Mo. schools urged to boost breakfast participation

rodinman 9 months ago

They should be encouraging parents to provide their children with a healthy balanced breakfast.

Maybe they gave up on getting the teachers and schools to improve and now they are trying to divert attention to the parents or something. Government is poking its nose in places it doesn't belong, and at the same time failing to do its job.

spelchek 9 months ago

The more it does it job the worse things seem to get. Why is that?

cinkisses 9 months ago

hkchas you couldn't have said it better. I get very tired of the "government is trying to take over ourlives" sector turning around and getting all up in womens choice issues. All I can conclude is that they don't want government in our lives, unless it has to do with the female reproductive system. Annoying.

asb 9 months ago

Grace you are incorrect in every statement you make above. The government has no interest in taking over our lives, even though it is involved in our lives as the mediator of our conflicts and provider of services, protection and fiscal management, as has always been the case. It requires us to fund its functions through taxes, which are at record low rates. It has always had the authority to shut down businesses operating incorrectly, and regulations are at a decades low in nearly every area of government authority. And when you accuse the government of complicity in the murder of millions of children you express utter madness. Our taxes, our regulations, and the right to abort an early term fetus have all been arrived at through a democratic process and generally reflect the will of the population. Your song is wrong, your sources are evil, and your future is grim.

JCLifer 9 months ago

I don't say that. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I am against abortions, but I would never tell someone else that they could not have one. That is a very personal decision that is situation specific, and it is none of my (or the government's) business.

I ave very at odds with the GOP platform on reproduction rights and the evil attitudes they have toward people with alternative sexual orientations. These things are none of the GOP's and none of the goverment's business. These are basic civil rights that are being violated every day by these people.

Before the flaming begins: No, I do not believe a fetus has the same civil rights. As long as it is incapable of living on its own and sustaining its own life, it is not truly a human being in the sense that it should have all the civil rights protections. I am not advocating or supporting abortion- I am saying it is a very personal decision and one that no one but the woman can make. It is frankly NONE of anyone else's business. However, I do not think I would make that decision, but until I am in someone else's shoes, I have no standing.

JCLifer 9 months ago

I advocate personal responsibility.

GrumpyGus 9 months ago

hkass, I work hard enough to feed my own kids, reach into your own pocket to feed other people's kids, don't pick my pocket. I prefer to give to the Samaritan Center and Food Bank at times when I have the wherewithal. Now we are recruiting families to feed at the govt' trough. That is not the role of govt. Govt. should help the truly needy, not advertise and reward getting more people on the dole. Hungry children are the responsiblity of ineffective parents. If you want to help that ineffective parent through the charity of your choice, go for it. Don't stick a gun in my face and call it making a contribution.

Paroquet 9 months ago

It's an agriculture lobby looking for a guaranteed paycheck. Want to bet certain agricultural lobbies support it? Processed grains, sugar, fruit products or simulations thereof rich in sugar, pork or turkey, milk twice a day over once, eggs. Many school food products (milk excluded) enjoy the sumptuous USDA rating, and I kid you not, of "Grade D But Edible".

Look at the USDA food Pyramid promoted by the powerful agricultural lobby v.s. MyPlate by Harvard. Did you know, the original food pyramid of 4-4-3-2 originated with the diet prescribed for fattening pigs?

JCLifer 9 months ago

DING DING DING DING!!!

Paroquet wins the cigar!!!

Its all about MONEY!!!

JCLifer 9 months ago

No more Nanny State. We cannot afford it.

Paroquet 9 months ago

Anyone who has donated time or money to one party or the other, though, could. I don't see anything wrong, aside from the interests involved outside of promoting the health and welfare of school-age children, with making a healthful breakfast available to those less fortunate. Stuff happens beyond our ability to control it. What if it happened to you?

dokeus6 9 months ago

"What if it happened to you?"

Best question a person could ask themselves when they wake up in the morning.

Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes when the kids who are hungry look up at you and wonder if there will be any food today.

Then question the constitution when it says that every person has the right to have liberty in this country.

This country is just not for the rich.

JCLifer 9 months ago

This country was intended for equal opportunity, not for equal outcomes. The USA was never intended to provide entitlements to everyone.

We are talking about the Dept of Education, not the Dept of Raising Your Child For You.

Who is going to pay for all this? We are already borrowing 2/3 of every dollar spent as it is? Are you out of your minds? Seriously.

dokeus6 9 months ago

It is up to the individual school districts to get the parents involved and that is if the parents want to be involved. Most of the parents I see are working two jobs just to make ends meet. Where does that leave the children?

Let me ask you some questions lifer. Are you involved in every facet of your child's education? Do you monitor what they eat, what they talk about? Do you go to parent teacher conferences to ask the teacher what you have to do to make sure your kids succeed? Do you banish them to the basement when they make too much noise Do you read to your children? Do you have two adults in your household who can provide for the children so they can flourish? Most homes don't have that and your fortunate if you do have it. Maybe instead of complaining about everything you could make suggestions about how to improve situations. More ideas the better.

JCLifer 9 months ago

Maybe if you cannot properly raise children you should not be having them. What ever happened to personal responsibility and pride? Aren't you ashamed that you have to beg the government to do your job as a parent?

dokeus6 9 months ago

I try to provide the best home I can for my children. I am a fortunate man in that respect and I haven't begged the government for anything. I support my children but thanks for asking. I was asking you direct questions and you failed to answer them.

JCLifer 9 months ago

I do not owe you any answers. This is a comment forum, and I am commenting. You think you are ENTITLED to everything, don't you? Well, guess what- this world doesn't owe you or me ANYTHING. Get over yourself.

dokeus6 9 months ago

Your too easy lifer.

You bark about personal responsibility but yet you won't answer how well you do your job as a parent.

asb 9 months ago

Equal opportunity is impossible, and never written into the constitution. "Health and Welfare" Lifer, it's in the first freakin' chapter. We're all paying for it as part of our social contract, but some have had their portion slashed to nearly nothing, and they've convinced you that's the way it ought to be. "Let 'em die," right? That'll never top "let them eat cake," but it's the same thing. I cannot believe how many people actually take up the pigs' mantra.

JCLifer 9 months ago

No, i don't say let them die. I say take responsibility and take care of your children. Do you really need two SUV's in the garage? Do you really need a 4000 square foot home? Do you really need cable TV, cell phones, jewelry, and $200 tennis shoes? Do you really need to eat out every night? Good grief people, this country is much worse than I ever thought it was. Take some responsibility and raise your kids.

dokeus6 9 months ago

"Do you really need two SUV's in the garage? Do you really need a 4000 square foot home? Do you really need cable TV, cell phones, jewelry, and $200 tennis shoes? Do you really need to eat out every night?"

The people who are doing this lifer are not the ones who are needing the reduced meals at the schools.

Pay attention!

Littleinvestor 9 months ago

President Truman started the school lunch program after WWII but it was not widely adopted by schools until the 50s. You know what one of the main drivers was? The armed forces complained too many of their recruits for fighting WWII were malnurished to the point it affected the ability of the U.S. to field strong infantrymen. Something to think about. But I think the income guidelines are way off. They may fit New York but not Missouri. In rural MO, lots of moms are driving long distances to jobs and may leave home before the kids eat breakfast. It is a convenience for them to have the kids eat two meals at school. If they are paying full price, that's OK with me.

asb 9 months ago

" . . . to provide for the health and welfare . . ." We can, and must, afford it. We DO have to constantly manage, audit, regulate and enforce it, but without fundamental social guarantees of food, chelter, work, a stake in how it's all done, healthcare and protection from each other, we don't have any state at all, just one giant factory, ruled by fear and force. Nanny State my rosey but-t.

JCLifer 9 months ago

You want government-guaranteed and provided "food, chelter, work, a stake in how it's all done, healthcare and protection from each other"???

I want the government to get out of my way so I can EARN these things on my own. I do not expect anyone to give me anything. I never would think of demanding these things from anyone. The only thing I want is a chance.

The Greatest Generation would puke if they knew that this is what has become of our country.

dokeus6 9 months ago

The Greatest Generation have more to worry about. With Social Security and Medicare going to be slashed how are they going to be available to afford to live?

Your grasping for straws.

JCLifer 9 months ago

Many of them getting Social Security and Medicare don't need those benefits. However, I guess they should get them since they were part of the promise that government made to them.

I am grasping for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Paroquet 9 months ago

Those benefits are fixed. When have costs ever gone down for necessities of life? Waste disposal, basic utilities, transportation? Furthermore, those benefits have been paid for, but some folks thought it okay to raid a piggy bank that wasn't theirs.

The instant Social Security and medical were withheld from my first check, that services were mandated, I had a contract with the U.S. gov't. I don't cotton much to welchers on a done deal.

JCLifer 9 months ago

I'll never get elected to dog catcher with people like you voting.

asb 9 months ago

Lifer I'm trying here. You're being good and not trolling so give me a read. I don't want the government to give me everything, you have to believe that. I also don't want the government to keep you or me from earning what we can. But with the government "out of the way" there's nothing keeping you or me from taking everything and leaving eveybody else living in boxes and eating cats. That's the protection part, and it's the basis for all those onerous regulations on how I earn. The hardest part is making sure of those basics, without making too large of a dependent class. The key to a sustainable government is the minimal floor for all to stand on. The obligation you and I share is to agree to the protection and "provide a role to all who have a stake" parts. It's clear that a basic floor, the safety net, always does enable a dependent class, so I'm as obliged to kick the slackers into work as you are to feed them whether they do or not. The greatest benefit of the mid 90's Republican Revolution was welfare reform. As I've stated constantly, government programs need constant attention. Yesterday a news item cropped up about a meat supplier who has been found to be supplying very iffy meat to government programs. Not every dependent is poor, some are just greedy and game the system. Some are people, some are business. We need these programs, and we need the personal responsibility you talk about. They are not incompatible, but they are not without flaw. No people have turned their backs on those in need and lasted in the competition for resources. And no people have ever found a way for everybody to be comfortable without working for it. The only advocates for the needy are churches and governments, If the poor have no advocates, they arm themselves. This is history. Even the most cruel of governments feed and shelter the poor to the extent they can, or they're gone.

JCLifer 9 months ago

I agree with most of your post here. I strongly support and advocate for taking care of the truly poor, weak, and disabled. Everyone being served has to do as much as they can to help, though. Everyone has value. If a person can move their finger, they can do something. The key is to figure out a system that can utilize these people to help return the favor in some way, because there is so much dignity in work. Dignity and self-confidence are key for improvement. In all this, the focus needs to be as much as possible to help support and enable folks to become as self-sustainable as possible.

There are many really bad laws and policies that encourage enabling and status quo. People who need help are denied, and people who don't need lots of help are getting it. Many recipients have learned how to game the system to get more handouts, not to get more improvement and self-sufficiency.

Many of these people do not vote. Many cannot get their voices heard. Many of them are taken advantage of by unscrupulous folks who promise to advocate and help, but they are actually taking advantage of the ones needing help. I am sure both of us can list several examples of abuse, fraud, etc.

Don't know what the solution is, but too many people are hurting now. Too many do not have oppportunity. Too many are being taken advantage of. Folks with a little are fighting just to keep what they have from an evil or uncaring government. Even on a local level, the leaders are doing all they can to benefit the upper middle class on up by building conference centers, fancy shopping districts in old prisons with expensive vendors. Not much effort is expended to help those who really need the help. We don't have a state of the art Career Center that trains adults and gives them SKILLS to be successful in life, but we have a fancy-smancy Performing Arts Center so we have wine tastings and can watch Broadway shows here in Jeff City. Maybe throw a bone by building a small recreation center so the lowlifes can play basketball all day will be a big enough bone to throw to them while we build the fancy convention center and TRANSFORM the city with Trolleys, Smart Phone Apps, and hire more cronies in $150k+ jobs down at city hall as public "servants".

Things are very bad, and they show no signs of getting any better.

clingingredneck 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Are you really that niave? The free market and the law are what protect everyone from someone else walking in and taking everything they have. A good handgun does the job too, but that's a different debate. When you give the government the power to provide you with food and shelter and income, you also give them the power to take those things away from you. You have voluntarily made yourself a slave to the powers that be.

This is just another example of a program trying to up it's money for the next year so they don't lose it. They only try to see if they CAN get more, they never stop to ask if they should! When do you stop providing for people? If they aren't meeting your "income guidelines" or all the ones with the right color skin are being served, is that when you call it quits? When is enough enough?

jcguy25 9 months ago

The breakfast program is for all students. My son participates at his school and he isn't on reduced or free. You no longer purchase a "lunch" ticket, we send in money to fund his meal card, then when he eats breakfast and/or lunch the amounts are deducted from the balance. Low income familes can however get reduced or free breakfast, just as they do with lunches.

Gabrielle 9 months ago

out of curiosity, what are the breakfast choices?

asb 9 months ago

Several posters here say, in effect, "I take care of my own, I don't need to take care of other peoples' kids." That's a natural reaction. If somebody comes to my door asking for handouts, they're not likely to get one. If they're bleeding, I'll help them. Some say "I give to charity." Great on you. Charity isn't enough. Well, they reply, it's good enough for the "truely needy." And there's the rub . . . many of America's "needy" would be considered landed gentry in 14th century Europe. But hunger is hunger, now or then. Cold is cold. Unprotected from thugs is unprotected. What we add to those basics are all a matter of our economy, and the US have been built and has thrived on the idea that if we feed, house, cloth and protect our needy, they'll become the middle class; you know, the ones who work, the ones who BUY STUFF, the ones who drive the nation. The mantra of "I got mine, your're on your own Bub" contradicts the very foundations of our culture, until it's recent ascent to policy of our once-sane conservative party. When good people can sit down and write that government programs are evil, then the marriage of greed and fundamentalist religion into a political force has done what even Barry Goldwater, in his famous talk about the need for political compromise, warned us about. Personal responsibility and caring for the least of us ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE and are the responsibility of all of us. So, when you say "Let Them Die," or "Let Them Eat Cake," or "I feed myself and mine, you take care of you and yours," you're on the wrong side of good and bad, and that's not where your Jesus said you should be.

JCLifer 9 months ago

"if we feed, house, cloth and protect our needy, they'll become the middle class"

If the needy clean themselves up, get off the booze and drugs, work hard in school (free public education), get skills, and get a job, they'll become the middle class without INCOME REDISTRIBUTION POLICIES that further erode the middle class. That is a win-win for everybody, and that is the way most of the current middle class got to be middle class. My ancestors were dirt poor, but they saved and scrimpted and got themselves skilled and educated and pulled themselves up out of the dirt. I would be in the dirt today if I hadn't worked my butt off to get educated and skilled. Nobody besides God gave me anything, and I certainly was too proud to ask for anything. I busted my butt and kepty my nose clean.

Sure, the needy need help and support, but they also have to do their part and get off the booze and drugs, quit smoking, quit pumping out babies, and stop using their limited money to dig them deeper into a losing culture by buying expensive jewelry, SUVs, expensive tennis shoes, cell phones, eating out all the time, etc. They can do it if they work hard. If they earn it themselves, they will value it so much more and work to polish and protect their abilities, and not lose them by engaging in counterproductive behaviours.

JCLifer 9 months ago

Why didn't they have insurance? Why didn't they save enough for their oid age?

With your line of thinking, we should all quit saving and buying insurance. The government will bail us out and take care of us. We shouldn't have to worry about anything, thanks to the government. Who is going to do the work and pay for this huge benevolent government?

JCLifer 9 months ago

How many people have ever hit their lifetime maximums? That is a liberal lie. Even Karen Ann Quinnlin never hit her lifetime maximum.

Why don't these retirees use Medicaide or Medicare?

Littleinvestor 9 months ago

Are you sure about Karen Ann. She was in a state facility if I remember right. Until this year, my health benefits had a $5 million lifetime cap. I probably would just die rather than undergo the medical torture $5 million would buy me but other people would take advantage of it. I've known people who had paralyzing strokes in their 40s; I'm sure they are now on some kind of assistance. A high school classmate was paralyzed by her crazy husband and lived on assistance until she died a couple of years ago. I had an elderly relative getting $400 month in SS and had a $600 a month pharmacy bill back in the 1980s. If the family had not given her money and the govt. food stamps, she would have starved or frozen to death. Horrible, and expensive things, happen to good people all the time.

spelchek 9 months ago

Mr. Chase, nobody on here except you (towards Republicans) suggests that we blow up the entire safety net. You consistently ignore the fact that there are many unwilling and able bodies that could be working, and should be working. However, they've discovered a loop hole (as liberals call it) that permits them to live off of others, stressing the revenue stream, which ultimately falls on the deserved 15% you mention. Republicans don't have the guts to call those out that are abusing the system because Democrats will use your very comment to tug at the heart strings of those who don't think it all the way through. At it goes on and on and on and on.........

JMO 9 months ago

All this discussion and argument ignores one simple fact. It isn't the children's fault they don't get a healthy breakfast at home. Whether the parents are disabled, out of work, or just lazy bums, the children still need to be fed. If we as a society can't help our own needy children, what good is society at all?

spelchek 9 months ago

Another fact. Instead of holding the parents accountable, society ignores the core problem and just perpetuates it by feeding kids with even more entitlements. At what point does society have enough people taking from those giving? At some point we will teeder towards takers...then what? Riot in the streets, that's what. Give a man a fish...

Sequoia 9 months ago

How do you propose to "hold the parents accountable"? What is the "core problem"? How do you propose to fix it?

JCLifer 9 months ago

Take the children away if they are being neglected. Hungry children are neglected children. If parents can't take care of them they shouldn't have them.

John 9 months ago

JCLifer: I read your postings quite often. I usually agree with the sentiment of your posts if not the content. However, I must ask, do you realize how crazy this post sounds?

JCLifer 9 months ago

What is your solution? How can we hold neglegent parents accountable? I am sure there are better alternatives that can be found.

John 9 months ago

I seem to recall that scads of children were born during the Great Depression (well, it was not really so great, in fact it was not so enjoyable). They were part of a vital workforce that brought this country to a level of productivity never before seen. Even after SS was by Roosevelt, these children more than paid for that program. What we need are jobs and to get this floundering economy back running again. How? Why by voting Repulican in the next election (IMO). However, regardless of political bent, you need to read a treatise entitled, "A Modest Proposal," by Jonathan Swift.

Paroquet 9 months ago

Read up on the CCC (civilian conservation corps). It took federal initiative, involvement, and funding to create jobs for that "vital" work force. It wasn't the private sector. Vote (I) as in "Informed" in the next election.

John 9 months ago

Careful with the remarks about the CCC. Remember, that was a WORKS Program (even if some small part of it was useless work), NOT a social welfare program.

spelchek 8 months, 3 weeks ago

There are already laws to hold parents accountable. Problem is every law gov't passes to "help" us there isn't a body hired to enforce it. Look at social workers as an example. I see people using the "POH-LEECE" to raise their children, not to mention teachers. Perhaps enforcing current laws might be a start. Accountability? Shame?

JMO 9 months ago

So we punish the children for the parent's faults?

spelchek 9 months ago

No, parents are punishing their children. "I" have nothing to do with my neighbors unwanted miracle. Perhaps personal responsibility is in order? Just keep taking religion and the church out of our lives more and more and the only church left standing will be the one we're all forced to worship. Hint, it's in Washington D.C.

Sequoia 9 months ago

Okay, so, instead of providing meals in schools, the two of the most anti-government posters have proposed the following other solutions:

The government shouldn't feed the children because, as Lifer said, we can't afford more Nanny State. Then he says that, instead, the government should take the children away and raise the children itself. So, giving the children food in school is Nanny State. Raising the children (like an ACTUAL NANNY) is not. We can't afford to give the chlidren food, but we can afford to give them everything. Mr. Personal Responsibility wants the government to simply take away these parents' responsibilities. Makes perfect sense!
Spel's idea to feed hungry children is for the government to be more religious. Because of course all the parents of those hungry children are atheists, so if the government just told them more about Jesus, that would solve all their problems. Spel thinks the government is corrupt, incompetent and bloated, but apparently qualified to provide spiritual instruction that will magically solve poor people's problems. Got it.

Can you see why I mock the conservative "movement" and its followers?

spelchek 9 months ago

"Spel's idea to feed hungry children is for the government to be more religious" - If you can't have a serious debate with some honesty in your comments, please don't attach me to said comments. Try to hide your hyperbole just a little instead of smearing it all over the screen.

Sequoia 9 months ago

I asked how you proposed to solve the problem. In your reply to that comment, you wrote the following exact words: "Perhaps personal responsibility is in order? Just keep taking religion and the church out of our lives more and more and the only church left standing will be the one we're all forced to worship. Hint, it's in Washington D.C."

Forced to worship the federal government! Talk about hyperbole!

Seriously, can you explain what I got wrong, or what you meant? Do you have some other solution we can seriously debate?

dokeus6 9 months ago

They don't have any solutions. These Republicans are like the kids in school who waited on the smart kids to answer the questions that the teacher asked. They just sit there and look around the room with a blank look in there eyes. (Not unlike the pictures that you see of the Republican candidates.) If the smart kids didn't answer them, the room fell quiet. Then the stupid kids would smack the smart ones for not answering the questions. Somethings never change.

asb 9 months ago

A common theme in this thread is that the government has no business feeding school children, and that it's the parents fault and responsibiliy. Correct occaisionally, but the problem is that you're dealing with how people SHOULD be, while the school lunch program deals with how people actually are. People are poor, even Christian people are out of work. A quick reminder in case you don't remember why we feed the poor; if we don't they come and get it anyway, they must eat, they must have clothes. You are in their society and they're in yours. You both have responsibilities but you ignoring their plight is worse than the inept parenting you blindly accuse them of. Every cost/benefit analysis of school lunch programs comes out the same way . . . it's good. You people sound like Scrooge on steroids, and shooting yourselves in the foot to top it off.

Mo. schools urged to boost breakfast participation

More like this story

Comments

Or login with: