Conservative Host Has Brilliant Solution For Poor School Kids - Call CPS

[Anathema]

So yeah, a hate for kids. That's what I said all along

Hate is a very strong word. I don’t hate kids. I just consider them pests that I try to avoid as much as possible. Especially very young ones.

 

[Hellokitty]

Right-wing host slammed for suggesting it’s better to send kids to child services than give them free school lunches

After a far-right Republican state lawmaker claimed there are no hungry people in Minnesota because he hasn't met any, then voted against a free school lunch program, extremely conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, considered a right wing “thought leader,” weighed in, declaring Child Protective...

www.rawstory.com

"After a far-right Republican state lawmaker claimed there are no hungry people in Minnesota because he hasn't met any, then voted against a free school lunch program, extremely conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, considered a right wing “thought leader,” weighed in, declaring Child Protective Services – not free school lunches – is the solution. school lunches are not going to solve the problem of child hunger at any serious level. Appearing to be reading a question from a supporter [about school lunch] - Shapiro said" Well, If there is a problem of children actually starving that is a child endangerment scenario to which CPS needs to be called - the truth is it does not take that much money to feed a child. I know I have three of them," he added.

Michael O’Brien, MD, a pediatrician, responded to the video of Shapiro and wrote: "The same pundits and activists targeting the LGBTQ community, drag queens, and books — in the name of ‘protecting kids’ — don’t give a damn about childhood hunger."


Now it makes sense....if a child Is having to rely on school lunch....maybe CPS needs to be called and the child removed..that is basically child abuse and if a parent has to rely on government to feed their kid, that child needs to be removed and placed in foster care. Truth of the matter is, no child in this country is hungry, therefore no child in this country needs to have a school provide them with free breakfast or lunch. I believe the Dems are trying to force these lunches on these kids; and using the GMO's in the food to turn these kids into gay CRT transgender Antifa woke mob soldiers.

Yeah my only issue with a government agency taking away kids from their parents is the government is allowing illegals to drag their kids 1000's of miles in dangerous conditions and when they illegally cross the border they not only allow the parents or whoever claims to be the parents keep their kids. If we have kids in the US going hungry we need to stop letting in illegals and send them back to whatever country with their kids.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's not an either/or. I favor providing lunch for students at no cost, and I also favor getting police involved when parents fail to feed their children. Not CPS, police.

As a teacher, I know that hungry kids won't learn, because they'll be focused on being hungry. I specifically work with children with behavior disabilities, and when they are kicked out of class for being disruptive and sent to me, the first thing I offer is a package of peanut butter crackers. Around half the time, this settles them down.

For the non-behavioral, being hungry will prevent them from focusing on the lesson. In schools, food is an important tool of education. We feed prisoners, military trainees, and people who attend meetings, because we know they won't function well with hungry bellies.

Kids are forced to attend public school for seven and a half hours a day. Not feeding them during that time would be a human rights violation added to the human rights violation of forcing them to go to school in the first place.

If a parent is truly not feeding their children when they are not in school, that is also a violation of their rights. If they are poor, food stamps, or the equivelant are available, and no one is checking citizenship status or anything else before giving them out. If a kid is hungry, and mom is getting SNAP and WIC, then she is trading those things for drugs, or cigarettes, or forties, or hair weaves.

So yeah. Call the cops.

 

[pknopp]

Yeah my only issue with a government agency taking away kids from their parents is the government is allowing illegals to drag their kids 1000's of miles in dangerous conditions and when they illegally cross the border they not only allow the parents or whoever claims to be the parents keep their kids. If we have kids in the US going hungry we need to stop letting in illegals and send them back to whatever country with their kids.

Then the Chamber of Commerce is breathing down your neck if you do that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia​

View attachment 766579
President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its enactment, creating a $700 billion dollar Treasury fund to purchase failing bank assets. The revised plan left the $700 billion bailout intact and appended a stalled tax bill.
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Emergency_Economic_...

Bush signs $700 billion financial bailout bill - NBC News​

View attachment 766580
NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com › wbna26987291

Oct 2, 2008 — President Bush signed into law Friday a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, promising to move swiftly to use ...

Mnuchin is Keeping $500 Billion in Bailout Funds Secret​

View attachment 766581
Public Citizen
https://www.citizen.org › news › keeping-500-billion-i...



Jun 11, 2020 — Note: U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Congress Wednesday that the Trump administration intends to keep secret the names of the .

Ah, yes...the bill passed with overwhelmingly Democrat support (172-63, while more House Republicans voted against it). Nice try, this was a thoroughly bipartisan bit of pork.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Ah, yes...the bill passed with overwhelmingly Democrat support (172-63, while more House Republicans voted against it). Nice try, this was a thoroughly bipartisan bit of pork.

So, it wasn't OBAMA, who bailed them out.
And it was Paulson who came up with the idea.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, often called the "bank bailout of 2008", was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, passed by the 110th United States Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

So.................teabaggers are whining, because democrats agreed to THEIR plan?

 

[AMart]

Jeez if you can't feed your kids stop having babies.

 

[struth]

Odd way of saying "I'm sorry for saying Obama bailed them out when it was Bush".

Obama did bail them out....GM came back in Feb 2009, when Obama was President, wanting more...he gave them more....over $21 billion, and they still went bankrupt.

 

[bodecea]

I wonder how kids ate, before FDR enacted Social Welfare programs? Oh yeah, those kids had to help their parents on the farm or other ways to make income. I went out and mowed laws for a few extra bucks a week. And peanut butter and jelly sandwiches kept me from starving......

Many DID starve back then.

 

[Woodznutz]

Republicans think that poverty is the result of some moral failing

Much of it is, but on the part of government as well as the individual.

 

[Woodznutz]

The people responsible for this "meal"?
Republicans: "Hmmmm, dig in".

Flatware setting is all wrong. No wonder people are poor.

Proper setting.

 

[Circe]

Not feeding your kids is ILLEGAL and CPS should get involved. I dont see what the problem is
See, when you have children you get responsibilities. Some of them legal responsibilities.

Not the blacks, apparently. Everyone else is supposed to feed their kids. How did we get started down this road of taking responsibility for people whose parents should be doing it?

 

[Woodznutz]

Not the blacks, apparently. Everyone else is supposed to feed their kids. How did we get started down this road of taking responsibility for people whose parents should be doing it?

There are many parents who are unable or unwilling to properly feed their kids. It's in everyone's interest that kids are properly nourished. That said, the schools should feed the kids what they need, not what they or the school administrators want (sorry Michelle).

 

[WinterBorn]

Okay. So how many of the poor are such because of circumstances beyond their control and how many are simply being forced to accept the consequences of their own poor decisions and lack of investment in themselves? That first group deserves assistance, though I’d prefer to see it done through private agencies thsn the government. The latter group deserves nothing but the consequences of their life choices.

No doubt a large number of them are poor based on their own decisions. And I fully support them living with the consequences. But their children did not make those bad choices. Those children can be fed at school far cheaper than they can be placed in foster care.

 

[WinterBorn]

We're $31 trillion in debt. They're raising interest rates to tamp down all of the inflation caused by massive overspending, causing banks to fail left and right....yet they're still calling for more funding to feed overweight kids.

The funding for school lunches is such a tiny part of that debt as to be inconsequential.

 

[Doug1943]

It's not an either/or. I favor providing lunch for students at no cost, and I also favor getting police involved when parents fail to feed their children. Not CPS, police.

As a teacher, I know that hungry kids won't learn, because they'll be focused on being hungry. I specifically work with children with behavior disabilities, and when they are kicked out of class for being disruptive and sent to me, the first thing I offer is a package of peanut butter crackers. Around half the time, this settles them down.

For the non-behavioral, being hungry will prevent them from focusing on the lesson. In schools, food is an important tool of education. We feed prisoners, military trainees, and people who attend meetings, because we know they won't function well with hungry bellies.

Kids are forced to attend public school for seven and a half hours a day. Not feeding them during that time would be a human rights violation added to the human rights violation of forcing them to go to school in the first place.

If a parent is truly not feeding their children when they are not in school, that is also a violation of their rights. If they are poor, food stamps, or the equivelant are available, and no one is checking citizenship status or anything else before giving them out. If a kid is hungry, and mom is getting SNAP and WIC, then she is trading those things for drugs, or cigarettes, or forties, or hair weaves.

So yeah. Call the cops.

Whoa! A sensible reply, by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

We can imagine two 'extreme' cases:

(1) a parent (or, far less likely, parents) who, through no fault of their own, are unable to feed their children. They work -- or are unemployed although seeking work, or perhaps are disabled and cannot work -- they don't spend anything on luxuries -- but ... at the end of the day, they don't have enough money to buy food with.

(2) a parent who spends what money she gets on drugs and similar things. She's too drugged up or disorganized or pre-occupied with keeping her latest male happy, to do sensible shopping and preparation of food. In fact, she can't 'prepare' food, so buys more expensive already-cooked meals, or junk food.

Most Leftists think all hungry children come from parents like (1), most conservatives think they all come from parents like (2)

Since almost none of us have any direct experience with this demographic, nor have we read deeply about it, we're all just talking out of our ....

My position: school-supplied school uniforms for all kids; free school meals for all kids ... not just lunch, but breakfast and dinner, with the school being open before and after school hours, and adequately staffed for that. School opens at 7am and closes at 8pm.

This will make it easy for women to go to work. (Add good quality, free day care centers as well, for everyone.)

Fund it by selling some nukes and aircraft carriers etc to Japan and South Korea. Increase taxes if necessary.

Make it very easy for any school to leave the School District and set up as a Free School, like Michaela School in the UK, which takes ordinary kids, mainly non-white, and gets fantastic results academically. No special tricks, just real discipline.

Set up boarding schools in rural areas, far away from the inner city. Mix demographics: no 'mainly Black' or 'mainly Hispanic' schools. Have lots of military academies.

Pay teachers by 'value added' results, in reading, writing, arithmetic and History of Western Civilization.

Bar anyone who wants to teach Critical Race Theory, or Gender-Fluid-Queer Theory, from teaching, or even approaching within 500 meters of a school.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

The funding for school lunches is such a tiny part of that debt as to be inconsequential.

These people live their lives to be cruel and mean to other people. Truly tiny and nasty people.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see some of the same people condemning free school lunches that loudly proclaim the US is a Christian nation.

Pick one. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because it needs repeated.

Michael O’Brien, MD, a pediatrician, responded to the video of Shapiro and wrote: "The same pundits and activists targeting the LGBTQ community, drag queens, and books — in the name of ‘protecting kids’ — don’t give a damn about childhood hunger."

I think it's a matter of personal responsibility. Two people have a child. They should be responsible for the well being and welfare of that child, meaning appropriately providing for them. Now one can certainly argue that childhood hunger should be addressed by the community as a whole for a variety of valid reasons, but at what point do we go from helping to enabling?

 

[struth]

These people live their lives to be cruel and mean to other people. Truly tiny and nasty people.

it’s cruel and mean to want to call CPS if s child is starvin???