all equally, Thrilla.

I abhor means-tested benefits, and believe they cause all manner of problems (scamming, negative productivity, resentment & divisiveness, etc.).

If a societal benefit is deemed worth doing, I believe it should be available to all, not just chosen groups.

I very much believe this with healthcare, as well.
 
Giving it to everyone could be argued to have slight economic benefit (more disposable income for parents).

The school (technically taxpayers) would still be making their purchases (so no change on money into the economy there) and now parents have probably $60+ extra to spend on other means.
 
Free meals, eh? Who's donating the free food?
 
re: "though i'm not sure why feeding every child should be mandated."

+++

I'm very happy to see the lunch policy applied to all equally, Thrilla.

I abhor means-tested benefits, and believe they cause all manner of problems (scamming, negative productivity, resentment & divisiveness, etc.).

If a societal benefit is deemed worth doing, I believe it should be available to all, not just chosen groups.

I very much believe this with healthcare, as well.

interesting.. so you really are in favor of turning over the responsibility of feeding kids to the state....
how about housing?... is that also something the state should handle for all parents too?

well,I guess it fits with progressive policies of removing parenting from the picture.. .so i'm not really surprised.... it's ongoing war, after all.
 
Giving it to everyone could be argued to have slight economic benefit (more disposable income for parents).

The school (technically taxpayers) would still be making their purchases (so no change on money into the economy there) and now parents have probably $60+ extra to spend on other means.


and it could be argued that paying for housing and all relevant bills would put a whole bunch more disposable cash in the hands of parents as well....;)

though i'm pretty certain this policy has absolutely nothign to do with putting more disposable cash in parents hands..
 
interesting.. so you really are in favor of turning over the responsibility of feeding kids to the state....
how about housing?... is that also something the state should handle for all parents too?

well,I guess it fits with progressive policies of removing parenting from the picture.. .so i'm not really surprised.... it's ongoing war, after all.
I'm for applying benefits equally, not picking winners & losers.

And yes, I am very much in favor of a single-payer/private-provider health system for all, not just the 43% of Americans that are currently deemed 'chosen' to have single-payer healthcare (Medicare, MedicAid, Disability, etc.).

No - I wouldn't provide housing or food assistance (besides Elementary & High School lunch - which I consider education related), especially not in the means-tested 'winners & losers' form we have through our current entitlement systems debacle.

I'd provide a (very small) guaranteed minimum income, and dump most every entitlement programs we have.

As long as single-payer healthcare is in place, there's no reasons to provide this myriad of means-tested entitlement give-aways, beside a small guaranteed minimum income. Some have suggested a Negative Income Tax instead, but that in effect becomes another means-based system, and therefore unfair, unproductive, ripe with fraud, and derisive & decisive.

The idea is to get away from means-tested entitlement programs.
 
Well I'm sure you'd be able to find an idiot willing to make the same old timey bull**** claim that smaller families, wide availability (and acceptance) of contraceptive use, women waiting longer to have kids, and a general drop in birth rates (the lowest since records have been kept), means that people aren't more careful about having kids. However, it won't make your absurd claim - from which you based an entire post - any less flawed or anything other than nonsensical old timey bull****. :lol:

If you say so.

Have a nice weekend. :2wave:
 
I wouldn't mind seeing some citation for the lunch confiscation you describe (barring that there's nothing particularly hazardous with the parent supplied lunch - for example, spoilage).

I have no idea how you came-up with the term, "Throwing in the towel and letting the wholesale take over of nutrition to the government". You seem to be conflating another concern with the topic of this thread, which is 'free lunch'.

I am surprised you have missed the many news articles about schools, or teachers, confiscating parent supplied lunches that don't meet governmental nutritional standards. I would suggest you take a few minutes to bring yourself up to speed on the issue.

As to conflating, I would suggest the idea of supplying free lunches, regardless of need, suggests there is an objective in play. With money so tight in education, what would be the purpose of providing free lunches to all, regardless of need? Why make decisions on what to make for lunch for little Johnnie or Sally, when you can just send them off and let somebody else decide? Considering there is a growing trend to scrutinize what parents are providing their children, why fight city hall.

The slippery slope is abundantly clear here. I would think someone would have to be willfully trying to avoid seeing it.
 
I'm for applying benefits equally, not picking winners & losers.

And yes, I am very much in favor of a single-payer/private-provider health system for all, not just the 43% of Americans that are currently deemed 'chosen' to have single-payer healthcare (Medicare, MedicAid, Disability, etc.).

No - I wouldn't provide housing or food assistance (besides Elementary & High School lunch - which I consider education related), especially not in the means-tested 'winners & losers' form we have through our current entitlement systems debacle.

I'd provide a (very small) guaranteed minimum income, and dump most every entitlement programs we have.

As long as single-payer healthcare is in place, there's no reasons to provide this myriad of means-tested entitlement give-aways, beside a small guaranteed minimum income. Some have suggested a Negative Income Tax instead, but that in effect becomes another means-based system, and therefore unfair, unproductive, ripe with fraud, and derisive & decisive.

The idea is to get away from means-tested entitlement programs.

I'm not opposed to a minimum basic income guarantee... it's one of my favorite policy ideas as well.... and yes, it could solve many problems.
but it's derided as a crazy libertarian utopia dream.. blablalba... so it's doubtful it would come to fruition in the foreseeable future.

but we're talking about reality here.. not our fantasies.... winners and losers are chosen.... programs are means tested.


why would you refuse to give them housing? kids need housing as well..... or is that the one area you think parents should have to provide for their kids?

I'm a long time warrior in this war on parents... that's probably something i should have mentioned before..... I've been fighting the progressive notions of removing parents from their children lives forever and a day.... about 35 years or so.( I'm not on the winning side, FWIW)
 
Why are we giving these brats free breakfast.? Why can't their parents feed them a breakfast.? Parents should also pack a lunch for the kids.

I agree with everything you said but calling them brats.

Why are they brats? They did not pass the law or force it through? Or do you just call all children 'brats'?
 
I am surprised you have missed the many news articles about schools, or teachers, confiscating parent supplied lunches that don't meet governmental nutritional standards. I would suggest you take a few minutes to bring yourself up to speed on the issue.

As to conflating, I would suggest the idea of supplying free lunches, regardless of need, suggests there is an objective in play. With money so tight in education, what would be the purpose of providing free lunches to all, regardless of need? Why make decisions on what to make for lunch for little Johnnie or Sally, when you can just send them off and let somebody else decide? Considering there is a growing trend to scrutinize what parents are providing their children, why fight city hall.

The slippery slope is abundantly clear here. I would think someone would have to be willfully trying to avoid seeing it.

well, I think a person has to have some age to them... and be a parent.. to see the slippery slope.
I came up long before we started holding parents criminally liable for truancy... and then telling parents the very few valid excuses there are for a child not to be in class... none of which the parents are authorized to give.
I came up before the state told parents they had no say in the medical decision of their daughters concerning birth control or abortion...while simultaneously disallowing parents from sending their kids to school with Tylenol....or peanut butter sandwiches.
.. before the state decided that allowing your kids to be outside playing on their own was reason to investigate/incarcerate the parents.. or remove the kids from the household altogether.
...before parent had to sign a permission slip to allowing their children to eat cookies in school.
...before children in middle school were suspended for having a condom.. as well as threatened with a sexual harassment suit because the kids showed his friends ( that kid was my youngest son.. and resulted in the police escorting me from the premises for being extraordinarily uncivilized to the utter retards running that place.)

but meh, that's what we get when so many progressives are in positions of authority.. .they know what is best for the kids and the parents are just obstacles to be worked around, or removed.
 
well, I think a person has to have some age to them... and be a parent.. to see the slippery slope.
I came up long before we started holding parents criminally liable for truancy... and then telling parents the very few valid excuses there are for a child not to be in class... none of which the parents are authorized to give.
I came up before the state told parents they had no say in the medical decision of their daughters concerning birth control or abortion...while simultaneously disallowing parents from sending their kids to school with Tylenol....or peanut butter sandwiches.
.. before the state decided that allowing your kids to be outside playing on their own was reason to investigate/incarcerate the parents.. or remove the kids from the household altogether.
...before parent had to sign a permission slip to allowing their children to eat cookies in school.
...before children in middle school were suspended for having a condom.. as well as threatened with a sexual harassment suit because the kids showed his friends ( that kid was my youngest son.. and resulted in the police escorting me from the premises for being extraordinarily uncivilized to the utter retards running that place.)

but meh, that's what we get when so many progressives are in positions of authority.. .they know what is best for the kids and the parents are just obstacles to be worked around, or removed.

Great summary Thrilla. Impossible to refute.

As the slope steepens, in the Progressive State, parents may someday only be seen as breeding stock.

Absurd? How did we get from Milk subsidies to regulating children's daily nutrition without parental consent?

As with so many Progressive agenda's, the inevitable end game becomes crystal clear.
 
I am surprised you have missed the many news articles about schools, or teachers, confiscating parent supplied lunches that don't meet governmental nutritional standards. I would suggest you take a few minutes to bring yourself up to speed on the issue.

As to conflating, I would suggest the idea of supplying free lunches, regardless of need, suggests there is an objective in play. With money so tight in education, what would be the purpose of providing free lunches to all, regardless of need? Why make decisions on what to make for lunch for little Johnnie or Sally, when you can just send them off and let somebody else decide? Considering there is a growing trend to scrutinize what parents are providing their children, why fight city hall.

The slippery slope is abundantly clear here. I would think someone would have to be willfully trying to avoid seeing it.
Fair enough, "ocean515".

I haven't read or seen any of the incidents you mentioned, and none have occurred in my school district, but I'll consider doing a quick Google to see if there's a trend for these types of occurrences. It would seem you'd supply sources for your assertion, but so be-it.

I think you're reading too much into this.

'Slippery Slopes' can be seen anywhere we chose, and if we so desire, we can use them as excuses to never do anything as individuals, nor as a society. I don't see a slippery slope, nor do I see a kid's lunch "suggests there is an objective in play".

Sometimes things are what they are, no more nor less, and in this case it looks to me like a school provides a kid's lunch.

What else can I say?
 
Fair enough, "ocean515".

I haven't read or seen any of the incidents you mentioned, and none have occurred in my school district, but I'll consider doing a quick Google to see if there's a trend for these types of occurrences. It would seem you'd supply sources for your assertion, but so be-it.

I think you're reading too much into this.

'Slippery Slopes' can be seen anywhere we chose, and if we so desire, we can use them as excuses to never do anything as individuals, nor as a society. I don't see a slippery slope, nor do I see a kid's lunch "suggests there is an objective in play".

Sometimes things are what they are, no more nor less, and in this case it looks to me like a school provides a kid's lunch.

What else can I say?


I can't make the issue any clearer than I have. The reaction to schools circumventing parental decision making is for you to consider.

As to sources, forgive me, but I grow weary of investing time and energy when an issue has been headlines for a number of years. It seems to me, I should not have to be responsible for someone's else's lack of knowledge on a subject.

However:

School lunches and the culture of shaming parents | BabyCenter Blog


And just to show where the "children going hungry" issue fits:

Elementary school throws away 40 students' lunches because their parents were behind on payments | Daily Mail Online
 
I can't make the issue any clearer than I have. The reaction to schools circumventing parental decision making is for you to consider.

As to sources, forgive me, but I grow weary of investing time and energy when an issue has been headlines for a number of years. It seems to me, I should not have to be responsible for someone's else's lack of knowledge on a subject.

However:

School lunches and the culture of shaming parents | BabyCenter Blog


And just to show where the "children going hungry" issue fits:

Elementary school throws away 40 students' lunches because their parents were behind on payments | Daily Mail Online
Thanks for the links ocean515, and I'm not going to beat on them, but the first is a private school where the parent pays tuition - and it is an individual mother's small-time blog, not a news article. But fair enough, if this causes you concerns.

Item #2 is definitely screwed-up, though it has nothing to do with our topic on-hand. Oddly enough though, if the school in article #2 had Baltimore's newly instated lunch policy, the incident never would have happened.
 
Thanks for the links ocean515, and I'm not going to beat on them, but the first is a private school where the parent pays tuition - and it is an individual mother's small-time blog, not a news article. But fair enough, if this causes you concerns.

Item #2 is definitely screwed-up, though it has nothing to do with our topic on-hand. Oddly enough though, if the school in article #2 had Baltimore's newly instated lunch policy, the incident never would have happened.

As I wrote, my desire to delve into a big effort to post links, etc., is rather small when the issue is rather well reported. There are many other reports and articles on the subject if you are so inclined.

As to having nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would suggest you consider expanding your horizons. The topic at hand is free lunches for all. As I have written, the only way to look at such an effort is to assume the idea is to have every student participate. Once completely dependent on the school for nutrition, what comes next? The link may have related to unpaid meals, but where is the "children going hungry" meme that has brought about all this scrutiny and investment? What responsibilities are these government entities going to allow parents to have?
 
I'm not opposed to a minimum basic income guarantee... it's one of my favorite policy ideas as well.... and yes, it could solve many problems.
but it's derided as a crazy libertarian utopia dream.. blablalba... so it's doubtful it would come to fruition in the foreseeable future.

but we're talking about reality here.. not our fantasies.... winners and losers are chosen.... programs are means tested.


why would you refuse to give them housing? kids need housing as well..... or is that the one area you think parents should have to provide for their kids?

I'm a long time warrior in this war on parents... that's probably something i should have mentioned before..... I've been fighting the progressive notions of removing parents from their children lives forever and a day.... about 35 years or so.( I'm not on the winning side, FWIW)

Greetings, Thrilla. :2wave:

I believe Ceausescu, brutal Romanian Dictator for over two decades, forcibly removed children as young as toddlers from their parents and put them in state-run schools as an experiment. Living conditions for the children in those schools were horrible - cruel uncaring teachers, insufficient food, and lack of heat in the Romanian winters - caused many deaths. There was a revolution and both he and his wife were apprehended while trying to escape the country, and after a summary trial in a military court both were executed by firing squad on Christmas Day, 1986. The execution site has recently opened as a museum for tourists. Good riddance to two very bad apples who lived the good life in a castle while their people suffered under what has been called the most repressive regime in Europe!
 
Yeah I know, **** those kids because their parents are allegedly making these bad choices. Nothing like punishing people for the assumed and unproven sins of others, am I right?

So deciding to not feed someone for free is punishing them?
 
As I wrote, my desire to delve into a big effort to post links, etc., is rather small when the issue is rather well reported. There are many other reports and articles on the subject if you are so inclined.

As to having nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would suggest you consider expanding your horizons. The topic at hand is free lunches for all. As I have written, the only way to look at such an effort is to assume the idea is to have every student participate. Once completely dependent on the school for nutrition, what comes next? The link may have related to unpaid meals, but where is the "children going hungry" meme that has brought about all this scrutiny and investment? What responsibilities are these government entities going to allow parents to have?
I've seen nothing indicated that there's a goal to have every student eat a free lunch, so your assumption is yours alone, without some other evidence to the contrary.

And there's also nothing I've seen stopping the pupils from NOT eating the free lunch, either.

In my two High Schools (one private, one public), we had reasonably priced lunches in the private school, and heavily subsidized lunches in the public school. Both schools were in dense urban neighborhoods, and consequently maybe about half the kids ate-in at my private school, and only 25% at best ate-in at the heavily subsidized lunches at the public school. This was a (very) long time ago, and I haven't heard of any changes as of yet.

(Why the Catholic School kids ate-in more than the public school is beyond me - there's probably some stereotypes that can be made)
to me
I see the points you're attempting to make, but they seem over-the-top, and tenuous.

It seems as if you're looking for conspiracies behind a kid's lunch program.

And, I don't see evidence supporting some of your suppositions, as I stated in my first two sentences of this reply.
 
I'm not opposed to a minimum basic income guarantee... it's one of my favorite policy ideas as well.... and yes, it could solve many problems.
but it's derided as a crazy libertarian utopia dream.. blablalba... so it's doubtful it would come to fruition in the foreseeable future.

but we're talking about reality here.. not our fantasies.... winners and losers are chosen.... programs are means tested.


why would you refuse to give them housing? kids need housing as well..... or is that the one area you think parents should have to provide for their kids?

I'm a long time warrior in this war on parents... that's probably something i should have mentioned before..... I've been fighting the progressive notions of removing parents from their children lives forever and a day.... about 35 years or so.( I'm not on the winning side, FWIW)
Good to see another GMI advocate.

I first heard of GMI from an ultra conservative Libertarian buddy of mine, and thought he was crazy! Firstly, it sounded like some socialist's/communist's wet dream. Secondly, why was my more-conservative-than-God buddy coming-up with this Leftist plot? Free money for all? Whether you need it, or not? Wha???

But after I thought about it for awhile, it made a lot of sense.

However, I was earlier applying my statement of 'not providing housing' in the context of a GMI (and single-payer healthcare).

The GMI would (hopefully) eliminate housing & food programs. I guess more accurately, it would relieve us as a society from having to provide assistance in a particular form (housing, food, etc.). The individual will make their own decisions as to how to allot their small stipend. Live with a relative, tossing them a few bucks for their spare room - or go in with a some roommates on a cheap apartment. Pool your money for food, and shop & cook wisely.

I don't believe we owe anyone their own housing, private living residence, car, or phone as part of our social contract - but we don't want them to perish from lack of basic food or shelter, either. And I believe the GMI does just this. It also gives downtrodden individuals some control & decision-making in their lives, and will allow dignity. And individuals have every incentive to add more bucks to their GMI through work & endeavor, 'cuz there's nothing to lose or qualify for in terms of min or max income. There's no need for cash-under-the-table, or fraudulently scamming benefits - everyone gets them, and everyone's' is the same.

So, it's because of the GMI that I believe I see no need for housing (or food or other) assistance.

As long as there's a single-payer health system in place, there's no need for healthcare entitlements or subsidies either.

Not only do I feel this is very fair & equitable, I feel it would more than satisfy any social contract I'd care to provide.

It ends most (hopefully all) entitlements, and in particular it end means tested entitlements - they're wrong on so many levels & in so many ways ....
 
I'm pretty sure when you get to the front of the line at the pearly
Gates - St. Peter is going to have a copy of this post in his hand.

Good luck.
 
Back
Top Bottom