Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 May 2016, 5:38 am

First off, those who can not afford a kid to take a sandwich and an apple to school is pretty slim but of those VERY few who can't afford that simple a lunch, then they are fine with the crap the school serves. It gets them by, that is all the school need provide. Are they "deserving" of eclairs, prime rib and linens on the tables? absolutely not!!!!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 May 2016, 6:44 am

gmtom
First off, those who can not afford a kid to take a sandwich and an apple to school is pretty slim

And what do you base that on?

Here's what i found on food insecurity:
In 2014:

48.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 32.8 million adults and 15.3 million children.
14 percent of households (17.4 million households) were food insecure.
6 percent of households (6.9 million households) experienced very low food security.
Households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 19 percent compared to 12 percent.
Households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (19%), especially households with children headed by single women (35%) or single men (22%), Black non-Hispanic households (26%) and Hispanic households (22%).

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

GMTom
but of those VERY few who can't afford that simple a lunch, then they are fine with the crap the school serves. It gets them by, that is all the school need provide

How incredibly generous... Let them eat crap...
Now, the "crap" as you put it, is often a contributor to obseity and diabetes ...so in the long run its a lousy investment.
In the short run it doesn't provide adequate nutrition for childhood development. Good nutrition is important for young brains to learn. (Well all brains... really. )

GMTom
Are they "deserving" of eclairs, prime rib and linens on the tables? absolutely not!!!!

Does this mean that the French value the development of their children more than the US Tom?
Because they do believe that the children deserve nutritious food?

In researching this, I found that there is a myriad of ways that free lunches and breakfasts are administrated in American schools. All designed to make sure people don't get something that some politiican thinks they don't deserve.... Stuff like this....
School Serves ‘Shame Sandwiches’ to Kids Whose Parents Owe Lunch Money

Read more: http://www.mommyish.com/2016/01/08/scho ... z49ljeSHnF
But shame appears to play a role as well. Enrolling in the breakfast program can be seen as a public acknowledgment that a family can't afford some of the most basic foods. "Social stigma associated with participating in school breakfast serves as another impediment for low-income children," FRAC notes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-the-day/

I submit, Tom, that just like a single payer health care system, the French idea of everyone in school getting access to a healthy meal is both more efficient, and dignified and effective then some heaviliy administrated and carefully segregated program. If childhood obseity rates are a guage then there's a measurable effect.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 May 2016, 7:37 am

I submit, Ricky, that incredibly poor kids can get a "crappy" lunch and be fine with it. It will of course meet with certain nutrition standards but yeah, it's gonna be somewhat crappy. We need not treat everyone as if they were kings and give them meals fit for kings.

As it is, the US spends a lot of money on free lunches already, you want to cast stones and compare the US lunch to those in France (or name country here) yet you fail to tell us how they do this in your home of Canada, they do not have a federal lunch program and leave it up to each province so please drop the holier than thou nonsense.

Parents can afford to give their kid a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a piece of fruit if they do not like the free lunch provided (those that are THAT poor get it for free). The school does not provide dinner for the kids nor do they feed them during holidays and weekends, yes the parents certainly can feed their kids, nobody in the States is starving to death we do have all sorts of programs to keep that from happening and it doesn't. Get off the high horse and deal with reality, we do not need to feed kids like they do in France. If France decides to spend that kind of money to do so, then good for the French. To insist because one country does it, we all should, then Canada needs to also step up and spend a lot extra as well doesn't she? Each country governs themselves as they see fit. Canada chooses not to have a federal program and will not do so simply because France does ...good for Canada! But neither should the US ...good for America!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 May 2016, 9:27 am

rickyp wrote:gmtom
First off, those who can not afford a kid to take a sandwich and an apple to school is pretty slim

And what do you base that on?

Here's what i found on food insecurity:
In 2014:

48.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 32.8 million adults and 15.3 million children.
14 percent of households (17.4 million households) were food insecure.
6 percent of households (6.9 million households) experienced very low food security.
Households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 19 percent compared to 12 percent.
Households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (19%), especially households with children headed by single women (35%) or single men (22%), Black non-Hispanic households (26%) and Hispanic households (22%).

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america


"Food insecurity" is a made-up term. How shocking that a group that raises money to feed the hungry would hype the problem!

When 7% of homes in the US rely on antenna for TV, don't talk to me about "food insecurity." People make choices.

How about smart phones? http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/t ... ndtech_06/

People make choices. You expect the government to make up for their choices.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 May 2016, 9:34 am

I have a tenant who could not pay her rent. She was, however, able to pay for her new tattoo.

Choices, indeed.

Personally, this crap about the poor not being able to pay offends me. I was poor. I busted my butt to fight out of poverty. My mother did the same, and she is due praise for her hard work and ethic about self reliance. There are some who need assistance. Very few. We are called to help those.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 May 2016, 9:53 am

not poor, but I'm one of those few who prefers an antenna only!
(but I do have hulu, netflix and Sling tv so I guess I really don't count)

and congrats to Mrs Bbauska! Good for her clawing her and her family out of poverty. Hard work does pay off but when you make it too easy to accept poverty (still have cable, still have a car, still have a cell phone, etc) then why of why take all that effort to improve?

and my white trash nephew, same thing ...can't afford many basics but tattoo's seem to be a different story!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 May 2016, 10:13 am

upon further thought...

Tattoos are much more accepted now, for some to not have one would make them feel different and left out. We should have the government fund free tattoos for those who can not afford them. That way they feel included and not obvious outcasts (like a shame sandwich), it can allow them to also spend more money on rent and sandwiches for their kids.

While we are at it, the younger generation seems to have a need to color match their sneakers to their outfits. But these sneakers are pretty expensive (cheap ones will only get them mocked!) so we should fund that as well. But I think we should limit the colors to say 8 shades, more than that might be considered excessive?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 May 2016, 10:24 am

Perhaps the idea of a "shame sandwich" is what is being done when comparing us to France.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 May 2016, 6:10 am

Fate
"Food insecurity" is a made-up term. How shocking that a group that raises money to feed the hungry would hype the problem!


All language is "made up." But this term was made up by the US Department of Agriculture and the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies

In 2006, USDA introduced new language to describe ranges of severity of food insecurity. USDA made these changes in response to recommendations by an expert panel convened at USDA's request by the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies. Even though new labels were introduced, the methods used to assess households' food security remained unchanged, so statistics for 2005 and later years are directly comparable with those for earlier years for the corresponding categories.

USDA requested the review by CNSTAT to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access—or lack of access—to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound and that they convey useful and relevant information to policy officials and the public. The panel convened by CNSTAT to conduct this study included economists, sociologists, nutritionists, statisticians, and other researchers. One of the central issues the CNSTAT panel addressed was whether the concepts and definitions underlying the measurement methods—especially the concept and definition of hunger and the relationship between hunger and food insecurity—were appropriate for the policy context in which food security statistics are used.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nut ... urity.aspx

bbauska
Perhaps the idea of a "shame sandwich" is what is being done when comparing us to France
.
When a company compares their products or services with others, they do so to evaluate whether or not there is something to learn from the competition.
When a government agency looks at how it provides it services by examining how other jurisdictions provide similar services, again, its in order to see if there is something to be learned...
Why does the comparison with France in this instance bother you Bbauska?
I get it that you have a personal story of growth from poverty. Thats marvellous. Just because you had it tough and managed to improve doesn't impact on the arguement that childrens lives could benefit from programs that would ensure they wouldn't have it so tough.
There are a myriad of beenfits that accrue to societies that fight poverty and the effects of childhood poverty. Lower crime rates, greater worker productivity, social cohesion, better health and lower health care costs ...
And there all kinds of costs to societies that neglect their poor .Including, the eradication of social mobility. The very poor children who manage to make their way to a higher standard of living with little or no assistance is much smaller than when there is broad social support. (School lunches being one small part of that...) Is social mobility desirable? I thought thats what the American dream was all about.

bbauska
There are some who need assistance. Very few.

And what is that number? And what is your source for that number? Is the USDA wrong in their estimates?
And if we are "called to help" shouldn't we seek to achieve the most efficient and effective way of helping? I would add that we should seek the methods of delivery that most respect the dignity of all concerned.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 May 2016, 7:16 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
"Food insecurity" is a made-up term. How shocking that a group that raises money to feed the hungry would hype the problem!


All language is "made up." But this term was made up by the US Department of Agriculture and the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies

In 2006, USDA introduced new language to describe ranges of severity of food insecurity. USDA made these changes in response to recommendations by an expert panel convened at USDA's request by the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies. Even though new labels were introduced, the methods used to assess households' food security remained unchanged, so statistics for 2005 and later years are directly comparable with those for earlier years for the corresponding categories.

USDA requested the review by CNSTAT to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access—or lack of access—to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound and that they convey useful and relevant information to policy officials and the public. The panel convened by CNSTAT to conduct this study included economists, sociologists, nutritionists, statisticians, and other researchers. One of the central issues the CNSTAT panel addressed was whether the concepts and definitions underlying the measurement methods—especially the concept and definition of hunger and the relationship between hunger and food insecurity—were appropriate for the policy context in which food security statistics are used.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nut ... urity.aspx


Yes, I read it before I posted. I'm not impressed because it fails to take in the choices that people make. You can be fairly well-off and be "food insecure" if you live like a moron--or are an addict.

And, given that 93% of American households have cable or satellite, how freaking food insecure are they? Add to that all the other "stuff" they have and I'm fairly cynical.

Living in the US is not like living in Venezuela, where we see pictures of people dumpster-diving to survive thanks to socialism.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 May 2016, 7:24 am

Let's compare the US to Canada instead of France.
The US has federal programs in place, they pay in full for millions of school lunches AND breakfasts. Nutritional guidelines are in place and nobody is going hungry. Michelle Obama took this as her pet project for even more attention to the issue.

Canada has ....?
Each province does it's own thing, Vending machines are far more common than in the US, Fewer free lunches (only 7-10% receive even a partial subsidy)

The US invests 12 Billion (yes, with a B) in school lunch programs
Ontario spends 17 million
Quebec spends 2 million
Alberta spends almost nothing

Far far less than the US spends! And what kind of difference is there between the US and Canadian school lunches? You want to say the US should be more like France, how about YOU try it first and let us know how it works out?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 27 May 2016, 8:38 am

When it comes to shaming a country using another, that is a tactic that YOU use. I don't care about one company comparing itself to another. The US can learn some things from another nation. Other nations can learn from the US.

I find your picking and choosing of nations to meet your view, while ignoring the large amount of countries that don't to be biased and debilitating to your view.

Did we hear anything about Canada's program? No. Why?

Do I agree with the USDA's numbers? No. Do you think every person that meets the USDA definition given in it's numbers is in that situation because of the fault of someone else? If you don't; then you don't agree with the USDA number either.

If you do, check your glasses. They are too rose colored.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 May 2016, 10:14 am

bbauska
Did we hear anything about Canada's program? No. Why?

France is generally considered to have the best food in schools.
When one is looking for places to model against, you go to the best.
France doesn't have a national meal plan. It does have a national school food policy, but every school program is developed and subsidized by a municipal government.

I don't suppose you guys are aware that the US actually is the leading country in the world in the food security index...
http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country
(Canada is 7 and France 9).
Nor that the US has had a national food lunch program for more than 50 years, and was the first nation to do so. (Motivated by a desire to improve the size of military inductees in WWII.)
But I'm sure that you remember the scandal when managers tried to classify ketchup (and succeeded in classifying pickled relish) as a vegetable dish. Since then the program has been undergoing an overhaul to improve the nutritional quality of what's served.
Unfortunately it isn't succeeding all that well.
This discussion came about because Tom said this:
As far as the food available,
Good tasting food and food that is good for you are almost polar opposites, especially at a school with a limited budget. It's hard to make food taste good and be good for you when it all comes from a giant can!?

And I offered the French food as an example that proves that schools can do better for children.

BTW, whats your source for US Canada comparison Tom?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 May 2016, 12:33 pm

The stats are a few years old but based on other reading, not much has changed. Canada continues to discuss having federal level standards but has still done nothing to change things

http://cspinet.org/canada/pdf/child-nut ... budget.pdf

Ricky's statement that this was brought up simply as comparison was not exactly as he put it
Lets get the facts exactly straight shall we?

I mentioned taste vs nutrition was almost mutually exclusive on a school budget
The French example did nothing to alter that statement but Ricky made it anyways followed by:
Its about priorities.
If a society cares about nourishing its chilren.s minds and bodies it will ensure that happens.

he then went further a posts later
If the French can provide this kind of school lunch free why can't the US? Why doesn't the US spend on education what the French do?

It was implied and in fact stated that this was a US problem and went on to tell us how bad our policies are and how they should change.

Now I point out how those in glass houses should not throw stones and "all I said was..."
no, not quite!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Jun 2016, 10:20 am

freeman3 wrote:I get the church feels this is a good way to get kids to church so that they can hear their message. It does not feel like the right way to go about it to me. Bribing kids with pizza so they could hear about God? I think they should find another way.


Do you think that all charities should be donating the money without having it's message/agenda planted within? That would have some far reaching consequences I think. I was just at the Catholic Hospital, and a Hospital Chaplain came in to pray with a friend of mine. Should the hospital not be allowed to help the people of my city because a chaplain prays? I know this is bigger than pizza, but the model is the same. Think of all the charities that are pushing their agenda, whether religious or ideology, closing down. I think that would be a major problem.

People can have the willpower to decline the offer of proselytizing the specific ideology offering the charitable service. The charity should NOT require acceptance of the proselytizer. That would be wrong in the fact that the service is not being given freely.

Thoughts?