DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... DeVos Questions If Schools Should Provide Free lunch

Making sure our people are fed shouldn't even have to be asked. It should be assumed as the only decent way to deal with it. Give me 100 million and 1000 homeless people willing to do a little work and I can feed every single person in america more fish and vegetables than they can handle in about 10-15 years time.

There is zero reason to have anyone in the USA be malnourished or hungry. NONE.

I am torn on the free meals thing.

I know for a fact that many children desperately need to have their meals paid for. If they don't receive the free breakfast and lunch, they will go hungry. That is unacceptable.

On the other hand, I know that many people exploit the programs. For example, as a former teacher, I have seen many students who receive free breakfasts and lunches throw food away and then have money to go up and buy ice cream or a cookie.

I have had students who received free breakfasts and lunches get their nails and hair done weekly. Expensive makeovers. I have seen them come in w/the latest Jordans. I have heard them tell me that they were going to buy an IPhone 6 like mine, but went w/the IPhone 6 Plus instead because they needed a bigger screen.

I know here in SC, we feed the kids even during the summer months. I also believe that when you provide constant handouts, you take away the motivation to succeed and achieve. It's why socialism and communism failed.

I don't think there is an answer to this issue. People are going to exploit the policies we have in place, but we can't get rid of them because there are truly some deserving children who desperately need these services.

But, once again.........it's the middle class Americans who pay for it all.

I think that the government does have a responsibility to help those who are truly in need. The government is part of "us", and we, as a people, have always been willing to help those who are truly in need. I think that is an essential part of who we are. That said, I think that we need to be responsible in the way we provide that help. I have long advocated for adding an educational and job training component to welfare and unemployment programs, along with a community service aspect. I think that just giving money to able bodied persons is truly even more damaging to those persons than it is to the taxpayers.

Our social spending programs have allowed people to drift away from education, and has helped destroy the family in many cases. We need to change the way we do thing if we want things to change. This is off-topic, to an extent, but we hear how Americans won't do so many jobs in the US, and that's why we have to have illegals come into the country. How ridiculous is that idea? If people aren't willing to work those jobs for the pay rate they offer, then maybe those jobs are not paying enough. Would paying more for these jobs raise some prices? Of course it would. I always have to laugh (and wince) when people swear up and down that praising the minimum wage and adding health care requirements to employers isn't inflationary, but paying a higher wage to those who pick fruit, cook in upscale restaurants, work in top level hotels, build houses and so many other jobs, would just raise prices to completely unacceptable levels. It can't be both ways. I am willing to accept that a night in an upper level hotel might cost $5 more if we had 100% legal labor. I am willing to admit, that just as raising the minimum wage has raised prices in fast food restaurants has done, raising wages for people to pick fruit and vegetables would also raise prices, to a degree. However, I have seen people on this very board saying that upscale hotels would never be able to find labor if there weren't illegals willing to do these jobs. However, there are hotels all across this country who do the proper verification, still manage to hire people legally, and they aren't, somehow, at a competitive disadvantage.I am willing accept that prices on some products and labor would necessarily increase if we have 100% legal labor, and I am not sure that we could really ever get to 100% legal labor in our country. There will still be some border crossings no matter what we do, and because some employers will still be so focused on the bottom line that the law would be secondary, if considered at all. It is now, so it would be naive to think that there wouldn't be some business owners wouldn't continue to try and do so. Those employers should be punished for doing so.

We also need to improve our system of verifying a prospective employee's right to live and work in the US. We see so much identity theft, and it just continues to build as there is a demand for names and SS#'s to sell to those who can't otherwise live and work in the US legally. The system needs to change if we want things to get better.

Anyway, this is just my view of things.

From what I've been reading in this thread, my opinion of a certain subject seems to be holding up pretty well.

You see, I'm of the opinion that a lot of people aren't actually Pro Life. They are Pro Birth. Once the child is born, they could care less. Don't feed them or house them because they're not my responsibility.

That's not Pro Life, that's Pro Birth.

Trying to re-define other people's beliefs for them seems like a cheap way out in order to discredit them, doesn't it? Draw seemingly related correlations, but without actual substance? It's like giving credibility to a Steeler's fan saying PitDawg isn't an actual Browns fan because he wears an orange practice jersey with the name of a player no longer on the team.

Who are all these people calling for the complete dissolution of welfare and gov't assistance? They don't exist, so please stop making these fallacious arguments.

There is nothing particularly in the original posted article that alludes to a single child in need of a free or reduced lunch, not being able to get it. None what so ever. The Republican proposal to increase the threshold from 40% to 60% did not deny a single child a needed lunch. Not a one, and certainly not thousands.

What it did was raise the threshold by which schools start providing lunches to children and families that did not need assistance.

you're tripping hard.

plenty of your leadership wants to cut programs that help the poor, that will end up hurting the kids way more than the adults.

Pit is absolutely right, you just can't accept it. there's a huge difference between being pro-life, and just pro-birth.

It was a general reply to some posters who claim it's not their problem.

It was not a reply to the article.

It is funny how you constantly ride in on your high horse and carefully pick your words as you snidely insult others while always allowing a back door to slink out of when you get called on it. Very obvious, lmao

You're a funny man. When posters promote ending abortion yet claim they don't wish to give out free lunches in poor communities, I call them on it. that's not slinking out of anything.

Oh dear, I hit the wrong "Reply" button and meant that post for someone else. lmao

This woman has absolutely no qualifications for her job

She bought it..

We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control...

What have we done America?

and with proposed cuts to agencies, you have to wonder if DoE is on the chopping block.

of course the common argument from the right is "well, where's the money going?"

cutting kids food programs and general funding is a-ok, as long as we're focused on what's REALLY important, beefing up the nukes and military.

who cares about the education of kids when we can just kill them off and not worry about it?

Have the free lunch benefits been cut? Honest question.

if you're following along...like, at all, that's the basis of this entire discussion. the impact of what happens if they follow through on this.

Yeah. Kind of what I thought. IF.

Based off a joke comment that some got all worked up over, and exacerbated by congress, back in 2016, wanting to end the 40% community thing. (I know I don't have the term right, forgive me. The deal where if a community school has 40% or more students that qualify for free lunches, then everyone in the school district gets free lunches)

But, in your last post you made it sound like it had already happened - that free lunches were already out the door.



IF.

So because it hasn't happened, what are you implying? We shouldn't discuss the potential impact of these policies?

IF you have a problem, you don't have to post in this thread.

Perhaps you should then discuss what will happen when aliens land and start eating us. That is a big IF too.

What policy? The lady made a joke, not about free lunches for kids.

So, what policy are we talking about again?

this make no sense.

you, Arch, and others (read: everybody, including myself) were discussing potential impacts IF clinton, or bush, or bernie, or cruz, or trump became president.

and that was cool then. but now that this thread is discussing the potential impacts IF this specific policy is implemented, y'all got a problem?

kick rocks. you guys are ridiculous.

Swish, back up. There IS no policy to take free lunches away. None.

You are basing your stance on a biased article that makes so many suppositions it was pointless.

There IS no policy to take away free lunches for those students. NONE.

there was also no policy to a immigration ban that included legal green card holders.

and look how that turned out.

maybe you should back up. Right now i'm worried about the kids that could be potentially impacted if this fraud joke of a department head decides to go on with her hatred for public schools.

if you're not worried about it, then why are you still posting in this thread? bounce already.

I guess I just don't understand some people. We've been throwing money at Schools for what? 50 years or more? Some of us have also said to stop wasting money on failed programs. So when we finally have someone who knows what she's doing, whats this I hear? More Lib crying? Yeah cause wasting all that money over all these years has really helped...Not. Look we all agree that money is not the answer. We need to make the parents accountable. The ones that are not will have to answer to the School and City.

YTown: I think you would agree, the Church is probably the most to blame. Some one once said that if the Church would just take care of the poor, the Government would not have to get involved.

knows what she's doing?

she literally bought her way into this position.

At one time we did take care of the poor. We had charity Hospitals for their Healthcare too. Then the Government put us all out of business because they decided they could do it better. So here we are.

90 day immigration ban.

There is no policy on defunding free lunches for those that qualify. NONE. No executive action, nothing.

You have nothing to base your stance on other than "I hate Trump and Devos". Nothing.

And further more (I don't know the answer to this), does the federal gov't. Dept. of Ed. pay for free lunches? I certainly don't think so, but, I may be wrong here.

I do know the fed. doe doesn't do much in the way of funding school districts, according to something I read a few weeks ago. Like, only 8% of the doe funding actually goes to schools.

and that ban is still guess what? a ban.

and it happened. after we all discussed the POTENTIAL of a policy like that happening.

you got nothing. you're defending an unqualified hack simply because i'm against it.

again, why are you here? this thread was going fine until you showed up.

Apparently I'm here to give facts in order to counter your "if trump had anything to do with it, I hate it and will make crap up about it and then continue posting like my made up crap is truth" posts.

Other than that? I dunno.

Makes sense.

What IF Devos decides to feed ALL children and their little dogs too? Discuss that!

then that would be amazing, but then suck at the same time, cause i hate seeing grown men with small dogs that can fit in their man purse.

my bad, a satchel.

Exactly.

You got called out on a false premise based on a biased article that made no logical sense at all, yet you ran with it, thinking your stating something as fact would be taken as such.

Show me the policy where the current admin. OR doe is taking free lunches away.

Until then........let me get all the swishisms straight here: Kick rocks, pound sand, bounce.

Again, I don't even think the doe is in charge of free lunches. I think that has to do with the states and the local districts. And I may be wrong on that, also.

your own argument got turned against you when you tried to push that idea that just because something is discussed doesnt mean it will happen.

so yea, you can kick rocks.

also, 12 pages of mostly other posters discussing the same issues and concerns that i have, but of course, i'm the one in the wrong? somehow, in Arch's logic. gotta check me, though, right?

there's a lot of us concerned. but of course you won't come after any of them, right?

you, Diam, 40. smh, it's whatever though. i'll school every last one of you, as always.

Well, if you show 12 pages, you must be on your phone. I only show 3 pages.

And nah, my argument didn't get turned against me by any stretch.

THERE IS NO POLICY to not fund free lunches. Period.

I do believe, if you care to read the thread again, I have stated I am FOR free lunches.

I also know you are basing your stance on a slanted, biased argument on a made up subject.

And I am certainly sure, since in your last chance at salvaging your wrong, errant supposition about the feds taking away free lunches by saying it COULD happen with an executive order..............that trump will never, ever write such an executive order.

there was also no policy to ban immigrants.

there was also no policy to keep companies from dumping their waste into our waters (going a few decades back)

there was also no policy to allow blacks and women to vote.

and look how a few of those MANY issues turned out.

so to act as myself and OTHERS, that you refuse to check -and continue to not check- with regards to the potential policy of reducing free lunches to impoverished kids, is somehow a bad thing is nothing short of ignorance on your part.

it's sad, but unfortunately, not surprising.

Ok. Because, you know, I stated I'm not in favor of dropping the free lunches and all. But, ignore it.

That's fine.