7 ms·

> What, if any, are the political arguments against government-provided 3 square meals a day for kids provided by default? Other programs could be a better use

> What, if any, are the political arguments against government-provided 3 square meals a day for kids provided by default? Other programs could be a better use of resources and provide more support to parents. Like minimum income programs that make paying for lunch a non-issue. Hypothetically, parents might want their children to follow certain diets for legitimate reasons, so letting them provide meals provides more support in those situations.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
Giving money to parents doesn't necessarily fix the problem of hungry children (this is not a slight to minimum income policies generally; I think all adults should be guaranteed a minimum quality of life regardless of if they've "earned" it, but I understand this is a much larger lift politically and will not necessarily fix everything). I want to fix the problem to hungry children directly by feeding them regardless of the parents capacity to feed them from their own wealth.
- humanrebar 4y ago
  Given sufficient family finances, you can't really fix that without fixing the problem of neglectful or abusive parents.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    That's why I'm asking why can't we provide meals in the schools themselves so at minimum regardless of what's happening at home, children can eat.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      That's just covering a symptom. Truly helping abused children means removing them from the environment of abuse.
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        And while that's happening, the kids can eat at school. Removal is often a long process, and you can't rely on proper enforcement, even post-removal foster programs. None of this solves a kid being hungry at school. All I am asking is the minimum floor: Regardless of what's happening outside of school, in school a child can have food if they are hungry.
        giantg2 4y ago
        This makes no sense since the same argument can be made about school lunches not being correctly enforced and allowing a child to go hungry because it does meet their dietary restrictions or other enforcement/implementing is flawed. If there are flaws in the overall system, then Mayne we should focus on treating those. Again, treat the causes, not the symptoms.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        We're not talking about abused children. We're talking about children from poor homes.
        giantg2 4y ago
        Please follow the context of this comment. This was about providing minimum income or otherwise providing money to parents to support their children.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        The GP was saying that if children arrive hungry for school, they're being abused by their parents; who should be arrested as criminals, and their children taken into care or adopted. Did you miss that bit of the context of the comment?
        giantg2 4y ago
        I don't see that anywhere. It seems you're misinterpreting, especially if you're not posting quotes. If the parents have the money (or access to programs that provide resources) and still choose to not properly feed or care for their kid, then perhaps the things you mention do fit. There's clearly case law that supports anyways.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Go to your local school. Offer to fund their lunch program for a semester or a year.
    - humanrebar 4y ago
      You seemed to want to hear other perspectives and I provided one. And that's in contrast with most of the other replies which boil down to "conservatives are dumb or selfish". I'm not interested in debating politics on HN.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Giving money to parents doesn't necessarily fix the problem of hungry children" If the parents have the money to feed their children and choose not to, there are bigger problems. Addressing the root of that problem would be better than just providing a meal (likely other abuse exists).
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Giving money to parents might result in the rent getting paid; it might not result in better nutrition for kids. Thing is, you can't learn if you're hungry. You can't even sit still in class - you disrupt the education of other kids, and you make life hell for the teacher. If schools are required to educate kids, and the kids are hungry, then the schools will fail to educate those kids. That is, if they're not ensuring they're fed, then they're doing it wrong.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      What scenarios are the needs-based USDA programs, SNAP/WIC, and food banks missing?
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        I am not well-informed about the inadequacies of the USA's means-testing of "welfare" (a term that is clean in the UK, but in the USA it's regarded as either plain wrong, or as evidence of bad character). Being forced to fall back on a food bank is considered demeaning here. From what I've read upthread, a lot of food banks in the USA are church-run. Many people will be ultra-reluctant to essentially beg for help from churchy people, however careful those people are are to keep their churchiness out of their aid provision.
        giantg2 4y ago
        Many food banks are not associated with churches. Why is it a problem that asking for free food is "demeaning"? Seems like that's more of a perspective or attitude issue than a functional one.
humanrebar 4y ago
I'll add that a lot of conservatives would like to see more alternative schooling options, including grants to parents in lieu of direct funds to public schools. In those situations "school lunch" is just lunch.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

Giving money to parents doesn't necessarily fix the problem of hungry children (this is not a slight to minimum income policies generally; I think all adults should be guaranteed a minimum quality of life regardless of if they've "earned" it, but I understand this is a much larger lift politically and will not necessarily fix everything). I want to fix the problem to hungry children directly by feeding them regardless of the parents capacity to feed them from their own wealth.

humanrebar 4y ago
Given sufficient family finances, you can't really fix that without fixing the problem of neglectful or abusive parents.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  That's why I'm asking why can't we provide meals in the schools themselves so at minimum regardless of what's happening at home, children can eat.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    That's just covering a symptom. Truly helping abused children means removing them from the environment of abuse.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      And while that's happening, the kids can eat at school. Removal is often a long process, and you can't rely on proper enforcement, even post-removal foster programs. None of this solves a kid being hungry at school. All I am asking is the minimum floor: Regardless of what's happening outside of school, in school a child can have food if they are hungry.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        This makes no sense since the same argument can be made about school lunches not being correctly enforced and allowing a child to go hungry because it does meet their dietary restrictions or other enforcement/implementing is flawed. If there are flaws in the overall system, then Mayne we should focus on treating those. Again, treat the causes, not the symptoms.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      We're not talking about abused children. We're talking about children from poor homes.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Please follow the context of this comment. This was about providing minimum income or otherwise providing money to parents to support their children.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        The GP was saying that if children arrive hungry for school, they're being abused by their parents; who should be arrested as criminals, and their children taken into care or adopted. Did you miss that bit of the context of the comment?
        giantg2 4y ago
        I don't see that anywhere. It seems you're misinterpreting, especially if you're not posting quotes. If the parents have the money (or access to programs that provide resources) and still choose to not properly feed or care for their kid, then perhaps the things you mention do fit. There's clearly case law that supports anyways.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Go to your local school. Offer to fund their lunch program for a semester or a year.
  - humanrebar 4y ago
    You seemed to want to hear other perspectives and I provided one. And that's in contrast with most of the other replies which boil down to "conservatives are dumb or selfish". I'm not interested in debating politics on HN.
giantg2 4y ago
"Giving money to parents doesn't necessarily fix the problem of hungry children" If the parents have the money to feed their children and choose not to, there are bigger problems. Addressing the root of that problem would be better than just providing a meal (likely other abuse exists).
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Giving money to parents might result in the rent getting paid; it might not result in better nutrition for kids. Thing is, you can't learn if you're hungry. You can't even sit still in class - you disrupt the education of other kids, and you make life hell for the teacher. If schools are required to educate kids, and the kids are hungry, then the schools will fail to educate those kids. That is, if they're not ensuring they're fed, then they're doing it wrong.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    What scenarios are the needs-based USDA programs, SNAP/WIC, and food banks missing?
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      I am not well-informed about the inadequacies of the USA's means-testing of "welfare" (a term that is clean in the UK, but in the USA it's regarded as either plain wrong, or as evidence of bad character). Being forced to fall back on a food bank is considered demeaning here. From what I've read upthread, a lot of food banks in the USA are church-run. Many people will be ultra-reluctant to essentially beg for help from churchy people, however careful those people are are to keep their churchiness out of their aid provision.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Many food banks are not associated with churches. Why is it a problem that asking for free food is "demeaning"? Seems like that's more of a perspective or attitude issue than a functional one.

humanrebar 4y ago

I'll add that a lot of conservatives would like to see more alternative schooling options, including grants to parents in lieu of direct funds to public schools. In those situations "school lunch" is just lunch.