Originally posted by finneganI fully agree. I was actually educated along side many children who were not adequately fed and I do know that it had a major negative impact on their learning.
Not least is that it is a delusion to imagine schools can educate a hungry child so if the school is to function as it is intended, then food has to be part of the package. You can moralise away til the cows come home without changing this. A hungry child is not going to learn so if you are not willing to feed them, close the schools and end the futility of it all.
But, if we are going to feed starving children then lets do it properly and feed them all the time and feed their parents too. Lets also feed all children, not just those in your country.
In another debate you can worry about the morality of neglectful parents so irresponsible that instead of having abortions they try to get by on the pitiful takings from our low wage, insecure economy. Or maybe you want to ban all but the comfortably affluent from having children - maybe from having sex - since there is no cheap way to bring up children "properly."
I do not think there is any need to worry about morality, or forcing people to have less children. It is quite simple. Educate people, help them to be better off financially, and provide them with the means and knowledge required to have less children and they will have less children. So giving food to hungry children at school will in the long term reduce birth rates of the poor and reduce the percentage of people who are poor and is a good place to start. But lets not go so slow. Lets do it properly as suggested by KazetNagorra. Lets give everyone a minimum wage sufficient to buy enough food to survive. And lets do it globally.
Originally posted by EladarWell, then those parents are bad parents and in extreme cases their parental custody should be revoked. But these are rare cases - having grown up in the Netherlands I can assure you it's extremely rare for people to go without food. In the cases where it does happen it's usually homeless people or people who built up huge (gambling) debts. The thing with parents is that usually they want what (they think) is best for their kids.
What if those parents don't use the subsidies correctly? Who is to say that the parents are buying the correct foods for their kids? Money can be spent many ways.
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarMy ex-wife who is a teacher says similar. She has taught 9-10 year olds in 4th-5th grades for many years. That some of her students eat primarily only at school, and on the subsidized or free lunch program. She says they are ravished on Monday after the weekend, and can't concentrate Monday morning while they are starving but only in the afternoon after lunch. There has also at times and for some been subsidized or free breakfast which helps.
It seems to me that the School lunch program here in the US is a perfect example of how the government can't get things right. It can't get things right because it must treat everyone exactly the same.
We have a problem here in the US with kids that are fat. Yet we also have a problem here in the US with kids that are too skinny. As a teacher I get to tion for many years maybe this year something will be done.
One size does not fit all.
On a completely different issue, she also has commented that the kids who are regularly spanked at home (actually spanked and not just weakly swatted at) are the most misbehaved students including being aggressive and violent at school. Yet, in the afternoon as the school day nears an end, those spanked students will sometimes become somewhat feeble acting and skittish.
Originally posted by moon1969Let me guess, your wife is against spanking to begin with.
My ex-wife who is a teacher says similar. She has taught 9-10 year olds in 4th-5th grades for many years. That some of her students eat primarily only at school, and on the subsidized or free lunch program. She says they are ravished on Monday after the weekend, and can't concentrate Monday morning while they are starving but only in the afternoon after l ...[text shortened]... nears an end, those spanked students will sometimes become somewhat feeble acting and skittish.
I agree that abused kids are very violent and disrespectful. Spanking kids at the age she sees really isn't useful. The battle for respect must be won when the child is much younger even 5 is too late. Spanking is a very useful tool when dealing with young kids, as is the example of the parents.
As for miminum income Kaz,
Do you think it should be based on the individual? So much for each adult and so much for each child? What would be the total mimimum support for a family of four, including all subsidies?
Originally posted by EladarWell, it should be based on the family situation, more kids require more support. Also, let's say someone is handicapped, they should get some extra support. And it should also be less than minimum wage. The exact figure for a family of four depends on many factors, for instance how much public facilities they use. In the specific case of the Netherlands (where the system is of course not ideal and flawed in some ways, but let's not get bogged down in details) the $16k figure would be for a single parent, but you'd get a few k more in rent subsidies, plus a fixed amount per child (this amount is independent of income and is like 1k per year per child - obviously less than what a child costs but it still helps).
Let me guess, your wife is against spanking to begin with.
I agree that abused kids are very violent and disrespectful. Spanking kids at the age she sees really isn't useful. The battle for respect must be won when the child is much younger even 5 is too late. Spanking is a very useful tool when dealing with young kids, as is the example of the parents. ...[text shortened]... child? What would be the total mimimum support for a family of four, including all subsidies?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI was just wondering at the max amount of money you think the government should give a typical family of 4. Please include all subsidies.
Well, it should be based on the family situation, more kids require more support. Also, let's say someone is handicapped, they should get some extra support. And it should also be less than minimum wage. The exact figure for a family of four depends on many factors, for instance how much public facilities they use. In the specific case of the Netherland ...[text shortened]... d is like 1k per year per child - obviously less than what a child costs but it still helps).
Originally posted by EladarI wouldn't even know what all subsidies add up to - this would include primary and secondary education, health care, police and the army, infrastructure, etc. etc.
I was just wondering at the max amount of money you think the government should give a typical family of 4. Please include all subsidies.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI mean total money that the family would receive for their personal expenses. Food, housing, clothing, you know the stuff people would usually have to pay for out of their own pockets if they didn't receive government aid.
I wouldn't even know what all subsidies add up to - this would include primary and secondary education, health care, police and the army, infrastructure, etc. etc.
Originally posted by Eladar20k-ish seems reasonable under normal circumstances.
I mean total money that the family would receive for their personal expenses. Food, housing, clothing, you know the stuff people would usually have to pay for out of their own pockets if they didn't receive government aid.
Originally posted by normbenignWe've been through this. More money, social status, the better moral choice. In the Netherlands approximately 316,000 people or less than 2% of the population are on this guaranteed minimum income so I suppose most people find a reason to work. Your pay must be really bad if you'd consider quitting your job to stay at home with just $15-20k/year.
What would motivate anyone to work?