Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

 


Instead of picking and choosing, just give the lunch to every kid. More efficient. 
 

And yes, I believe every kid is entitled to food. 

And anyone that disagrees with “free food for kids who’s families can afford to feed them” is an individual of low quality. Outstanding work on your part. 
 

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Most probably agree.  Just interesting it wasn't even a topic till corps like Delaware north and Aramark Mark got the contracts to do the cafes in large districts.  

 

 


Pretty sure it’s been a topic much longer than that. 
 

5 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

And anyone that disagrees with “free food for kids who’s families can afford to feed them” is an individual of low quality. Outstanding work on your part. 
 

 

 

Because it’s a bad take and you should feel bad. Just because a kid might have a wealthy family doesn’t necessarily mean they’re getting fed in the morning or a lunch packed. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


Pretty sure it’s been a topic much longer than that. 
 

 

Because it’s a bad take and you should feel bad. Just because a kid might have a wealthy family doesn’t necessarily mean they’re getting fed in the morning or a lunch packed. 

What makes me feel bad is hustlers taking from people of need and people like you approving of it because it’s “more efficient”. All the while imagining yourself to be of higher “quality”. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


Pretty sure it’s been a topic much longer than that. 
 

 

Because it’s a bad take and you should feel bad. Just because a kid might have a wealthy family doesn’t necessarily mean they’re getting fed in the morning or a lunch packed. 


Then the wealthy parents can give lunch money to child to buy their on lunch 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I honestly wonder what the bureaucratic / administrative costs of means testing for school lunches would be against the cost of just giving everyone food.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was easier and cheaper to just to give it to every kid instead of trying to determine who qualifies. 

Posted
46 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Kids don't eat a lot of those school lunches. Tremendous waste.

Just hand out free peanut butter, jelly, and cheapo bread.

 

You ever see what kids get in like S Korea or France?  I'm sure the examples I happened to be shown were top of the line but I'm sure their average is way above ours nutritionally speaking.

 

You ask me one of the ways we are failing youth is through diet.  Parents partially to blame here too.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I honestly wonder what the bureaucratic / administrative costs of means testing for school lunches would be against the cost of just giving everyone food.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was easier and cheaper to just to give it to every kid instead of trying to determine who qualifies. 

Kids of limited means have been getting free/discounted school meals for decades. I have a hard time thinking that it’s created a bureaucratic nightmare that we are just uncovering and solving in 2024 by throwing hands up and feeding everyone for convenience reasons. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

What makes me feel bad is hustlers taking from people of need and people like you approving of it because it’s “more efficient”. All the while imagining yourself to be of higher “quality”. 


A kid’s family being middle or upper class is by no means a guarantee that they have food in the morning/afternoon. 
 

Every argument against universal free lunch boils down to selfishness. Every single one. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Roundybout said:


A kid’s family being middle or upper class is by no means a guarantee that they have food in the morning/afternoon. 
 

Every argument against universal free lunch boils down to selfishness. Every single one. 

I'm not sure I'd want to do it if we're just feeding them crap though.   And I'm sure that's what would happen. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


A kid’s family being middle or upper class is by no means a guarantee that they have food in the morning/afternoon. 
 

Every argument against universal free lunch boils down to selfishness. Every single one. 

Sure. Selfishness. So now the social safety net needs to actually include people of means. Good idea. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

I'm not sure I'd want to do it if we're just feeding them crap though.   And I'm sure that's what would happen. 


That’s policy that can be adjusted though. Just got to get it off the ground. 

7 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

Sure. Selfishness. So now the social safety net needs to actually include people of means. Good idea. 


Kids are kids. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


That’s policy that can be adjusted though. Just got to get it off the ground. 


Kids are kids. 

How are you going to approach their dinner? Not care so long as the free lunch is available? There’s no guarantee they will have evening food. If you are a “quality” person you will account for dinner. Otherwise, you are what you decry. Right?

Posted
7 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

How are you going to approach their dinner? Not care so long as the free lunch is available? There’s no guarantee they will have evening food. If you are a “quality” person you will account for dinner. Otherwise, you are what you decry. Right?


Whataboutism is a common logical fallacy.

 

We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about school lunches. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


Whataboutism is a common logical fallacy.

 

We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about school lunches. 

And you turned it into “there’s no guarantee people of means feed their kids”. I’m trying to understand why you would only be concerned about that

M-F 9 months a year. 

Posted
18 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

 

 

No wonder she's supporting Kamala.  Dick Jr. wouldn't do well in a men's prison...

Posted
6 hours ago, Roundybout said:


Because it benefits society as a whole to feed kids. Surely even you are smart enough to recognize that. 
 

Thanks for proving my point though. 

The current policy of feeding everyone in Orange County is a huge contract for Sysco, who provides schools with the lower quality fruit and vegetables that they can't sell to people. By federal law we can allow schools to go a local vendor to provide better foods, it must be one of the large companies that fulfil certain requirements that ensure the lunches are not good. We throw out so much food daily it is disgusting but we passed the law a few years back without a plan on how to make it work properly

Posted
1 hour ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

And you turned it into “there’s no guarantee people of means feed their kids”. I’m trying to understand why you would only be concerned about that

M-F 9 months a year. 


Because I’m concerned about the policy that schools can directly fix.

Just now, Orlando Buffalo said:

The current policy of feeding everyone in Orange County is a huge contract for Sysco, who provides schools with the lower quality fruit and vegetables that they can't sell to people. By federal law we can allow schools to go a local vendor to provide better foods, it must be one of the large companies that fulfil certain requirements that ensure the lunches are not good. We throw out so much food daily it is disgusting but we passed the law a few years back without a plan on how to make it work properly


I agree, food should be high quality!

Posted
Just now, Roundybout said:


 

I agree, food should be high quality!

The only way to ensure high quality is at the local level, but that is not allowed by federal laws, so how do you remedy that? Or do you think DC can control what lunch is available at the 210 schools in my county?

×
×
  • Create New...