DC Students Receive Dinner at School

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SwizzleStick

Guest
Big brother taking care of business, I see. Schools just keep taking on more and more of an indoctrination role, I mean parenting role, and provide all that junior needs, meals, sex education, condoms, birth control, etc. The other day I saw an article about schools busing students to vote during the school day and only giving them a sample ballot with Democratic candidates. Guess this is just one more step in making sure kids learn early to be dependent on others and expecting government to take care of their needs.

"DC Students Receive Dinner at School
Program serves 10,000 students

WASHINGTON - Getting kids to eat three healthy meals a day can be a challenge, especially if money is tight. But D.C. Public Schools have found a way to take some of that burden off parents. They are now serving dinner at school."…

Entire article: myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/dc-students-receive-dinner-at-school-101910
 
Breakfast, lunch and dinner and 8 hours of day care for 12 years.
 
Seems to me that the US has followed and is currently following Britian down some questionable paths then (i.e. social norms, healthcare, entitlement programs). In this case, spending for such programs is not sustainable, so it impacts other areas.

“Chancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts since World War II, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.”…

Excerpted from: Spending Review: Osborne wields axe
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

Perhaps we have a language barrier here because I do know that “dinner” means the same as “lunch” and “dinner” means the same as “supper” to different folks, depending on the community. What I took from the article is that some children eat all three meals at school (because serving breakfast and lunch at school has been going on here for some time). When I think of dinner, I think of the last meal of the day and I think that is what is meant in the article. (I’ll read it again, I read it early this morning.) So, basically, the article indicates that parents will not take on the “burden” to feed their children any meals during the week and the government has stepped in to take on that responsibility for them.
 
Where is this idea coming from that these kids are being indoctrinated? This free meal they are receiving could be a huge difference to these families. What I mean is that this meal could be the difference between the kid having something to eat as opposed to not eating at all or eating very little. This could also be extra time a kid gets to spend in an environment that is safer than their home neighborhood.

Is it really that distasteful to people that these kids could be getting an education that might help them get out the cycles of violence and poverty they know? Does it really bother people that kids being raised in poverty might have a warm meal a few times a week? Of all the things taxpayer money goes towards I would hope this is one of them that seems reasonable – but to some I guess not.

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
Where is this idea coming from that these kids are being indoctrinated? This free meal they are receiving could be a huge difference to these families. What I mean is that this meal could be the difference between the kid having something to eat as opposed to not eating at all or eating very little. This could also be extra time a kid gets to spend in an environment that is safer than their home neighborhood.

Is it really that distasteful to people that these kids could be getting an education that might help them get out the cycles of violence and poverty they know? Does it really bother people that kids being raised in poverty might have a warm meal a few times a week? Of all the things taxpayer money goes towards I would hope this is one of them that seems reasonable – but to some I guess not.

ChadS
Click to expand...
This applies: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” These kids are learning early on to rely on the government rather than their families for such basic things as food. I don’t have a problem with feeding needy children. But, do 10,000 children in DC really need to eat all three meals a day at school? Or, is that just something their families have come to expect, is it a given to them that it is the school’s (government’s) responsibility to feed their children rather than their own responsibility?
 
Breakdown of the Family.

No baby-daddy in the household? Big Brother to the rescue!

This is so very sad in so many ways, it’s not funny. It’s an epidemic.

Boys (and girls), sons (and daughters) need the balance of a strong marriage between an man and a woman-their parents-in order to grow up strong, and virtuous.

The Breakdown of the Family=The Breakdown of Society.

We are seeing it play out-all around us each day.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
 
:mad: It takes a special kind of mind to twist this into something bad…let’s just let the kids go to bed hungry. Clearly they’re just feigning poverty in a covert effort to push their socialist agenda. And if they are really hungry they’ll make do, are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?
 
ConcernedApathy said:
:mad: It takes a special kind of mind to twist this into something bad…let’s just let the kids go to bed hungry. Clearly they’re just feigning poverty in a covert effort to push their socialist agenda. And if they are really hungry they’ll make do, are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?
Click to expand...
You are missing my point entirely. Here, maybe this comment made by “Worker” at the end of the article will help clarify.

"And the best news of all is this is a federally-funded program.

“We’re reimbursed on a per meal basis,""

All you need to know. This is not about the kids, it is about empowering big government, and tightening the liberal grip on inner city minorities to keep them on the welfare plantation.

Instead of spreading the wealth, spread the work ethic!
 
The problem is not that hungry children are being fed. It’s that feeding all three meals at school - even in the summer when school is out like in my local school system - means that big government is stepping into roles meant for parents. Parents are supposed to feed their children and provide for them. In this case, the parents give NO food *at all *to their children. They have completely given up that responsibility to the government. These families become dependent on the government for feeding their children, giving the parents and their kids health insurance, housing subsidies, food stamps for the rest of the family members. And then they go and buy $100 pairs of sneakers and get their hair done once a week for $70, then complain that they don’t have enough money. At some point people have to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. Giving endless and needless handouts just enables irresonsible behavior. “Helping the poor” does not mean giving them everything they need with no expectation that they lift a finger to help themselves. I am tired of people accusing others who don’t want their hard-earned money taken away and given to people who can but won’t work. Some people genuinely need help, but many don’t.
 
Another good comment by “Ivan Yurkenov” at the end of the article that illustrates what is wrong with looking to government to fill needs:

"Another example of teaching Americans to look to government institutions to provide morning-to-night, cradle-to-grave goodies…one generation at a time.

Ivan "
 
SwizzleStick said:
You are missing my point entirely. Here, maybe this comment made by “Worker” at the end of the article will help clarify.

"And the best news of all is this is a federally-funded program.

“We’re reimbursed on a per meal basis,""

All you need to know. This is not about the kids, it is about empowering big government, and tightening the liberal grip on inner city minorities to keep them on the welfare plantation.

Instead of spreading the wealth, spread the work ethic!
Click to expand...
This isn’t about “wealth”. This is about food. Your point is you would sacrifice something these children need based on your fear of totalitarianism sneaking in amongst mashed potatoes and Lorna Doone’s. Your point came across quite clear.
 
Charlotte1776 said:
The problem is not that hungry children are being fed. It’s that feeding all three meals at school - even in the summer when school is out like in my local school system - means that big government is stepping into roles meant for parents. Parents are supposed to feed their children and provide for them. In this case, the parents give NO food *at all *to their children. They have completely given up that responsibility to the government. These families become dependent on the government for feeding their children, giving the parents and their kids health insurance, housing subsidies, food stamps for the rest of the family members. And then they go and buy $100 pairs of sneakers and get their hair done once a week for $70, then complain that they don’t have enough money. At some point people have to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. Giving endless and needless handouts just enables irresonsible behavior. “Helping the poor” does not mean giving them everything they need with no expectation that they lift a finger to help themselves. I am tired of people accusing others who don’t want their hard-earned money taken away and given to people who can but won’t work. Some people genuinely need help, but many don’t.
Click to expand...
Thank you, you see my point. 👍
 
SwizzleStick said:
This applies: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” These kids are learning early on to rely on the government rather than their families for such basic things as food. I don’t have a problem with feeding needy children. But, do 10,000 children in DC really need to eat all three meals a day at school? Or, is that just something their families have come to expect, is it a given to them that it is the school’s (government’s) responsibility to feed their children rather than their own responsibility?
Click to expand...
It could very well be quite possible that all of those kids need that food. In some cases this might be the only food the kids have access to all day. Also, the parents in some of these instances may not be able to feed their own children – whether it be from a combination of poverty, neglect or substance abuse. I suppose we’re just supposed to let them starve since we aren’t supposed to let the government (at any level) help.

ChadS
 
SwizzleStick said:
Big brother taking care of business, I see. Schools just keep taking on more and more of an indoctrination role, I mean parenting role, and provide all that junior needs, meals, sex education, condoms, birth control, etc. The other day I saw an article about schools busing students to vote during the school day and only giving them a sample ballot with Democratic candidates. Guess this is just one more step in making sure kids learn early to be dependent on others and expecting government to take care of their needs.

"DC Students Receive Dinner at School
Program serves 10,000 students

WASHINGTON - Getting kids to eat three healthy meals a day can be a challenge, especially if money is tight. But D.C. Public Schools have found a way to take some of that burden off parents. They are now serving dinner at school."…

Entire article: myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/dc-students-receive-dinner-at-school-101910
Click to expand...
What in the name of the wee man are children doing in school, that late at night? :confused:
 
ChadS said:
It could very well be quite possible that all of those kids need that food. In some cases this might be the only food the kids have access to all day. Also, the parents in some of these instances may not be able to feed their own children – whether it be from a combination of poverty, neglect or substance abuse. I suppose we’re just supposed to let them starve since we aren’t supposed to let the government (at any level) help.

ChadS
Click to expand...
I could say the same thing again, but Charlotte1776 did a very good job with her post below.
Charlotte1776 said:
The problem is not that hungry children are being fed. It’s that feeding all three meals at school - even in the summer when school is out like in my local school system - means that big government is stepping into roles meant for parents. Parents are supposed to feed their children and provide for them. In this case, the parents give NO food *at all *to their children. They have completely given up that responsibility to the government. These families become dependent on the government for feeding their children, giving the parents and their kids health insurance, housing subsidies, food stamps for the rest of the family members. And then they go and buy $100 pairs of sneakers and get their hair done once a week for $70, then complain that they don’t have enough money. At some point people have to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. Giving endless and needless handouts just enables irresonsible behavior. “Helping the poor” does not mean giving them everything they need with no expectation that they lift a finger to help themselves. I am tired of people accusing others who don’t want their hard-earned money taken away and given to people who can but won’t work. Some people genuinely need help, but many don’t.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top