School Lunch Programs and Social Engineering

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is that like Bastiat's solution to famines i.e. the starving should buy some food?

A catholic bishop here in Holland has said that it's alright to steal bread if you are starving.

I tend to agree.

If a school sees children are underfed or over-fed it should be their obligation to intervene.
Same with child abuse, isn't it?

And whether it's a drunk parent slapping the kid or the economic system starving it, we have schools to help out. No point in teaching a kid maths if it's hungry, if you ask me.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
We'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.

So a single guy gets 15K a year?

So it is possible for two people to not get married, perhaps just live together and bring in about 35K a year doing absolutely nothing?

Originally posted by shavixmir

If a school sees children are underfed or over-fed it should be their obligation to intervene.
Same with child abuse, isn't it?

And whether it's a drunk parent slapping the kid or the economic system starving it, we have schools to help out. No point in teaching a kid maths if it's hungry, if you ask me.

When it comes to fat kids is it that they are over fed? Or is it that they are eating the wrong things? Or is it that they aren't getting enough excercise. You can't just look at a fat kid and say "he's eating too much".

Of course there is something called genetics too. Some people have high matabolisms, others have slow. But I suppose taking such variables into consideration is just too complicated for some people.

What about the government providing food that the kids won't eat?

Originally posted by Eladar
So a single guy gets 15K a year?

So it is possible for two people to not get married, perhaps just live together and bring in about 35K a year doing absolutely nothing?

Whether they are married does not matter, whether they live in the same household does. Since you need to be in the civil registry to get these type of benefits in the first place, you cannot get double benefits while living together.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Whether they are married does not matter, whether they live in the same household does. Since you need to be in the civil registry to get these type of benefits in the first place, you cannot get double benefits while living together.

So you'll have to live next door to each other? You can't have room mates to cut down on housing expenses?

Originally posted by Eladar
So you'll have to live next door to each other? You can't have room mates to cut down on housing expenses?

Sure you can.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Sure you can.

If you can do that, then why couldn't a couple collect minimum income as two singles? Wouldn't that bring the income to about 35k between the two of them?

Originally posted by Eladar
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 ...[text shortened]... tion for many years maybe this year something will be done.

One size does not fit all.

So I'm not quite getting how school lunches are responsible for these problems?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
So I'm not quite getting how school lunches are responsible for these problems?

I'm talking about the new rules that limit the number of calories as if all kids were fat.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm talking about the new rules that limit the number of calories as if all kids were fat.

Thin kids don't need more calories.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you can do that, then why couldn't a couple collect minimum income as two singles? Wouldn't that bring the income to about 35k between the two of them?

Because the authorities would see that they live together and thus they would get reduced benefits.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because the authorities would see that they live together and thus they would get reduced benefits.

So you'd have to live near each other to receive the benefits, you can't simply share an apartment to save on expenses.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thin kids don't need more calories.

Do thin kids need fewer calories?

Originally posted by Eladar
So you'd have to live near each other to receive the benefits, you can't simply share an apartment to save on expenses.

It's not complicated, two people can choose to either

a) live apart, getting more money from the government, but also having more expenses.
b) live together, get less and have less expenses.

I'm sure you're going somewhere with the endless questions about this, please make your point.

Originally posted by Barts
It's not complicated, two people can choose to either

a) live apart, getting more money from the government, but also having more expenses.
b) live together, get less and have less expenses.

I'm sure you're going somewhere with the endless questions about this, please make your point.

My point is that in your Socialized paradise you make getting married a bad thing. You get punished financially for not simply living together. Single parenting is given incentive and you can get much more money by being seen as two single people.

It rewards people who work the system.