only thing i miss is that super greasy high school pizza.../drools

hey now we are allowed to eat a few unhealthy things once in awhile!!

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by deviliscious

WOW.. I have eaten breakfast my entire life, and never at school.

I have always had eggs, ham or sausage, hashbrowns; biscuits n gravy... No sugary cereals of anything like that . School food sucks, why would a kid want to eat that junk when they can have a real homecooked breakfast?  I used to wake up extra early and make breakfast for  my brother and sisters as well.  That would completely suck for kids to have to eat school food instead of good home cooking . LOL

 

 

Because not everyone is so fortunate to have that luxury.

 

And how many breakfasts have you made for underprivledged youth?  Please don't pass on your wealth guilt to others who have no reason to feel guilty.

To the OP: Government programs always want more and more control.  It's the nature of things :(

It is unfortunate that more parents don't take responsibility for their children's needs and make sure they have the proper foods to help them grow strong.  This is unfortunately another example of people offloading responsibility to the government. :(

 

So what do you want to do?  You don't want the government feeding children, so what do you propose.  Apparently all the private charities aren't getting the job done, so what is the solution.

I'm not even talking about the school breakfast thing.  Why is it wrong for government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?  Please, I'd like to see you explain that one.  Would you rather them not eat?

Once the private charities prove that they can handle taking care of those in need I'll stop supporting government run aid.  Since that certainly won't happen anytime soon, I'll continue advocating my tax dollars going to feeding those in need.

And to answer your first question.  I volunteer at an after school program for young kids here in Chicago.  So shut it.

Jesus, Joseph and Mary.. The goal isn't to FORCE children to eat breakfast from now on. It's to figure out why there exists as much as a 80% gap between schools in the exact same system; where some serve breakfast prior to school, some during homeroom, and whatever other discrepancies that exist that might lend to such a huge gap.

Please don't sully something as freaking old and beneficial as school breakfast with the usual liberty vs. tyranny rhetoric this thread is headed towards, because there exists no mandate for breakfast and you can't without completing making an ass of yourself start using words like 'force'. Even if there were a measure to mandate breakfasts already be on every child's desk each morning, its not like they can force feed them.

But we all know where this thread is heading. By all means, go ahead, in a couple of pages you'll be watering the tree of liberty with rage keyboard tapping and have one more insignificant falsehood lodged into your brain to be afraid of your own country about.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

So what do you want to do?  You don't want the government feeding children, so what do you propose.  Apparently all the private charities aren't getting the job done, so what is the solution.

I'm not even talking about the school breakfast thing.  Why is it wrong for government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?  Please, I'd like to see you explain that one.  Would you rather them not eat?

Once the private charities prove that they can handle taking care of those in need I'll stop supporting government run aid.  Since that certainly won't happen anytime soon, I'll continue advocating my tax dollars going to feeding those in need.

 

And to answer your first question.  I volunteer at an after school program for young kids here in Chicago.  So shut it.

You made a huge assumption that private charities haven't gotten the job done.  Show me an instance where schools have said to their community, "Please help us provide breakfast foods for the children."  Or "Please donate money to help bring quality foods in to the schools".  No, what they've done is gone straight to the government to provide for them, instead of taking responsibility and doing it themselves.

Why is it wrong for the government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?

Because it is done through coercion, the only way government funds anything is with coercion.  Charity is only virtuous when it is done with both parties through voluntary consent.

"Would you prefer them to not eat?"  Lol what a ridiculous statement.  I said that children should go hungry where?  I simply asked, if it is so bad, why aren't you giving your time, talents and property to help?  Why do you think its virtuous to force others to help when you will not?  So you help out at an after school program, thanks for your service.  Now will you help 'feed the children'?

Free markets would solve this.  If it became an issue large enough that it actually mattered schools would be forced (through competition) to provide the services their clients want.  if parents wanted their students to be able to buy healthy breakfast foods then the schools could charge whatever they please to fill that need.  if you didn't want to pay that charge you're free to go elsewhere for education.

It ceases to amaze me how the problems caused by government are only solved by more government.

watch thsi video sab  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM it explains why stealing is never ok, even when the government does it.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

 

Yes, we need to force them to eat breakfast, since they seem so undernourished.

 

I Alf. He's such a cute and unique character.

That T-shirt is awesome ;)

I still cant see whats so wrong. true a school is more or less forcing school kids to eat a round square meal at the begining of the day. But i say whats wrong with that its good for them to eat at that time of day as it gives them energy and some nutrition.

Not everyone can afford a sausage bacon and waffle breakfast every day you know.

Amazingly, when I first saw my kids' school served breakfast, I was somewhat boggled.  However, when I saw that even someone in my income bracket could pay less than $2 for breakfast and lunch at grade school, I realized why people are doing it.  It saves parents money and time.  Needless to say, I have looked at the menu and my kids have yet to eat a meal at school.  I gladly pay more to the local grocery store and put the time in to make meals that are more nutritious.

That said, I would be upset if my school forced my kids to come early for breakfast.  For those that don't know, that is also what you have to do.  Bring your kid to school a half-hour early for breakfast.  It basically amounts to an extra half-hour of daycare for your kids for like 35 cents.  And some parents like the idea of less time chasing their kids...

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

So what do you want to do?  You don't want the government feeding children, so what do you propose.  Apparently all the private charities aren't getting the job done, so what is the solution.

I'm not even talking about the school breakfast thing.  Why is it wrong for government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?  Please, I'd like to see you explain that one.  Would you rather them not eat?

Once the private charities prove that they can handle taking care of those in need I'll stop supporting government run aid.  Since that certainly won't happen anytime soon, I'll continue advocating my tax dollars going to feeding those in need.

 

And to answer your first question.  I volunteer at an after school program for young kids here in Chicago.  So shut it.

 

You made a huge assumption that private charities haven't gotten the job done.  Show me an instance where schools have said to their community, "Please help us provide breakfast foods for the children."  Or "Please donate money to help bring quality foods in to the schools".  No, what they've done is gone straight to the government to provide for them, instead of taking responsibility and doing it themselves.

Why is it wrong for the government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?

Because it is done through coercion, the only way government funds anything is with coercion.  Charity is only virtuous when it is done with both parties through voluntary consent.

"Would you prefer them to not eat?"  Lol what a ridiculous statement.  I said that children should go hungry where?  I simply asked, if it is so bad, why aren't you giving your time, talents and property to help?  Why do you think its virtuous to force others to help when you will not?  So you help out at an after school program, thanks for your service.  Now will you help 'feed the children'?

Free markets would solve this.  If it became an issue large enough that it actually mattered schools would be forced (through competition) to provide the services their clients want.  if parents wanted their students to be able to buy healthy breakfast foods then the schools could charge whatever they please to fill that need.  if you didn't want to pay that charge you're free to go elsewhere for education.

It ceases to amaze me how the problems caused by government are only solved by more government.

watch thsi video sab  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM it explains why stealing is never ok, even when the government does it.

 

So what is ok for the government to "steal".  Because every time I hear that argument the person saying it only claims it's stealing when it's something he/she doesn't like, meanwhile completely ignores plenty of other government funded programs.

Police, Fire Departments, Highway Department, Military, Vet hospitals, etc.  All funded by some form of government.

Are these ok?  Or is this stealing too?

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 Why does this not make sense to people but mandatory exercise at school does?

Have you looked at some of the so-called breakfast menus for those schools that offer it?

I Googled some, and 3/4 seem to be mostly sugar based, the rest are a mix of sugar + fat. In one case all that was offered for 3 out of 5 days was a selection of 5 different cereals, all heavily sugared.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

So what do you want to do?  You don't want the government feeding children, so what do you propose.  Apparently all the private charities aren't getting the job done, so what is the solution.

I'm not even talking about the school breakfast thing.  Why is it wrong for government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?  Please, I'd like to see you explain that one.  Would you rather them not eat?

Once the private charities prove that they can handle taking care of those in need I'll stop supporting government run aid.  Since that certainly won't happen anytime soon, I'll continue advocating my tax dollars going to feeding those in need.

 

And to answer your first question.  I volunteer at an after school program for young kids here in Chicago.  So shut it.

Example http://www.alleganpublicschools.org/elem_bfast.pdf  And in case you don't know what a "continetnal breakfast" is, it is basically pastries or toast and jam + butter.
 

What you are missing here is that something like 80% of the breakfast money goes to children that are far above any poverty line - far above any "charity case", but whose parents are too freeking lazy.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

So what do you want to do?  You don't want the government feeding children, so what do you propose.  Apparently all the private charities aren't getting the job done, so what is the solution.

I'm not even talking about the school breakfast thing.  Why is it wrong for government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?  Please, I'd like to see you explain that one.  Would you rather them not eat?

Once the private charities prove that they can handle taking care of those in need I'll stop supporting government run aid.  Since that certainly won't happen anytime soon, I'll continue advocating my tax dollars going to feeding those in need.

 

And to answer your first question.  I volunteer at an after school program for young kids here in Chicago.  So shut it.

 

You made a huge assumption that private charities haven't gotten the job done.  Show me an instance where schools have said to their community, "Please help us provide breakfast foods for the children."  Or "Please donate money to help bring quality foods in to the schools".  No, what they've done is gone straight to the government to provide for them, instead of taking responsibility and doing it themselves.

Why is it wrong for the government to feed children who aren't being fed at home or by private charities?

Because it is done through coercion, the only way government funds anything is with coercion.  Charity is only virtuous when it is done with both parties through voluntary consent.

"Would you prefer them to not eat?"  Lol what a ridiculous statement.  I said that children should go hungry where?  I simply asked, if it is so bad, why aren't you giving your time, talents and property to help?  Why do you think its virtuous to force others to help when you will not?  So you help out at an after school program, thanks for your service.  Now will you help 'feed the children'?

Free markets would solve this.  If it became an issue large enough that it actually mattered schools would be forced (through competition) to provide the services their clients want.  if parents wanted their students to be able to buy healthy breakfast foods then the schools could charge whatever they please to fill that need.  if you didn't want to pay that charge you're free to go elsewhere for education.

It ceases to amaze me how the problems caused by government are only solved by more government.

watch thsi video sab  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM it explains why stealing is never ok, even when the government does it.

 

 

So what is ok for the government to "steal".  Because every time I hear that argument the person saying it only claims it's stealing when it's something he/she doesn't like, meanwhile completely ignores plenty of other government funded programs.

 

Police, Fire Departments, Highway Department, Military, Vet hospitals, etc.  All funded by some form of government.

 

Are these ok?  Or is this stealing too?

 

Actually, government by its very nature is always funded by some form of armed robbery, that is partially why our founders referred to it as essentially evil. A necessary evil at best, but always evil. One uses evil to stem evil, just as one uses violence to stop violence sometimes.

It is never  GOOD thing to kill someone, even in self defense. It would always be better to simply stop someone, but sometimes one has to do a smaller evil to stop a greater evil. As one teaches in the martial arts. Better to walk away rather than block, better to block rather than hit, better to hit rather than maim, better to maim rather than kill.

One should always try and use the least amount of violence or threat of violence possible in all interactions.

That is why governments are instituted among men. To prevent and protect them from violence. Not for charity.

Only those things where it is absolutely necessary to use guns are the things we ought to use government for.

If it's worth shooting a person over -- it's perfect for government. If not, not.

The only social contract I have with the government Sab is through the Constitution.  How about we stick to using taxes to fund those proper roles of government.  Shared defense, protection of property from force, fraud, and deception.

I didn't give them the power to take from others and give to me, nor do I ask them to; or expect them to do so on someone else's behalf and take from me.

And on the flip side, every time I hear someone say it's not stealing its always because the taxes are being used to fund something THEY like.

Please, it's always theivery like Fisher just stated and the proper role of government is ONLY to do the things I listed above, and quite frankly that is what our Constitution is supposed to ensure.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

The only social contract I have with the government Sab is through the Constitution.  How about we stick to using taxes to fund those proper roles of government.  Shared defense, protection of property from force, fraud, and deception.

I didn't give them the power to take from others and give to me, nor do I ask them to; or expect them to do so on someone else's behalf and take from me.

And on the flip side, every time I hear someone say it's not stealing its always because the taxes are being used to fund something THEY like.

Please, it's always theivery like Fisher just stated and the proper role of government is ONLY to do the things I listed above, and quite frankly that is what our Constitution is supposed to ensure.

Sadly, he thinks the US Constitution is an outdated, "ancient" document -- or at least that is what he has said in the past when I bring up the constitution.