Forever Free School Lunches

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Some of the food was simple, but it was so fresh, and organic and pure.

One of the best, if not the best thing about Europe, is the food.

Except in England.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Except in England.

LOL.

Last time I was there I actually got some good chow.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Last time I was there I actually got some good chow.

Me too, I actually stayed there for a couple of weeks and the food was fine.
I think that is just something the French like to poke fun of the UK about.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe I ate at all the wrong places, but I found their food to be rather bland.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Free only means one thing other than using our tax dollars.... The free lunches will more than likely be very similar to the BS obama portions which starved kids. I think that if tax payers are paying for it, they should also decide what the kids get to eat. That goes for everything we pay for, including but not limited to - welfare and food stamp items available, contract construction companies, etc..

a reply to: TzarChasm

All of the above just reinforces my position that procreation is NOT a human right. Protect life in the womb, by all means, but the implication is that the actual process of gestation is not a lifestyle choice, rather it's a sacred privilege that should be licensed for the good of future generations who may or may not be at risk in terrible homes with barely sustainable resources. Your remarks further illustrate what I have observed to be a thoroughly abused aspect of society.

Your remarks are worded in such a way I honestly can't tell if you are for anyone being able to have kids regardless of ability, or
only the fittest (those able to feed them).

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: TzarChasm

All of the above just reinforces my position that procreation is NOT a human right. Protect life in the womb, by all means, but the implication is that the actual process of gestation is not a lifestyle choice, rather it's a sacred privilege that should be licensed for the good of future generations who may or may not be at risk in terrible homes with barely sustainable resources. Your remarks further illustrate what I have observed to be a thoroughly abused aspect of society.

Your remarks are worded in such a way I honestly can't tell if you are for anyone being able to have kids regardless of ability, or
only the fittest (those able to feed them).

What's best for the kids? There's your answer.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What's best for the kids? There's your answer.

It's not that easy, what is best for them now might not be best for them later.
It really isn't a simple answer.

Is it better to keep responsibility in the hands of the parent or the state, EVEN if the parents aren't fit?
If we give a whole generation of kids Free Food, Free this, Free that, they are going to be brought up thinking they
don't have to be personally responsible for their kids.

a reply to: LSU2018

Free only means one thing other than using our tax dollars.... The free lunches will more than likely be very similar to the BS obama portions which starved kids. I think that if tax payers are paying for it, they should also decide what the kids get to eat. That goes for everything we pay for, including but not limited to - welfare and food stamp items available, contract construction companies, etc..

I 100% agree with you on the Michelle Obama initiative. She ruined school lunches.
We need to bring back food that is edible and that kids like to eat. Everyone pays soooo much in taxes for school, and teachers are getting raise after raise, and administrators making buck, but the kids are getting old books and crap food!

a reply to: JAGStorm

Just my opinion, but I think schools should focus on teaching children and not raising, feeding them.

originally posted by: Annee
Our school district is free breakfast and lunch for every child -- kindergarten through high school.

Also provided free during summer and holiday breaks -- pick up at assigned schools.

Children do not need to be hungry.

Whatever good or bad decisions their parents made -- it never the child's fault.

Rarely agree with you, but do on this issue. I don't have an issue with the school providing breakfast and lunch. However, let's not kid ourselves, it ain't free. It is being paid for through higher property taxes in most cases.

Kids should not be held responsible for their parents' poor decision making. If a kid is expected to be at school all day, then they should be fed during that time.

Truly showing my age.

When I was in elementary school, we did not have a cafeteria. All lunches were brought from home. The local farmers did provide free milk for everyone, that was as free as it got.

By the time I reached high school, there was no such thing as middle school back then, we had a cafeteria, and the food was prepared on site. I don't remember much about it, because at that time, most were still bringing their lunches from home.

Keep in mind that I lived in the country so our lifestyle was a lot different then those children in the city,

originally posted by: Annee
Our school district is free breakfast and lunch for every child -- kindergarten through high school.

Also provided free during summer and holiday breaks -- pick up at assigned schools.

Children do not need to be hungry.

Whatever good or bad decisions their parents made -- it never the child's fault.

Sat and Sun included? 🪀

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JAGStorm

Just my opinion, but I think schools should focus on teaching children and not raising, feeding them.

In a perfect world. However, in many areas, schools often have to play social worker as well. Many kids parents may not be able to consistently provide that meal. Also, that hungry kid could harm the learning environment for others.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Keep in mind that I lived in the country so our lifestyle was a lot different then those children in the city,

Country people are the best 🥰

a reply to: Edumakated

In a perfect world. However, in many areas, schools often have to play social worker as well. Many kids parents may not be able to consistently provide that meal. Also, that hungry kid could harm the learning environment for others.

If a parent is unable to do the one thing, the ONE thing to keep their child alive... Feed them... Should they be able to have that child?

a reply to: marg6043

No parent in their right mind, will allow their children to eat the crap that is been served in public schools these days, nobody, is full unhealthy junk.

Yeah, the whole "ketchup counts as a vegetable" is just so insane. At a school I worked at, they routinely have pizza and french fries. Pft! Crazy unhealthy lunches. No wonder we have a problem with obesity in kids.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Is it better to keep responsibility in the hands of the parent or the state, EVEN if the parents aren't fit?
If we give a whole generation of kids Free Food, Free this, Free that, they are going to be brought up thinking they
don't have to be personally responsible for their kids.

Here we find ourselves in a fascinating contradiction between two ideas: authority doesn't work, and authority does work. Society hates the government until the people who were supposed to make smart independent choices prove to be the greater evil. Society loves the government until government expands their duties and micromanages the ground level leaders to better promote community health and safety. Society believes in the autonomy of the average human until that autonomy is gestating a silent and defenseless life in their body, and after that life is born they whip around and once again champion the authority between parent and progeny. Pick a lane. Either you believe in autonomy or you don't. Keeping in mind the statistics of how many children are born below the poverty line, how many of them are exposed to drugs and violence, how many of them are incarcerated by the age of 17 and how many age out of the foster system. Those numbers tell a compelling story about what "procreation rights" look like across the nation.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

In a perfect world. However, in many areas, schools often have to play social worker as well. Many kids parents may not be able to consistently provide that meal. Also, that hungry kid could harm the learning environment for others.

If a parent is unable to do the one thing, the ONE thing to keep their child alive... Feed them... Should they be able to have that child?

In a perfect world, people would not have children they can't afford. However, we know that isn't the case. I cannot punish the child for the sins of the parents though.

I don't think it is a huge issue to ensure no child is hungry while at school.

a reply to: MarlbBlack

She screwed up a lot of DFAC food in the Army/Military too