3 ms·

You're making a lot of generalizations that are objectively false, and yes you can blame this outcome on society. Society has just as much an obligation to ensu

You're making a lot of generalizations that are objectively false, and yes you can blame this outcome on society. Society has just as much an obligation to ensuring the well-being of children as parents do. That's why schooling exists in the first place, and is why schools should be the ones to provide healthy food. And food stamps barely cover anything for families these days. Considering I've had first hand experience with that and my family, I know it to be true.

oefrha 4y ago
Society has an obligation to ensuring the well-being of grown ups. Maybe start allocating and rationing food for everyone so that everyone is on a healthy diet. Also, the average SNAP benefit per person per meal in 2019 was ~$1.40.[1] That’s not “barely anything” for a home-cooked meal. It should cover about half of a reasonably good meal. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...
- theluketowers 4y ago
  I'm curious to know what what "reasonably good" meals you're making for less than $3. That would cover pretty close to nothing in Canada. If such meals exist I'd be happy to learn more about them, feeding a family of four costs me around $1k a month.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    It’s $3 per person per meal. Which is $1080/30 days for a family of four. Your budget just validates it.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  And where do you expect the rest of the money for said 'good meal' to come from, exactly? You do realize how far into poverty you have to be to even qualify for SNAP, right? Considering when I was in highschool my parents were disabled and received food stamps averaging around $200 dollars for three people, there was no affording 'good' meals. Most of what I ate was because I qualified under the poverty line and could get free lunches from school. Food stamps had to be stretched far out, since the rest of the assistance they got had to go towards power, rent and other utilities. I sincerely hope you never have to experience being poor and understand how awful your advice is first hand.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    I don’t know when you were in high school, but if it’s very recent, $200 for 3 is way below the average quoted in my linked report. If it’s not very recent, then you didn’t have access to the program being cancelled in TFA in the first place.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      This was in the mid-2000s. And your second point has zero relevance because my state (WA) had a separate program for reduced / free lunches for children in poverty. As a result of that, I believe free school lunches should be universal, per the program being cancelled. Do you have any more assumptions you'd like to make?
      - oefrha 4y ago
        The second point is relevant because smaller scale, more targeted programs existed before and can continue regardless of this sweeping program.
        fzeroracer 4y ago
        Except the smaller scale programs are less funded and have to make specific concessions to exist. Most of the lunches served at my school were unhealthy and everyone had to eat the same thing regardless of allergies or other problems. So you had poor kids being stigmatized because they would get a free lunch or trade their lunch with someone else because they were lactose intolerant. You could ask pretty much anyone that grew up in that time and they'd talk about eating things like cheap hamburgers or pizza squares. That's why this sweeping program was important because food costs money, and giving schools more money for food means better and healthier selections for kids. I'm getting the feeling you never dealt with this problem growing up.

oefrha 4y ago

Society has an obligation to ensuring the well-being of grown ups. Maybe start allocating and rationing food for everyone so that everyone is on a healthy diet. Also, the average SNAP benefit per person per meal in 2019 was ~$1.40.[1] That’s not “barely anything” for a home-cooked meal. It should cover about half of a reasonably good meal. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...

theluketowers 4y ago
I'm curious to know what what "reasonably good" meals you're making for less than $3. That would cover pretty close to nothing in Canada. If such meals exist I'd be happy to learn more about them, feeding a family of four costs me around $1k a month.
- oefrha 4y ago
  It’s $3 per person per meal. Which is $1080/30 days for a family of four. Your budget just validates it.
fzeroracer 4y ago
And where do you expect the rest of the money for said 'good meal' to come from, exactly? You do realize how far into poverty you have to be to even qualify for SNAP, right? Considering when I was in highschool my parents were disabled and received food stamps averaging around $200 dollars for three people, there was no affording 'good' meals. Most of what I ate was because I qualified under the poverty line and could get free lunches from school. Food stamps had to be stretched far out, since the rest of the assistance they got had to go towards power, rent and other utilities. I sincerely hope you never have to experience being poor and understand how awful your advice is first hand.
- oefrha 4y ago
  I don’t know when you were in high school, but if it’s very recent, $200 for 3 is way below the average quoted in my linked report. If it’s not very recent, then you didn’t have access to the program being cancelled in TFA in the first place.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    This was in the mid-2000s. And your second point has zero relevance because my state (WA) had a separate program for reduced / free lunches for children in poverty. As a result of that, I believe free school lunches should be universal, per the program being cancelled. Do you have any more assumptions you'd like to make?
    - oefrha 4y ago
      The second point is relevant because smaller scale, more targeted programs existed before and can continue regardless of this sweeping program.
      - fzeroracer 4y ago
        Except the smaller scale programs are less funded and have to make specific concessions to exist. Most of the lunches served at my school were unhealthy and everyone had to eat the same thing regardless of allergies or other problems. So you had poor kids being stigmatized because they would get a free lunch or trade their lunch with someone else because they were lactose intolerant. You could ask pretty much anyone that grew up in that time and they'd talk about eating things like cheap hamburgers or pizza squares. That's why this sweeping program was important because food costs money, and giving schools more money for food means better and healthier selections for kids. I'm getting the feeling you never dealt with this problem growing up.