California becomes first state to provide free meals to all students

TigerPaw said:
This is a chance to help people.

But yes, Trump charities is another way. Or go fund me sites off the internet. Churches. Tin cans at convenience stores. I think the school themselves is the best method myself. Let voters decide.
Click to expand...
Not surprised you're in favor of forced generosity thru taxation.

But hey, if California is cool with it then so be it.
 
I’m still trying to wrap my head around people opposing this. This directly benefits children that have no choice on this issue. Wether they have the greatest parents in the world that take advantage of this (which I wouldn’t do) or they are born into a terrible situation should be a mute point. How can anyone argue that using tax payer money to feed children is a bad deal? At least this tax payer money is going to the right cause.

There was an article in the Enquirer a few years ago about Hughs High School football players whose only meal was lunch during the school year. It’s insane to believe that but it’s reality. And if my tax dollars pay to over feed certain kids while the other kids get the minimum amount, then I’m all for it.
 
JackEd said:
I’m still trying to wrap my head around people opposing this. This directly benefits children that have no choice on this issue. Wether they have the greatest parents in the world that take advantage of this (which I wouldn’t do) or they are born into a terrible situation should be a mute point. How can anyone argue that using tax payer money to feed children is a bad deal? At least this tax payer money is going to the right cause.

There was an article in the Enquirer a few years ago about Hughs High School football players whose only meal was lunch during the school year. It’s insane to believe that but it’s reality. And if my tax dollars pay to over feed certain kids while the other kids get the minimum amount, then I’m all for it.
Click to expand...
Be careful. The MAGA contingent on Yappi will call you an enabler and a socialist.
 
JackEd said:
I’m still trying to wrap my head around people opposing this. This directly benefits children that have no choice on this issue. Wether they have the greatest parents in the world that take advantage of this (which I wouldn’t do) or they are born into a terrible situation should be a mute point. How can anyone argue that using tax payer money to feed children is a bad deal? At least this tax payer money is going to the right cause.

There was an article in the Enquirer a few years ago about Hughs High School football players whose only meal was lunch during the school year. It’s insane to believe that but it’s reality. And if my tax dollars pay to over feed certain kids while the other kids get the minimum amount, then I’m all for it.
Click to expand...
So we should do anything that directly benefits children?

My opposition to it is we continue to increase our populations dependence on government programs rather than individual accountability and self sacrifice. Am I against feeding truly hungry and deprived children? No, feed them. But know that mom having had the strain of feeding her own child removed by government , she will likely take that savings and spend it on something frivolous rather than invest it and plan to climb out of poverty into self reliance.

Once parents become dependent on this system to feed their children, the plan must remain in place to avoid the true catastrophe of child hunger as parents will be less inclined to keep the pantry stocked with food.

Another area that is problematic with such intervention is how this affects the local baker or farmer. When the government feeds the people, the food is contractually purchased and the local merchants will be affected by fewer of their products being selected for consumption. This eliminates another small business, an opportunity for a place in society to earn your own way into the middle class is lost.

So to sum up, it is not the spirit of the kind act of feeding children that bothers me, but the unintended consequences of government reliance and market disruption at the micro economic level.
 
I agree with what you are saying for sure. My parents took alot of pride in working extra hours to be able to put us through catholic school (4 of us in a 5 year span) K-12th grade and be able to pay for school lunches. I'm saying the government wastes so much money on truly idiotic stuff, I don't mind some of it feeding kids whose parents will never care about them, and will always be asking for a handout regardless of their situation.
 
JackEd said:
I’m still trying to wrap my head around people opposing this. This directly benefits children that have no choice on this issue. Wether they have the greatest parents in the world that take advantage of this (which I wouldn’t do) or they are born into a terrible situation should be a mute point. How can anyone argue that using tax payer money to feed children is a bad deal? At least this tax payer money is going to the right cause.

There was an article in the Enquirer a few years ago about Hughs High School football players whose only meal was lunch during the school year. It’s insane to believe that but it’s reality. And if my tax dollars pay to over feed certain kids while the other kids get the minimum amount, then I’m all for it.
Click to expand...
It has to do with creating govt dependency where it is not needed or necessary (by definition, making it universal means that kids who do not need assistance will be getting it), it undermines the principle of parents taking responsibility for providing for the needs of their children, and that weakens families by replacing parents with govt.

The Left has the goal of weakening, ultimately destroying, traditional nuclear families and weakening parental authority of all family structures. We saw this quite clearly during COVID as parents were told they had no right to control what happens to their children at school and that they had no choice in making health decisions for their children in relation to masking and vaccination. But in this school lunch case, broadening govt dependency and substituting parental responsibility with govt, it is another way to undermine and weaken the family.

But, yes, it is sold as "What kind of bad human being opposes feeding hungry kids?' Lol
 
Last edited:
toledomansfield said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lovely in theory. As soon as you figure out how to remove free will from people your ideal world plan will be a huge success.
 
IVCguy said:
It has to do with creating govt dependency where it is not needed or necessary (by definition, making it universal means that kids who do not need assistance will be getting it), it undermines the principle of parents taking responsibility for providing for the needs of their children, and that weakens families by replacing parents with govt.

The Left has the goal of weakening, ultimately destroying, traditional nuclear families and weakening parental authority of all family structures. We saw this quite clearly during COVID as parents were told they had no right to control what happens to their children at school and that they had no choice in making health decisions for their children in relation to masking and vaccination. But in this school lunch case, broadening govt dependency and substituting parental responsibility with govt, it is another way to undermine and weaken the family.

But, yes, it is sold as "What kind of bad human being opposes feeding hungry kids?' Lol
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Feeding children at school is going to create a bunch of government dependent socialists and destroy families. Even by yappi standards that’s one hell of a leap you’ve taken.
 
Yappi said:
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...
Sierra Canyon is private, so no LeBron’s kids aren’t eating government purchased lunches.
 
utsherman said:
Like most things, we'll agree to disagree here. I have no issue with California deciding to provide free lunch. Again, if the citizenry disagrees, they can collect signatures, get it on the ballot, and manage the issue via the political process. This was a very popular notion on the forum just a few weeks back, IIRC. Lol.
Click to expand...
States rights! Except if I don’t like the decision!
 
What I have read is that the state started providing breakfast and lunch for kids during the Covid Crisis. As a result, they negotiated with farmers and other food suppliers outside of the normal supply chain in an effort to help everybody and make things better and more efficient. As a result, it was discovered that they could just keep that system in place and improve the system by expanding it. Instead of exporting goods and services out of California, they could keep more of it in the state and not be reliant on outside factors. Win win.
 
Orin Swift said:
States rights! Except if I don’t like the decision!
Click to expand...
Switcheroo. CA has the right to do it. The debate is whether they should and why they are doing it.

People are fleeing that People's Republic. Perhaps they don't like cultural and economic Marxism. Could be.
 
TigerPaw said:
Feeding kids on the cheap how cruel, lol. Personally I think Jesus would approve. If that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...


So it's the responsibility of others to feed your kids? It is ok to steal the productive labor from that person to give it to this person? It is ok for some parents to make other parents pay for their kids food? It is the job of schools, that do a terrible job in their primary function, to now feed students?

No wonder we've created a generation of entitled, lazy people. What an embarrassing disgrace.
 
Qcity said:
So it's the responsibility of others to feed your kids? It is ok to steal the productive labor from that person to give it to this person? It is ok for some parents to make other parents pay for their kids food? It is the job of schools, that do a terrible job in their primary function, to now feed students?

No wonder we've created a generation of entitled, lazy people. What an embarrassing disgrace.
Click to expand...

So much anger over some kids getting a meal. Yikes.
 
IVCguy said:
Switcheroo. CA has the right to do it. The debate is whether they should and why they are doing it.

People are fleeing that People's Republic. Perhaps they don't like cultural and economic Marxism. Could be.
Click to expand...
If they're fleeing because of free lunches, there's not a lot of other states they can flee to. Most, if not all states have some sort of free lunch program.
 
Qcity said:
So it's the responsibility of others to feed your kids? It is ok to steal the productive labor from that person to give it to this person? It is ok for some parents to make other parents pay for their kids food? It is the job of schools, that do a terrible job in their primary function, to now feed students?

No wonder we've created a generation of entitled, lazy people. What an embarrassing disgrace.
Click to expand...
Crack addicted mom. No dad. The last thing she is worried about is feeding her kids. Millions of situations just like this in America every day. But hey, punish the kid. The GOP is soulless. ?????????
 
Qcity said:
It's not about the kids getting a meal; it's about how and why they're getting the meal. Parents should feed their kids.
Click to expand...

Because it helps low income kids, helps them be better students, and provides a kinder safer learning environment.

Now if we could only get parents in deep red states to make more money we could save alot of money.
 
redskinfan04 said:
Most of these guys have separated Christ from their politics a long time ago.
Click to expand...
I think the record shows on this thread that this and Tigress Paw are the only direct references to Christ/Jesus. Gotta love this level of rhetoric. You guys introduce it and then ridicule our faith - when we didn't argue from that perspective.

Oh, and to help you two out, you will keep from embarrassing yourselves if you can remember that Jesus never said one word about government programs meeting the needs of people. Not even a hint. Maybe this will help you from making this false assertion in the future. There are plenty of legitimate angles to take if your goal is to find hypocrisy, but this is not one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top