'No one believes we do this to kids': Will Congress end school lunch shaming?

[Rennadrel]

Crybabies over a lunch program? Bitch please, when I was a kid I had to make and pack my own lunch, the schools in Canada don't do any of that shit. Spoiled American children...

[Gatsbybutters]

Pack a lunch. Idgaf, if you're broke, don't have kids. If you're dumb and broke and have kids, feed them, even if you have to go hungry.
Or just blame the schools and cry about. Shit I have a cat, a CAT, and I'd go hungry if I was broke and he needed food.
It doesn't matter what the school's, or the government's, or w/e else's policy is, feed your kids first.
Or, ya know, excuses and crying.

[oxymoronic]

Crybabies over a lunch program? Bitch please, when I was a kid I had to make and pack my own lunch, the schools in Canada don't do any of that shit. Spoiled American children...

spoiled or not the free lunch program is a good one. we need to take care of our poor better. i dont believe the OP. i think there is more to it than what is posted (always is, always).

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't they just eat cake?


The issue is the parents can't afford to pay (and also typically aren't caring for their children well in the first place so school lunch is a vital source of nutrition).

if they cant afford to pay then their children should be removed from them? i mean if you cant feed your children you dont deserve them. its more for helping a family cope with the insane costs of living not to be the main source of food for your children.

- - - Updated - - -

Pack a lunch. Idgaf, if you're broke, don't have kids. If you're dumb and broke and have kids, feed them, even if you have to go hungry.
Or just blame the schools and cry about. Shit I have a cat, a CAT, and I'd go hungry if I was broke and he needed food.
It doesn't matter what the school's, or the government's, or w/e else's policy is, feed your kids first.
Or, ya know, excuses and crying.

they should do a brain scan on you. see how it differs. these animal lovers make me lol. bet you money this fool would eat that cat in 10days if he had no other food, let alone feed his last to the cat.

[Rennadrel]

How is it with a free lunch program, that America has rampant obesity among children as much as adults?

[Deleted]

Here in Australia, we ALWAYS had to pay for hot lunches at school. And not some pathetic 2$ either, we'd have to pay close to 10$ for a hotdog. So we all brought food from home. Some select private schools offer free breakfasts and lunches, but no public school does.

Why do some Americans feel entitled to have free shit? I can understand wanting to have some programs in place for the legitimate poor kids that don't get their families to feed them, but free lunches for everybody sounds a tad absurd.

i like how you are being plainly and simply ignored.

muh murica
muh free shit
muhb freedom
muh internet forum belong to murica

[spanishninja]

Proper nutrition is highly related to the well being of a kids physical and mental development.

If they're not eating properly, because they just happened to be born to someone who for varying circumstances is not feeding them lunch, you're also doing their education a disservice.

That's all fine and good, but again it is not a responsibility of the government to provide free food for all students. Otherwise, explain why not all students qualify for free lunch programs?

[oxymoronic]

How is it with a free lunch program, that America has rampant obesity among children as much as adults?

that doesnt even make sense. without a free lunch program would make more sense... and we have the same problem mexico does. you know the fattest country in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

i like how you are being plainly and simply ignored.

muh murica
muh free shit
muhb freedom
muh internet forum belong to murica

is muh internet slang for cool over there?

[Gatsbybutters]

spoiled or not the free lunch program is a good one. we need to take care of our poor better. i dont believe the OP. i think there is more to it than what is posted (always is, always).

- - - Updated - - -


if they cant afford to pay then their children should be removed from them? i mean if you cant feed your children you dont deserve them. its more for helping a family cope with the insane costs of living not to be the main source of food for your children.

- - - Updated - - -


they should do a brain scan on you. see how it differs. these animal lovers make me lol. bet you money this fool would eat that cat in 10days if he had no other food, let alone feed his last to the cat.

Projecting much? A cat is a responsibility, a kid is a bigger one. Keep up chief, peta isn't here, calm down.

[Celista]

The kids get to school before school starts, and are able to go to the cafeteria and get (usually) some pop-tarts and a container of orange juice (or grape apple whatever), or a powerbar... Sometimes its even a hot breakfast, like a piece of breakfast pizza.

While it is commendable that you're offering free breakfast, damn that is a lot of sugar.

[oxymoronic]

Projecting much? A cat is a responsibility, a kid is a bigger one. Keep up chief, peta isn't here, calm down.

you make no sense and what about peta? keep up chief

[Rakshata]

That depends on why they can't afford to pay. In America, there are a lot of reasons for poverty because of the weak social safety net - things like incredibly expensive health care and very low wages mean a lot of people don't have any money. There are also certainly societal factors as well, like the number of single moms.

I'd prefer to address that situation than just start taking millions of kids from their parents.

It should also be added that, if the kid is taken away form the parents due to money problems... they aren't going to do that much better in the foster system. They will still have the school lunch problems, perhaps exacerbated by the very likely fact they were taken away form their parents who loved them but couldn't afford them, to a foster home where they can just barely afford them and only care about them insofar as they are living things under their care.

I paid for my school lunches all through elementary school; we used a student ID system to take money form our accounts... you know what happened when we ran out? We went into debt, but we were still allowed to eat what everyone else got. We had to get more money from our parents to pay off the debt and assure we pay for the future food, but we were still assured our food. That is the way it should be if we aren't willing to raise taxes even slightly for school lunches to be free for all.

Come to think of it, why is that not the case? What is so utterly terrible about paying another .5% on taxes so children can eat lunch?

[Gatsbybutters]

you make no sense and what about peta? keep up chief

If you're gonna insult every person you try to talk to, at least get your window licking ass some capital letters. I was making a comparison. As in, I wouldn't even let my cat go hungry, let alone a kid. At least read the shit, and then you can cry and insult people if you want.
That sweater has zebra stripes... "ANIMAL LOVER BRAGAHAGSGSHSGWGSJK BHAI GTH!"
That's you. That's what you look like.

[Deleted]

Why do you have to pay for hot food at all? I don't get it. The school should provide this without requiring a payment for it.

[Mackeyser]

There are so many social programs for people that need help with paying for food, why is the school lunch program even necessary? Shouldn't they just bring food from home?

- - - Updated - - -



So how involved should government be in the well being of humans?

That's a short question with a looooong answer...and I can only barely scratch the surface here.

Considering we are entering an age where our excess work capacity is straining our current economy and social fabric to the breaking point, I think the entire basis for that question will have to change.

It used to be that, especially as an American, our value...our very identity was tied to our profession. It wasn't, "who are you?" or "what are your interests?", but rather "what do you do?" That was how people related to one another, by profession. But what happens when people don't or can't be part of the workforce? What happens when there are only jobs for half or more likely significantly less than half of the workforce because of automation, e-sourcing (replacing retail with online venues. 47% of household goods are acquired online now and that's only growing), analytics, better AI and robotics, etc?

If we as a species ever get to that Star Trek place where money is "credits" and everyone has a universal basic income as a result of everyone reaping the benefits of a highly automated society (that doesn't mean people don't work, but that those that do, do meaningful work), I think Americans will have the hardest time with that transition.

How involved the government should be...now? Our constitution states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Things like OSHA, the EPA to ensure clean air and water, police and fire to be safe and ensure we remain alive and our liberties are protected (as opposed to now when the thrust seems to be not if, but by how much can government infringe on our liberties), schools that actually teach, science, math, arts, music, history, civics, economics... and none of it related to a multiple choice standardized test...things like that. Not to mention support for entrepreneurs as opposed to legislating further advantages for monopolies or cartels.

Going forward, we will have a very binary choice: Either allow all of society to benefit from the advances in automation that are eliminating entire industries OR... simply shift more and more people to the lowest rung on the economic ladder where fear and panic rule a life of subsistence. Understand that NO ONE will be safe in that scenario because once a field is automated, you systemically won't be able to just shift due to increased competition with folks who are overqualified for the limited positions in other fields. In such a future, if a service industry disappears (like travel agents did), then where does one go? Rest assured, even highly technical fields like doctors and lawyers will go away except for an exceptional few, so it's not just the elimination of burger flippers and gas station attendants that's RAPIDLY on the way. Heck, in 10 years, instead of trucking companies begging for drivers, you'll see drivers being phased out en masse as trucks are updated with driverless modules which ARE ALREADY on the market AND cost less than the annual salary of a driver. Considering the substantially greater safety record of driverless vehicles and the reality that driverless vehicles don't have to be limited by humans (trucks can drive directly across the country without stopping and do it safely, for example).

I really don't think most people understand the economics of this which affects how we chose to govern ourselves. Work, for most people will end due to market efficiencies.

We will have the choice of aspiring for an imperfect utopia or embracing a dystopia. Those different choices offer very, very different outcomes with respect to the role of government in the well being of humans.

What isn't going to happen is the continuance of the "middle class" to infinity. Capitalism has NEVER created one before WW2 and no sooner than the protections put in place prior to WW2 and the citizen funding of the war which created the massive upward mobility of the masses, we've seen a steady decline since 1980, when, not uncoincidentally, the profits from enterprise began to be directed specifically and only to the top 1%.

Personally, I'd rather we spent more on social programs (like addressing the opioid epidemic with less judicial methods and more therapy), pure research and ensuring things like no one goes hungry. We could END world hunger for $30B in any given year. We spend 30X on defense that includes the CIA, NSA, all the other intel agencies and the off the books war/counter intelligence expenses. Hunger and lack of access to things like potable water are one of the reasons people gravitate towards extremism of any kind...out of desperation.

Anyway, as for the OP and raising kids, I've actually done it. Some others in the thread have, also, but it's pretty apparent when people are spouting opinions without any facts or opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you have to pay for hot food at all? I don't get it. The school should provide this without requiring a payment for it.

Exactly.

And here's food for thought: children who aren't hungry learn better and more. They aren't distracted and have less occurrence of disruptive behavior. There's DECADES of data on this.

So...if we're going to pay for school, why not ensure the kids get the most out of it? Especially since we also have decades of data which show a linear correlation between level of education and both individual success and societal success by a number of factors including economic growth, reduction in crime and a host of others.

It's one of those "pay a little, get a lot" scenarios.

Unfortunately, for some Americans, the only time they embrace that is at an All You Can Eat Buffet...

[Masark]

We will have the choice of aspiring for an imperfect utopia or embracing a dystopia. Those different choices offer very, very different outcomes with respect to the role of government in the well being of humans.

You've got a choice of the USA or Australia.

[spanishninja]

That's a short question with a looooong answer...and I can only barely scratch the surface here.

Considering we are entering an age where our excess work capacity is straining our current economy and social fabric to the breaking point, I think the entire basis for that question will have to change.

It used to be that, especially as an American, our value...our very identity was tied to our profession. It wasn't, "who are you?" or "what are your interests?", but rather "what do you do?" That was how people related to one another, by profession. But what happens when people don't or can't be part of the workforce? What happens when there are only jobs for half or more likely significantly less than half of the workforce because of automation, e-sourcing (replacing retail with online venues. 47% of household goods are acquired online now and that's only growing), analytics, better AI and robotics, etc?

If we as a species ever get to that Star Trek place where money is "credits" and everyone has a universal basic income as a result of everyone reaping the benefits of a highly automated society (that doesn't mean people don't work, but that those that do, do meaningful work), I think Americans will have the hardest time with that transition.

How involved the government should be...now? Our constitution states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Things like OSHA, the EPA to ensure clean air and water, police and fire to be safe and ensure we remain alive and our liberties are protected (as opposed to now when the thrust seems to be not if, but by how much can government infringe on our liberties), schools that actually teach, science, math, arts, music, history, civics, economics... and none of it related to a multiple choice standardized test...things like that. Not to mention support for entrepreneurs as opposed to legislating further advantages for monopolies or cartels.

Going forward, we will have a very binary choice: Either allow all of society to benefit from the advances in automation that are eliminating entire industries OR... simply shift more and more people to the lowest rung on the economic ladder where fear and panic rule a life of subsistence. Understand that NO ONE will be safe in that scenario because once a field is automated, you systemically won't be able to just shift due to increased competition with folks who are overqualified for the limited positions in other fields. In such a future, if a service industry disappears (like travel agents did), then where does one go? Rest assured, even highly technical fields like doctors and lawyers will go away except for an exceptional few, so it's not just the elimination of burger flippers and gas station attendants that's RAPIDLY on the way. Heck, in 10 years, instead of trucking companies begging for drivers, you'll see drivers being phased out en masse as trucks are updated with driverless modules which ARE ALREADY on the market AND cost less than the annual salary of a driver. Considering the substantially greater safety record of driverless vehicles and the reality that driverless vehicles don't have to be limited by humans (trucks can drive directly across the country without stopping and do it safely, for example).

I really don't think most people understand the economics of this which affects how we chose to govern ourselves. Work, for most people will end due to market efficiencies.

We will have the choice of aspiring for an imperfect utopia or embracing a dystopia. Those different choices offer very, very different outcomes with respect to the role of government in the well being of humans.

What isn't going to happen is the continuance of the "middle class" to infinity. Capitalism has NEVER created one before WW2 and no sooner than the protections put in place prior to WW2 and the citizen funding of the war which created the massive upward mobility of the masses, we've seen a steady decline since 1980, when, not uncoincidentally, the profits from enterprise began to be directed specifically and only to the top 1%.

Personally, I'd rather we spent more on social programs (like addressing the opioid epidemic with less judicial methods and more therapy), pure research and ensuring things like no one goes hungry. We could END world hunger for $30B in any given year. We spend 30X on defense that includes the CIA, NSA, all the other intel agencies and the off the books war/counter intelligence expenses. Hunger and lack of access to things like potable water are one of the reasons people gravitate towards extremism of any kind...out of desperation.

Anyway, as for the OP and raising kids, I've actually done it. Some others in the thread have, also, but it's pretty apparent when people are spouting opinions without any facts or opinions.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly.

And here's food for thought: children who aren't hungry learn better and more. They aren't distracted and have less occurrence of disruptive behavior. There's DECADES of data on this.

So...if we're going to pay for school, why not ensure the kids get the most out of it? Especially since we also have decades of data which show a linear correlation between level of education and both individual success and societal success by a number of factors including economic growth, reduction in crime and a host of others.

It's one of those "pay a little, get a lot" scenarios.

Unfortunately, for some Americans, the only time they embrace that is at an All You Can Eat Buffet...

That is a terrible argument. Students learn better when they can see clearly. Does that mean schools have to foot the bill to get glasses and eye exams for all the students as well?

[GreenGoldSharpie]

That is a terrible argument. Students learn better when they can see clearly. Does that mean schools have to foot the bill to get glasses and eye exams for all the students as well?

.... You do realize optometrists often volunteer their time and resources for such exams and furnishing of eyeware for students, right? It's part of what they do.

Hint, it's less expensive than feeding the large percentage of kids on free or reduced lunch.

[spanishninja]

.... You do realize optometrists often volunteer their time and resources for such exams and furnishing of eyeware for students, right? It's part of what they do.

Hint, it's less expensive than feeding the large percentage of kids on free or reduced lunch.

If optometrists have to volunteer then that means it's not provided by default by the schools. That is what I was commenting on. My point is that there are a lot of things that are important for students' learning that the government does not, and SHOULD not, have to have to pay for.

Other examples:

- school supplies
- clothes
- a place to live

[JDL49]

This is not the same sized problem everywhere. Generally speaking the more rural and/or NON coastal you are the worse off your state is. Richer states are, not surprisingly, able to do a lot more and the poorer states are pretty much SOL.

Strictly speaking K-12 education is not a primary responsibility of the Federal government. That belongs to State and sometimes county governments. These governments are required by law to have balanced budgets so their options are much less than the Feds. If a state wants to raise income or sales taxes the entrenched interests will come out of the woodwork to stop it. And as for property taxes fuggedaboutit. Whether or not the effort to raise taxes at the state level succeeds is a crap shoot. Ime the bluer the state the more likely the chance for success. But it is NEVER easy.

Let me emphasise that in most states ime Property Taxes are the primary revenue source for K-12. Getting them raised, especially at the local level is damn near impossible*. As for income and sales taxes thus are already spoken for. So anyone want to guess who ends on the short end when the state revenue pie is divvied up ? Answer Higher Ed. Honestly I pity anyone having to pay for school these days.

*exception; states with ballot initiatives.

So congratulations your school lunch financing problem has most likely hit an immovable object.

Let's get back to the shaming problem. According to the Federal guidelines these kids should able to afford the lunch. Either fully or in part. The problem is either the parents or kids are deadbeats or the guidelines are bad. Whichever it is that is not the schools fault. Their only fault is assuming people will play fair and not dealing well when they don't.

Finally as for the wasted food; where do you draw the line ? Still on the tray in the line ? On the table, some items uneaten ? Most health codes are pretty stringent and see no difference between the two. Fot that matter legal liability almost certainly makes disposal necessary just to cya.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not the same sized problem everywhere. Generally speaking the more rural and/or coastal you are the worse off your state is. Richer states are, not surprisingly, able to do a lot more and the poorer states are pretty much SOL.

Strictly speaking K-12 education is not a primary responsibility of the Federal government. That belongs to State and sometimes county governments. These governments are required by law to have balanced budgets so their options are much less than the Feds. If a state wants to raise income or sales taxes the entrenched interests will come out of the woodwork to stop it. And as for property taxes fuggedaboutit. Whether or not the effort to raise taxes at the state level succeeds is a crap shoot. Ime the bluer the state the more likely the chance for success. But it is NEVER easy.

Let me emphasise that in most states ime Property Taxes are the primary revenue source for K-12. Getting them raised, especially at the local level is damn near impossible*. As for income and sales taxes thus are already spoken for. So anyone want to guess who ends on the short end when the state revenue pie is divvied up ? Answer Higher Ed. Honestly I pity anyone having to pay for school these days.

*exception; states with ballot initiatives.

So congratulations your school lunch financing problem has most likely hit an immovable object.

Let's get back to the shaming problem. According to the Federal guidelines these kids should able to afford the lunch. Either fully or in part. The problem is either the parents or kids are deadbeats or the guidelines are bad. Whichever it is that is not the schools fault. Their only fault is assuming people will play fair and not dealing well when they don't.

Finally as for the wasted food; where do you draw the line ? Still on the tray in the line ? On the table, some items uneaten ? Most health codes are pretty stringent and see no difference between the two. For that matter legal liability almost certainly makes disposal necessary just to cya.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

If optometrists have to volunteer then that means it's not provided by default by the schools. That is what I was commenting on. My point is that there are a lot of things that are important for students' learning that the government does not, and SHOULD not, have to have to pay for.

Other examples:

- school supplies
- clothes
- a place to live

All of which are provided by staff out of pocket in a dozen different ways. That's why what you're saying is eye rollingly silly, which was my point. If your entire argument is predicated on the fact that basics can be denied because of systemic failures that deny other basics then it's pretty obvious why things are the way they are.

Turns out kids know they're worth a whole lot less to a large amount of people than the costs to feed them, cloth them, and house them -- let alone educate them. And you all expect them to give a fuck about you or your property?