I feel the title speaks for its self. No child should go hungry. I believe this topic is up for debate in many cities and states. Reasoning for why it can’t is a result of schools already being underfunded. I am not suggesting schools “funding” be increased. As that is a much larger topic. I am saying funding should be given to each school, specially so their kids can have every opportunity to grow and eat healthy food. If we can afford giving billions to other countries, we can reserve some of those funds to feed our own children first.
5 Likes
Most schools get over twelve grand per kid per year. They are not underfunded.
Packed lunches cost next to nothing. Free lunches cost the person the minute skill to pack their own lunch.
In many states, such as my home state of Colorado, children already have access to free lunch. I agree, free lunch should be accessible nationwide, but just as important is the nutritional content of the lunches. For many underprivileged kids, school lunch is their main meal of the day. Those children, and ALL children, deserve to eat a healthful meal, free of artificial dyes, preservatives and lots of sugar. I have never allowed my child to get free lunch at her school because it lacks in nutritional value!
I agree. I worked in school cafeteria for a few years. They threw lots of food away. Roll price of lunch into costs and move on. The districts spend time and energy collecting lunch money, tracking lunch money and chasing past due accounts. Not to mention free lunch paperwork. If a child is in school all day, feed them.
1 Like
I’m happy to say that Florida schools provide meals all year long.
Let’s edit it to read “free and healthy food”, most of what is currently offered is worse than you think.
2 Likes
They could do away with the so-called “free lunch program” and direct that money back to the schools so that all children can be fed. That would eliminate tons of paperwork and the need for so many people processing the applications plus all the administrators of the program. It’s ridiculous.
As a libertarian, casual use of the word “free” in political circles raises the hair on my neck, simply because there is no such thing as a “free lunch”. Someone has to pay for that food and labor cost. 3 major points come to mind here:
- It is not our neighbor’s responsibility to feed OUR child…it is OURS alone.
- FREE = SOCIALISM. We are not a socialist state and we never will be. We expect parents to take care of their children – or they should not have them in the first place.
- The gradually increasing number of lazy and entitled women looking for the STATE to be their new sugar daddy and pay their way because they cant keep their hubby happy should be nipped in the bud immediately. The STATE (aka: the neighbor’s taxes) should not be replacing missing daddy’s and their paychecks.
Although your intentions are good ones, in a collective sense, it is destructive to the traditional American way of hard work and self-sufficiency. The LAST thing we need is for the STATE to feed, clothe, and raise OUR children. That is my two cents on it. Thanks.