TAKOMA PARK, Md. - As back-to-back snowstorms shuttered schools for the week across the mid-Atlantic states, parents fretted about lost learning time, administrators scheduled makeup days and teachers posted assignments online. But Marla Caplon worried about a more fundamental problem: How would students eat?
The two snowstorms that pummeled the region, leaving more than 3 feet of snow in some areas, deprived tens of thousands of children from Virginia to Pennsylvania of the free or reduced-price school lunch that may be their only nutritious meal of the day. The nonprofits that try to meet the need when school is not in session also closed their doors for much of the week, leaving many families looking at bare cupboards. And many parents working hourly jobs were unable to earn any money during the week, as the snow forced businesses to close.
Caplon is a food services supervisor for Montgomery County Public Schools, where about 43,000 children are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Some also get breakfast, dinner and bags of staple foods to take home for the weekend. The snow days meant children would get none of that until Tuesday, because schools are closed Monday for Presidents Day.
I guess the Nanny State needs to go home with these people an live their lives for them, because they must be utterly incapable of even feeding their kids, right? The kiddos are missing out on their 'one nutritious meal' of the day (that's laughable, has anyone taken a look at those school lunches lately?) because of they are missing an extra day of school from the snow.
I guess the parents count on the kids eating free lunch at school to keep them in beer money, is that it? Maybe Obama can start a program to keep free lunches going 7 days a week, eh?
Snow days deprive many kids of food - Weather- msnbc.com
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
I guess the Nanny State needs to go home with these people an live their lives for them, because they must be utterly incapable of even feeding their kids, right?
So they stay home to feed their kids right?You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
That lady drives around and delivers food to these children.How do they get fed in the summertime when there is no school?
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
OK, so there are a lot of poor kids in the US. It sucks that they are missing out on a meal, but what sucks more is the government deciding that they should take money out of MY pocket to feed them. If I am charitable, and I am, then I donate money freely, of my own free will. If the government takes my money, for whatever cause they believe is right, then they are thieves, because what they are doing is stealing.
Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.
You do know there are poor people in this country right? People who have to chose between $5 of gas to drive to work and $5 to buy something to eat for their kids?
The first is done against one's will and without consent, the second is done freely using one's free will.
The end result may be the same, but they are totally different.
The first is done against one's will and without consent, the second is done freely using one's free will.
The end result may be the same, but they are totally different.
Interesting perspective. This might highlight one of the main differences between conservatives (and I mean the rare nonloony ones on this forum like Dan or Ockham) and liberals. As a liberal, I am more concerned that the ends are served, now necessarily how it is done (in this situation, different situations will create different approaches from different groups, of course.) But good, more charity means less need for welfare, as long as the charity goes to the right place and doesn't end up supporting something useless like a community symphony.
This man gets it - Free will vs. coercion. There is a HUGE difference between the two.
A cigar to you, Ockham.
OK, so there are a lot of poor kids in the US. It sucks that they are missing out on a meal, but what sucks more is the government deciding that they should take money out of MY pocket to feed them. If I am charitable, and I am, then I donate money freely, of my own free will. If the government takes my money, for whatever cause they believe is right, then they are thieves, because what they are doing is stealing.
It's the difference between voluntary cooperation and coercive cooperation. The Constitution does not provide this explicit or implied power to the fed govt.Honestly, I simply do not understand this argument. Especially if the end result is the same thing.
There is no social contract in the US to support a school lunch program under the Constitution. If you contend there is, please show me the clause and background.Whether you agree with the school lunch program or not, anyone with even a elementary understanding of civics knows that allocating part of your tax dollars towards it does not constitute theft, but rather its social contract. There is 195 nations in the "market of nations" to choose from. If someone does not like the social contract in the United States, there are 194 different nations on the menu - all with their own social contracts that residents live under.
My point is that calling anything your tax dollars goes to "theft" is an argument for people that are a lot less intelligent than you are.
Interesting perspective. This might highlight one of the main differences between conservatives (and I mean the rare nonloony ones on this forum like Dan or Ockham) and liberals. As a liberal, I am more concerned that the ends are served, now necessarily how it is done (in this situation, different situations will create different approaches from different groups, of course.) But good, more charity means less need for welfare, as long as the charity goes to the right place and doesn't end up supporting something useless like a community symphony.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?