9 out of 10 pundits agree: Poor people still gross

my question is what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana?

In other words Lady Kate "Marie Antoinette" O'beirne just said, "Let them eat cake."

I mean, where do I start?

And where do you get off? Kate O'Bernie asks a valid STATISTICAL question, to which you respond in the famous liberal manner of a single example. Heart-wrenching as it maybe, it does not even begin to address the real question - does the school lunch program is needed in its present size and form, or is it being used to cover-up a bigger issue, and/or a new entitlement to teach kids and their parents that the government is good, and the food comes from the government. Because based on the author's view - the program worked for her.

in a world where the only outstretched hand was the government’s?

Bull@!$%#. Most organization that outstretch their hands a non-government, and they are far more effective than the government. I do not believe for an instance that in the situation described the local church did not get involved, United Way or Salvation army did not get involved. And they sport far less bureaucracy than our beloved feds.

Do I advocate against the school lunch program - hell no. We do need to help the kids to grow up, and become productive members of society. Having said I would like to know if the lunch program in its present is not being used for other purposes. I'd like to have an open discussion about that, without some liberal screaming "bloody murder" at the mere mention that a government program bears deeper scrutiny.

I wouldnt call half of the offerings from the school lunch program "food". But that is another story.

Most people I knew took advantage of the breakfast program did so because they were working multiple jobs and didnt have the time to rustle up their kid a bowl of cereal or a banana because they were off to work.

What working parent who had to make it to their first job wouldnt take advantage of the school feeding and watching their kid for an extra hour in the morning?

Kate wasn't being a heartless bitch and thoughtless moron she was being a conspiracy theorist seeing something sinister in people's desire to not see children starve

Her choice of words certainly tends to indicate the former, rather than the latter. None of which invalidates the point that I am making - no government program, no matter how sacred of a cow it appears, should be immune from examination.

Just like a stopped watch shows the correct time twice a day, a heartless bitch and thoughtless moron can ask a valid question.

I wouldnt call half of the offerings from the school lunch program "food".

Is "chewable substance suspected of containing traces of nutritional value" better?

From the article:

And if we’re going to ask more of ourselves, my question is what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana? I just don’t get why millions of school children qualify for school breakfasts unless we have a major wide spread problem with child neglect.

One homeless person can answer that so I'll ask "Jesus, were your parents, Joseph and Mary, guilty of child neglect because they and you were homeless?

I am an agnostic who thinks some of the lessons in religion are pretty good and it is amazing how hard some people who pretend to believe in the bible are. Shocking really...

9 out of 10 humans agree-- Rush Limbaugh is still a fat gross piece of @!$%# and Kate O'Beirne is a goddam heartless bitch. May she and the fat man both stew in their own lard.

Miss_Diagnosed

I wouldnt call half of the offerings from the school lunch program "food". But that is another story.

I understand. I work in a school. And I've noticed the quality going down. I asked the cafeteria manager and her response was that the prices for the food rose more quickly than the money given to provide the food, as well as they get most but not all their food from the District which goes with the lowest bidder. There's actually a regulation saying they have to use the lowest bidder that fit basic nutritional demands. So with school pop going up, money going down, staying the same, or barely rising they have to feed more kids and so quality goes down. ::shrug:: One reason I am approving of the new school nutrition bill, it's not for more food b ut better food and after seeing what the kids eat, i couldn't not be happy about that. The kids in my school however are lucky. It's a vocational center and we have a culinary arts course. They run a cafeteria and they buy better food. They have a seperate budget so they can buy healthier food and the food there is so much better than in the school caf.

Most organization that outstretch their hands a non-government, and they are far more effective than the government.

Private Charitable Giving is frankly dwarfed by what the Government does.

Now if your a big cheerleader for one party or the other, this is likely to make your head explode, but Kate and Alli are BOTH correct.

When Ms. Kate says:

You know, I mean if that’s how many parents are incapable of pulling together a bowl of cereal and a banana, then we have problems that are way bigger than… that problem can’t be solved with a school breakfast, because we have parents who are just criminally… ah… criminally negligent with respect to raising children.

She's right. There are millions of parents in America who are indeed criminally negligent, or very nearly so. Ask any teacher.

And if Ms. Allison could get over the emotional response of "throwing her laptop out the window" she could probably put together terrific evidence supporting what we must assume is her underlying point that there are millions of families on free/reduced lunch that are NOT criminally negligent. She's right too!

In either case, it is certainly not the fault of the children in these households that their parents either do not have enough money to provide for them or do have enough but do something else with it.

So Kate and Alli, we're going to keep this program, thank you. You can return to your corners and come out swinging at the bell.

Does it matter who is feeding a hungry child?

You are trying to put lipstick on a pig.

No, I am saying that when she requests the review of the program and the situation that underlies it - she is doing the right thing, and we should do it. As for the rest of your name-calling, it is childish. I can accuse you of the same thing, because right now you appear to be defending the "sacredness" of the cow. If there is a pig in this country - it is the federal government.

I will never understand the need to defend the indefensible.

And I will never understand the need to attack the unassailable.

Clearly Kate's point was that being poor should be a crime or she is just too stupid to realize that being poor means more than just waiting a year before buying a new car it means you may have to decide whic essentials are more essential.

No. Clearly you want that to be her point because modern American liberalism requires a villain. It is not enough that she is ignorant, she must be evil as well.

Her point is basically that we have some poor excuses for parents out there...a point which is exceedingly difficult to refute.

However people always tell you more about themselves with the questions they ask than the answers they give, and what she tells you about herself with this particular question is that she has absolutely NO concept of what it is to be poor. Her remarks reveal her ignorance and insensitivity, nothing more.

so many just jump at the chance at the role.

Well....ok...yeah, fair enough.

If that were the point she was making, clearly she was not.

Yes she is, but regardless of that you and I are in one of those sorta rare times when we agree on the fundamentals:

1. She's an idiot.

2. We're keeping the free lunch program.

Does it matter who is feeding a hungry child?

@Norcal2

I wish I could vote for your comment a couple dozen times.