Republican House Rep Says Poverty Level Kids Should Work for Their Free Lunches
54 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;43259168]I [i]really[/i] love mozzarella sticks. :l[/QUOTE]
I can tell.
Doesn't this kind of go against the whole "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing? I mean if a kid's family is poor, he considers a meal of any kind a luxury, so the one place where he knows he is guaranteed a meal shouldn't just say "no, sorry, work for it or you starve."
He's a kid for fucks sake, his job isn't to work for his food and right to live, his job is to be at school to learn.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43256894]Why just the poor kids?[/QUOTE]
Because the parents with rich kids don't need the assistance to pay for their kids lunches.
genius thinking mr. kingston. taking into account the large percentage of poor children receiving free lunch, we will be able to amass quite the impressive work force.
[QUOTE=nikomo;43256586]
Pizza is not a proper food, especially the shit they serve over there, let alone all the other stuff.
[/QUOTE]
pizza is our go-to choice for the optimum lunchtime experience for today's young and valuable generation. it provides dairy for strong bones, vegetables for a healthy heart, and grains for a proper filling. we also provide our students with the luxurious option of adding beef slices on top, to help them grow strong with all of that abundant protein.
[editline]wat[/editline]
Does anyone else think it's sort of funny how like the leaders of our time decided, hey let's fuel tomorrow's leaders with copious amounts of pizza boxes. I guess I'm just hung up on the idea of a Utopian society that only strives to better every single aspect of living.
Yup, because we all know it's those uppity poor people who have troubles appreciating money.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43257413]The Schools should be private and run by corporations. Poor kids can attend by working in the factory next to the school or even learn in the factory itself through experience.[/QUOTE]
Sadly that might just work. "Learn through our corporation and do well, we'll guarantee you a job with us."
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;43259168]Grew up poor, I learned the meaning of hard work on my own, thanks but no thanks senator Fuckface. Seriously though, school lunches were one of the greatest things of my childhood, except on those days where the main was mozzarella sticks with MEAT SAUCE HELL YES. (sorta kinda sloppy joe mix) Not because they sucked (they were delicious) but because you needed to fucking barricade your table against thieves and other nefarious sons of bitches. Some goth kid stabbed me with a fork so I would hand mine over, and to this day I don't understand why he did that since he was lactose intolerant.
I counter-attacked right while he was drinking out of his juice carton which sprayed all over when my trapper keeper crushed it against his ginger face. This secured the mozzarella sticks as mine, and nobody dared fuck with me (that day) for I knew how to wield a Wal-Mart trapper keeper like a Teutonic knight would wield a mighty zweihander.
I [i]really[/i] love mozzarella sticks. :l[/QUOTE]
Prime example of the American education system.
Utensil shankings and delicious mozzarella sticks.
[editline]21st December 2013[/editline]
I remember when I had to 187 my first 3rd grader.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;43257337]I'm genuinely interested in the mindset of conservatives who have ideas like this. What mental dysfunction do they suffer from to say things like this in public, that poor children in public schools should have to sweep floors to get lunch?[/QUOTE]
"Affluenza" :v:
Goddamn.
This is some ass-backwards shit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the retards in congress made it illegal to bring your own lunches right?
Because you can make a proper lunch for like 1$ instead of the 5$ bullshit they force you to buy.
[QUOTE=Miskav;43260303]Goddamn.
This is some ass-backwards shit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the retards in congress made it illegal to bring your own lunches right?
Because you can make a proper lunch for like 1$ instead of the 5$ bullshit they force you to buy.[/QUOTE]
AFAIK they didn't make it illegal to bring your own lunch, but they made it illegal to be completely independent of the school cafeteria.
[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43260383]AFAIK they didn't make it illegal to bring your own lunch, but they made it illegal to be completely independent of the school cafeteria.[/QUOTE]
When did this happen? I have never run into this problem or have been told I can't bring my own full lunch to school once.
[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;43260389]When did this happen? I have never run into this problem or have been told I can't bring my own full lunch to school once.[/QUOTE]
I think it was a state or school district level rule where they wanted children to be able to have "healthier, better meals" than what their parents could give them because apparently spoiled masses of preservatives and artificial flavouring is healthier than a fucking ham sandwich.
No one in their right mind would even lift a finger to enforce the act, unless they were under some watchful eye and didn't want to get punished for letting a kid go by with just an apple from home or something.
[editline]21st December 2013[/editline]
It was Chicago that did it, apparently.
Aren't the free lunches already payed for by tax payers? And rightly so because of all the things our taxes get wasted on, I'm fine with some if going to help some needy kid. It's a lot better than going to bombs that explode in the middle east and don't contribute to the economy or congressman's paycheck.
I'll be honest, I don't think the "underprivelliged" or "poor" should get [sp]any[/sp] as big handouts as they do. They should be given extended support to find a job, and jobs should be opened up at large companies for a decent enough wage to keep you going. Even if these jobs are menial tasks, such as sweeping floors, it opens up doors. A sustained job - even if it's like that looks good on a CV, as it shows you can be committed, even if it's the only job you can [sp]be bothered to[/sp] get.
/unpopularopinion
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43261635]I'll be honest, I don't think the "underprivelliged" or "poor" should get [sp]any[/sp] as big handouts as they do. They should be given extended support to find a job, and jobs should be opened up at large companies for a decent enough wage to keep you going. Even if these jobs are menial tasks, such as sweeping floors, it opens up doors. A sustained job - even if it's like that looks good on a CV, as it shows you can be committed, even if it's the only job you can [sp]be bothered to[/sp] get.
/unpopularopinion[/QUOTE]
this assumes there are enough jobs for everyone.
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43261635]I'll be honest, I don't think the "underprivelliged" or "poor" should get [sp]any[/sp] as big handouts as they do. They should be given extended support to find a job, and jobs should be opened up at large companies for a decent enough wage to keep you going. Even if these jobs are menial tasks, such as sweeping floors, it opens up doors. A sustained job - even if it's like that looks good on a CV, as it shows you can be committed, even if it's the only job you can [sp]be bothered to[/sp] get.
/unpopularopinion[/QUOTE]
That's not just an unpopular opinion here, it's a totally backwards way of thinking. I knew there were "BOOTSTRAPS BOOTSTRAPS" guys over here, but I totally forgot just how many there are.
What are you going to do to ensure that there are (basically) infinite jobs available so that everyone can just fall into work? No matter how menial to job, eventually companies won't want to hire any more people as the costs of hiring them outweigh any profit they bring in.
And what are you going to do to ensure that these menial jobs earn a living wage? Minimum wage is all well and good, it's just about liveable if you really cut back on shit. But companies aren't going to want to pay you any more than that if you are doing menial labour. So if your job still isn't earning you enough money to actually live comfortably you're going to need a second job (or benefits, but y'know, fuck poor people).
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43261635]/unpopularopinion[/QUOTE]
Only thing you got right.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;43261818]this assumes there are enough jobs for everyone.[/QUOTE]
And that those jobs isn't identical to wage slavery.
Funny how the republicans went from abolishing slavery to almost wanting to put it back in place.
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43261635]I'll be honest, I don't think the "underprivelliged" or "poor" should get [sp]any[/sp] as big handouts as they do. They should be given extended support to find a job, and jobs should be opened up at large companies for a decent enough wage to keep you going. Even if these jobs are menial tasks, such as sweeping floors, it opens up doors. A sustained job - even if it's like that looks good on a CV, as it shows you can be committed, even if it's the only job you can [sp]be bothered to[/sp] get.
/unpopularopinion[/QUOTE]
But what if you are only 10 years old?
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;43261635]I'll be honest, I don't think the "underprivelliged" or "poor" should get [sp]any[/sp] as big handouts as they do. They should be given extended support to find a job, and jobs should be opened up at large companies for a decent enough wage to keep you going. Even if these jobs are menial tasks, such as sweeping floors, it opens up doors. A sustained job - even if it's like that looks good on a CV, as it shows you can be committed, even if it's the only job you can [sp]be bothered to[/sp] get.
/unpopularopinion[/QUOTE]Dude, I get what you're saying. Hell, I even agree that people who abuse the welfare and benefits system are motherfuckers who should at least be charged with fraud. (though, what constitutes abuse? that could open a can of worms) However, I did mention I come from a background of poverty, my parents tried really, really hard to keep us off of welfare and I was expected to pay for my own shit when I was a kid so I actually did random things to buy my toys and stuff. I [i]worked[/i] for what I had, the first time I did so was when I was seven years old. That was my childhood, and consequently living in a rural area a young boy will quickly exhaust all the available employment opportunities in an effort to score money for Lego sets and GI Joes. I think that was a lesson in economics all by itself, I had exhausted all of the supply, and was thus in great demand for five and ten dollar bills.
None of this opened up a single fucking career opportunity, though. All it did was get me small amounts of money and taught me the fine art of haggling and conniving. None of this bothers me now, I've long ago realized that I'm cut from different stuff than most people and I don't really fit into society, I never will and that's okay. I suppose I could have grown up to be bitter about my childhood and want the world to make it up to me for making me have such a shitty life, but I learned the world does not work like that and it never will. So yeah, I'm more of a rugged mountain man, a frontier pioneer type, and maybe growing up in rural Minnesota had something to do with that and maybe that's what saved my ass. I do know that kids with almost the same story as mine usually wind up drug addicts or criminals, my cousin being both. (he's had some harder shit to deal with, though) So what would you prefer? Urban poor being continuously addicted to criminal activity because it's... well, it's easy, or would you at least like to mitigate some of that?
It doesn't take much to get out of poverty, it doesn't take much to "make it" if you know the fine little things they don't teach you in school, and sweeping floors isn't going to do shit. I learned how to not be poor by being extremely careful with my finances, most poor people blow any extra money instantly when they get it because they're used to using any money they have on shit they need. Poor people live in a perpetual state of "now" and the media, advertisement, hell entire business models all reinforce this because it's.. it's how poor people have always been, these things reinforce the thing that shaped them. I don't know about you, but I know what a stressful, exhausting time it is having no money, so any bit that helps alleviate that stress pushes the impoverished away from "now" thinking toward "tomorrow" thinking.
I can only assume he wants the poor kids to sweep and clean while the more wealthy ones sit and enjoy their lunch. The senator most likely thinks it's best to establish a social class mindset as early as possible, wouldn't want the poor bastards to have opportunities or aspirations
[QUOTE=DylanWilson;43266090]I can only assume he wants the poor kids to sweep and clean while the more wealthy ones sit and enjoy their lunch. The senator most likely thinks it's best to establish a social class mindset as early as possible, wouldn't want the poor bastards to have opportunities or aspirations[/QUOTE]
I imagine his train of though to be something along the line of this:
[i]"better not let the poor kids think they're somebody, otherwise they might vote for the opposition"[/i]
I honestly think he is coming from a financial point of view.
"Less money spent is good"
That sort of thing.
I don't believe he is trying to be evil and start the subjugation of the poor at an early age.
I don't believe he is thinking of how it will affect them at all other than to instill this "work ethic" in them.
Actually.. no.. he must be under the impression that disadvantaged children must be lazy, otherwise, why would they need to be taught this "work ethic"?
This guy is a dick.
-sNip-
i'm heavily right leaning but this is shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.