Roundybout Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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.
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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.
Roundybout Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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. 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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?
Roundybout Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted October 16 Posted October 16 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.
Doc Posted October 16 Posted October 16 18 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: No wonder she's supporting Kamala. Dick Jr. wouldn't do well in a men's prison...
Orlando Buffalo Posted October 17 Posted October 17 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
Roundybout Posted October 17 Posted October 17 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!
Orlando Buffalo Posted October 17 Posted October 17 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?
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted October 17 Posted October 17 7 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Because I’m concerned about the policy that schools can directly fix. Schools have been providing meals to low income students for longer than you have been alive. What makes it an issue now? 1
Roundybout Posted October 17 Posted October 17 36 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: Schools have been providing meals to low income students for longer than you have been alive. What makes it an issue now? It’s not enough, that’s what.
Orlando Buffalo Posted October 17 Posted October 17 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: It’s not enough, that’s what. My wife has taught for 20+ years and abd before we went to all free lunches people had to be means tested, which was not that big a deal and was never truly verified. The issue came up where a multiple time pro bowl NFL player had a kid at my wife's school who qualified because the father was a deadbeat dad despite being worth 10+ million. Why do I have to pay to feed his kid? And this is a true situation.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 17 Posted October 17 4 hours 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. Why not just give every child cash and cut the middleman out entirely? That’s got to be way easier and cheaper still.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 17 Posted October 17 2 hours ago, Roundybout said: Whataboutism is a common logical fallacy. We’re not talking about that, we’re talking about school lunches. Roundy’s manifesto for government excellence is pro-food m-f 8am-2:20pm, save vacation days, days of religious observance, carve outs for teacher meetings/district events, snow days and those days that would have been snow days had it snowed on certain days when it didn’t snow. It’s sort of a long campaign slogan but you’ll get some votes.
K D Posted October 17 Posted October 17 4 hours ago, SCBills said: She was also 6'9" and much bigger than him and could have easily overpowered him. This was no ordinary woman. He's lucky to be alive. When Lefties don't concede these points it absolutely ruins their entire case and they lose all credibility. 1
Roundybout Posted October 17 Posted October 17 9 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: My wife has taught for 20+ years and abd before we went to all free lunches people had to be means tested, which was not that big a deal and was never truly verified. The issue came up where a multiple time pro bowl NFL player had a kid at my wife's school who qualified because the father was a deadbeat dad despite being worth 10+ million. Why do I have to pay to feed his kid? And this is a true situation. You answered your own question. “Deadbeat dad.” 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted October 17 Posted October 17 47 minutes ago, Roundybout said: You answered your own question. “Deadbeat dad.” So it's the father's burden, not the tax payers.
Recommended Posts