California becomes first state to provide free meals to all students

Yappi

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
The new school year has started for many students in California, and the state is officially the first to offer free meals to all students.

Ahead of the 2022-2023 school year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law legislation that establishes a universal meal program. Under the new law, all kindergarten through 12th grade public schools must provide two free meals – breakfast and lunch – during each school day to students requesting a meal, regardless of the student's free or reduced-price meal eligibility.
Click to expand...
www.cbsnews.com

California becomes first state to provide free meals to all students

A study of New York's program found kids who were eligible for free meals often didn't take them for fear of being bullied.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
 
Free food. This will be great to aid in the prevention of obesity.

If meals are free everyone will grab a few extra calories if it taste good. This kind of government intrusion makes it difficult for the small Baker or food service to make capitalism work in California. This is the most aggressive form of socialism to date. Discharged student loans and free food. Who is ever going to want to leave such nirvana?
 
Breakfast & Lunch?

Give them a glass of milk in the morning. I'll even allow for chocolate milk. Anything beyond that is just fattening them up
 
Good plan. People that need it get it. Can still pack your own if you want. I'm sure those that feel fortunate enough can donate as much as they want to the school for other programs. I can see where helping an 8 year old would upset some people, but I can live with that. Maybe get more bang for the $46 billion dollars spent subsidizing farmers. Say there are 50 million school aged kids in public schools across the USA. So, about $1000 per kid if it was done for the entire Country.
 
I’m not opposed at all. I went 1-12th grade with classmates who couldn’t afford lunch. Myself and three brother were extremely fortunate to have a mom that was awesome at balancing a budget allowing us to buy lunch everyday. We were also fortunate that my parents went to inner city catholic schools (as did we) and knew the same type of kids who couldn’t afford to buy. At least this use of tax payer money is for the betterment of children.
 
terrible plan. not because I am against feeding hungry people. I am all about feeding hungry people. my problem with it is we are once again excusing the responsible party for what should be their responsibility. I know how much its costs to feed a child a sack lunch. I broke it down to the cost of a slice. we were sending our kids to school with a lunch that cost between $1.87 and $2.37 cents. this is not that long ago. it could have been under a $1.00 if we sent the kids with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. the real kicker is the lunch we sent was far superior in nutritional value than ANYTHING the school prepared. we should stop doing for adults what they can easily do for themselves. I say get rid of hot lunches at schools and make everyone pack. start making parents raise their children again. quit looking for the government to do what you can do for yourself.
 
Interesting from the article was that some kids previously that were eligible for free lunches chose not to get them because they didn't want to be labeled as a "poor" kid.

In the past, that was a motivator. People worked hard not to become unemployed, go bankrupt, lose a house to foreclosure, and/or use food-stamps. Those were safety nets for people that were suffering. They were not supposed to be a way of life. Now we are teaching that the government should be in charge of even the simplest things like feeding children in school.

Crazy to think that LeBron James' kids eat government-purchased lunches in California while middle-class kids in the rest of the country have to depend on their parents to be fed.
 
IVCguy said:
Yes, because we all know that free means that no one is paying for it, so why not?

Lord have mercy.
Click to expand...
Yes, it puts everyone on the same level and gives everyone a choice. Can't complain that some lazy 4th grader is getting a hand out while some unlucky kid with wealthy parents has to pay $3.50.

Do you know how it's going to be funded? Is there a law that says if you want to, you aren't allowed to donate to schools? California is 15% of the US economy. if it were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy. If they feel like that is what they want to do, then good for them.
 
psycho_dad said:
Yes, it puts everyone on the same level and gives everyone a choice. Can't complain that some lazy 4th grader is getting a hand out while some unlucky kid with wealthy parents has to pay $3.50.

Do you know how it's going to be funded? Is there a law that says if you want to, you aren't allowed to donate to schools? California is 15% of the US economy. if it were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy. If they feel like that is what they want to do, then good for them.
Click to expand...
I know that nothing is free, and if someone is telling me something is free, they are fantastic liars.

I chose to have 2 kids. Those kids needed fed, housed, clothed, etc. That was my responsibility. Having the state step in and take that responsibility is a bad idea on so many levels that I don't have time to detail them - and I shouldn't have to.

So, not a good plan - in any respect.
 
psycho_dad said:
Good plan. People that need it get it. Can still pack your own if you want. I'm sure those that feel fortunate enough can donate as much as they want to the school for other programs. I can see where helping an 8 year old would upset some people, but I can live with that. Maybe get more bang for the $46 billion dollars spent subsidizing farmers. Say there are 50 million school aged kids in public schools across the USA. So, about $1000 per kid if it was done for the entire Country.
Click to expand...
How exactly is that helping farmers?
 
IVCguy said:
I know that nothing is free, and if someone is telling me something is free, they are fantastic liars.

I chose to have 2 kids. Those kids needed fed, housed, clothed, etc. That was my responsibility. Having the state step in and take that responsibility is a bad idea on so many levels that I don't have time to detail them - and I shouldn't have to.

So, not a good plan - in any respect.
Click to expand...
And you were lucky enough to have two loving parents that provided guidance and discipline and security and love. You took advantage of your luck. There are kids in this world born into HELL! They don't stand a chance. Not their fault. Should these unlucky kids not eat? Should they be forced to starve because they were born into a shi**y situation? It is easy to judge others when you were born into a perfect situation. Congrats on your good fortune. Your kids also have good fortune. Not all kids do. I will gladly give a few dollars from my paycheck to support those innocent kids that were born into HELL!! Why? Because I'm not a selfish, heartless bastard.
 
California has a proud history of "firsts".

For instance, did you know that they were the first State to recognize a man who had his schlong removed as being a woman?
 
Yappi said:
Interesting from the article was that some kids previously that were eligible for free lunches chose not to get them because they didn't want to be labeled as a "poor" kid.

In the past, that was a motivator. People worked hard not to become unemployed, go bankrupt, lose a house to foreclosure, and/or use food-stamps. Those were safety nets for people that were suffering. They were not supposed to be a way of life. Now we are teaching that the government should be in charge of even the simplest things like feeding children in school.

Crazy to think that LeBron James' kids eat government-purchased lunches in California while middle-class kids in the rest of the country have to depend on their parents to be fed.
Click to expand...
.Move to California and get free lunches.
 
Mean Machine said:
And you were lucky enough to have two loving parents that provided guidance and discipline and security and love. You took advantage of your luck. There are kids in this world born into HELL! They don't stand a chance. Not their fault. Should these unlucky kids not eat? Should they be forced to starve because they were born into a shi**y situation? It is easy to judge others when you were born into a perfect situation. Congrats on your good fortune. Your kids also have good fortune. Not all kids do. I will gladly give a few dollars from my paycheck to support those innocent kids that were born into HELL!! Why? Because I'm not a selfish, heartless bastard.
Click to expand...
So you're donating to California schools then?

How many school lunches have you paid for that are not your own kids?
 
IVCguy said:
I know that nothing is free, and if someone is telling me something is free, they are fantastic liars.

I chose to have 2 kids. Those kids needed fed, housed, clothed, etc. That was my responsibility. Having the state step in and take that responsibility is a bad idea on so many levels that I don't have time to detail them - and I shouldn't have to.

So, not a good plan - in any respect.
Click to expand...

A state can step in and force a pregnant child with no money to raise a child, and refuse to help either child. Is that more up your alley?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top