Tanya 93 said:

---

This lines the pockets of Aramark etc with very few kids actually eating most of the daily lunch and breakfast.

---

Yep, cronyism payoff to someone with a bunch of leftover, untouched food that is put in a landfill.

Tanya 93 said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Very few are hungry,

---

Source?

---

Volunteering at food banks and watching in the cafeteria with the share baskets inundated with the free food they don't want and the cans being full when the share baskets can hold no more.

I know know, anecdotes aren't proof or a source. Just like listing studies saying the number of kids living in poverty doesn't prove the kids are hungry.

This lines the pockets of Aramark etc with very few kids actually eating most of the daily lunch and breakfast.

---

I mean, I can match anecdotes as well. Like you, a long time ago, I used to be a teacher at title 1 schools. A huge percentage of my kids only meal was the free breakfast and lunch they got at school, otherwise, they would be hungry.

Rapier108 said:

---

Not the government's job to feed every kid in the state.

---

If the government is going to mandate that children attend school all day, then yes it is the government's job to ensure that they are fed.

boboguitar said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Very few are hungry,

---

Source?

---

Volunteering at food banks and watching in the cafeteria with the share baskets inundated with the free food they don't want and the cans being full when the share baskets can hold no more.

I know know, anecdotes aren't proof or a source. Just like listing studies saying the number of kids living in poverty doesn't prove the kids are hungry.

This lines the pockets of Aramark etc with very few kids actually eating most of the daily lunch and breakfast.

---

I mean, I can match anecdotes as well. Like you, a long time ago, I used to be a teacher at title 1 schools. A huge percentage of my kids only meal was the free breakfast and lunch they got at school, otherwise, they would be hungry.

---

Okay, so the truly poor kids got a free lunch. They still do. Why is this being expanded to all kids? You mean to tell me that kids with family incomes over say $50000 still need a free lunch? How about $100000? $200000 or more?

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Very few are hungry,

---

Source?

---

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-25/obesity-rates-continue-to-climb-among-u-s-kids-teens

Americans will know what real hunger looks like within a couple of decades.

So, tax payers are covering the bill to feed the vast majority of kids whose parents are perfectly capable of feeding them on their own with no government assistance? Insanity. Why would they feel the need to give away food to kids who live in the Minnesota version of Highland Park/River Oaks?

agdoc2001 said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Very few are hungry,

---

Source?

---

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-07-25/obesity-rates-continue-to-climb-among-u-s-kids-teens

---

That doesn't support the statement at all.

94AGBQ said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Very few are hungry,

---

Source?

---

Volunteering at food banks and watching in the cafeteria with the share baskets inundated with the free food they don't want and the cans being full when the share baskets can hold no more.

I know know, anecdotes aren't proof or a source. Just like listing studies saying the number of kids living in poverty doesn't prove the kids are hungry.

This lines the pockets of Aramark etc with very few kids actually eating most of the daily lunch and breakfast.

---

I mean, I can match anecdotes as well. Like you, a long time ago, I used to be a teacher at title 1 schools. A huge percentage of my kids only meal was the free breakfast and lunch they got at school, otherwise, they would be hungry.

---

Okay, so the truly poor kids got a free lunch. They still do. Why is this being expanded to all kids? You mean to tell me that kids with family incomes over say $50000 still need a free lunch? How about $100000? $200000 or more?

---

So poor kids won't be singled out with embarrassment, and also cafeteria doesn't have to do paperwork.
Lol, when I was a kid and determined others had more, it did not bother me. We were all friends. I think the liberals have driven a wedge in that, by telling poor folks those with money crapped on them.
My goal was not to hate the rich, but to become rich (never made it). Lol on last two a day practice before school started, coach would ask who wanted to work in cafeteria. The lady asked coach because all the poor kids were undependable. Got out of Alg II 5 minutes early and got double helpings of enchiladas and fried chicken, and two of those rolls I smelled all morning cooking.
Initially lunch program was provided because hungry kids learn better. Now it is political tool.

Why not "free" clothes?

"Free" utilities?

"Free" vacations?

aggiehawg said:

---

Uhmm? When I was a kid in the 60s, my lunchbox was a baloney sandwich, milk in the thermos and maybe a orange, part of an apple, or cookies, homemade.

I never knew any better.

---

But what kind of lunch box? That is the important part. I had a 007 and G I Joe lunch box. And the thermos had a glass insulator and never made it past a day or two. Dropped, broke and ruined what ever wonderfulness was inside.

I wonder if just giving everyone the free meals will cost less than making families prove need. That's going to cut the need for a lot of administrators.

Probably not.

I wouldn't have a bigger problem with this if they were providing quality food. School lunches are about the worst quality meals provided to kids. Almost all is highly processed foods. High in sugar. It's crap.

sam callahan said:

---

Why not "free" clothes?

"Free" utilities?

"Free" vacations?

---

Those are all human rights so those will be free too.

I grew up in a small mostly poor school district before these benevolent programs . I vividly remember some of my poorer classmates unable to participate in dodgeball and such during recess due to their depleted condition and the occasional child that just mysteriously stopped coming to school.

Wait, no that never actually happened because kids were fine. Parents or grandparents made sure kids were taken care of because the community was pretty harsh on you if you didn't. People were ashamed to rely on charity.

It's pretty appalling all the comments on here about kids who just want to be fed, you would think the government is giving them a bran new Tesla based on the reactions

I worked at a lower income school. Our administration recognized that some of our kids only meals would be at school. They researched and found a non-profit whose focus was making sure that all kids had 3 meals a day.

They would show up after school and set-up in the cafeteria and provide a meal to any student who wanted one. All you had to do was show them your ID and you would get a meal.

This helped the kids that needed it as well as the over achieving kids that would be on campus doing extracurricular activities until 6.

Government gets in the way of orgs like this. But when the government wants its people to beholden to it, you see these types of laws get passed behind the guise of "for the kids". Another overreach and Avenue that the government should not be involved in.

not hedge said:

---

It's pretty appalling all the comments on here about kids who just want to be fed, you would think the government is giving them a bran new Tesla based on the reactions

---

Why should my son get free meals?


This is about helping those who can't afford food right l?

Line Ate Member said:

---

They would show up after school and set-up in the cafeteria and provide a meal to any student who wanted one. All you had to do was show them your ID and you would get a meal.

---

That's racist!

I've personally had times where my meal account was depleted and I couldn't eat, granted I was 15 so I really didn't care. But I wouldn't want young kids to not have food. Everybody has different home lifes. Sadly a meal from a public school might be the best they get all day or week

not hedge said:

---

I've personally had times where my meal account was depleted and I couldn't eat, granted I was 15 so I really didn't care. But I wouldn't want young kids to not have food. Everybody has different home lifes. Sadly a meal from a public school might be the best they get all day or week

---

That doesn't answer the question.

Why should everyone get a free meal, when in the case of my demon spawn and his school, most don't need this?

Equity for all

aggiehawg said:

---

Uhmm? When I was a kid in the 60s, my lunchbox was a baloney sandwich, milk in the thermos and maybe a orange, part of an apple, or cookies, homemade.

I never knew any better.

---

Better? That sounds like a great kids meal to me.


I know I'm preaching to the choir here Mrs. Hawg, but for the greater audience - the meals the government will provide will half as nutritious, 4x more costly, and probably taste terrible.

This just makes it easier to pump children full of chemical slop

not hedge said:

---

Equity for all

---

WTF does that mean?


Take care of those who need it and not all because parents are too lazy to pay for or pack a lunch.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Uhmm? When I was a kid in the 60s, my lunchbox was a baloney sandwich, milk in the thermos and maybe a orange, part of an apple, or cookies, homemade.

I never knew any better.

---

Better? That sounds like a great option to me.

---

Bologna sucks.

Hence I started packing my lunch at 7

sanangelo said:

---

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

This is great news. The more free stuff(reparations, food, etc) those states offer, the more the freeloaders move there and away from hard-working, independent Americans. They need to start giving away cars somewhere, EVs of course.

---

problem is some Texas ISDs feed everyone too.

---

Quite a few in fact. And the kids growing up in this think that government provisions are just normal. Completely sad to see our country losing like this.

It's not about laziness, we both know that

Tanya 93 said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Uhmm? When I was a kid in the 60s, my lunchbox was a baloney sandwich, milk in the thermos and maybe a orange, part of an apple, or cookies, homemade.

I never knew any better.

---

Better? That sounds like a great option to me.

---

Bologna sucks.

Hence I started packing my lunch at 7

---

Bologna was a staple in our house.. fried bologna and avocado sandwich with mustard (before avocados became a hipster fruit and the prices were hacked through the roof).

I also LOVE fried spam on a biscuit. My kids will choose fried spam over just about any other meat except for steak.

not hedge said:

---

It's pretty appalling all the comments on here about kids who just want to be fed, you would think the government is giving them a bran new Tesla based on the reactions

---

Lol. I'll reach out there and say lots are not fed because their parents don't feed them, yes, no fault of the kid. But would venture to say if these programs were not there, their parents would feed them.
Ever had a garage sale where the "poor" come to shop and their kid puts a toy in their pocket and the parent expects you to give it to them, then pull out wad of cash to buy something else?
Also why are poor kids and their mommas obese? We have thrown all kinds of education at them, matter of fact, thrown all kinds of money at them on how NOT to have kids, yet they still do. Perpetual government wards.

not hedge said:

---

It's not about laziness, we both know that

---

How much time do you spend at food banks?


Many parents don't want to spend their "funds" feeding their kids.

Please get back to me when you do spend time providing groceries and meals to these entitled foot warts.

Cheap food is higher in saturated fats and processed crap. It's a fact that it's cheaper to eat junk food than a healthy meal

boboguitar said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Quote:

---

Very few are hungry,

---

Source?

---

Volunteering at food banks and watching in the cafeteria with the share baskets inundated with the free food they don't want and the cans being full when the share baskets can hold no more.

I know know, anecdotes aren't proof or a source. Just like listing studies saying the number of kids living in poverty doesn't prove the kids are hungry.

This lines the pockets of Aramark etc with very few kids actually eating most of the daily lunch and breakfast.

---

I mean, I can match anecdotes as well. Like you, a long time ago, I used to be a teacher at title 1 schools. A huge percentage of my kids only meal was the free breakfast and lunch they got at school, otherwise, they would be hungry.

---

Complete lie to push a troll

not hedge said:

---

Cheap food is higher in saturated fats and processed crap. It's a fact that it's cheaper to eat junk food than a healthy meal

---

Only if lazy.

Which I guess you are.