Georgia Republican Jack Kingston Says Poor Kids Should Sweep Cafeteria Floors for Food by Niki2

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'd have no problem with this article if it wasn't for this.

Quote:
Out of “their head”. See, I’ve lived in the South and I know what that means. SHHHH, don’t tell anyone – it means the black kids. THEIR head. Get that free myth outta their lazy head.

Yeah. Play that race card.

Sheesh.

Could that just mean ANY kids ? Why must it mean 'black' ? Seriously, hard work these days is avoided like the plague by most kids. Hell, I avoided it, when I could. Look at Tom Sawyer ! LOL. No kid WANTS to work, but sure, the lesson of understanding that charity doesn't come from the Govt when that $ is forcibly taken in the first place, is something worth while to learn.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 20, 2013 1:27 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm sure it does mean "any" kid, and I agree that it's a mischaracterization that it was only aimed at black kids, too. Especially since studies show that the majority of food-stamp recipients are white anyway.

It's the mentality that bothers me. Making kids scrub floors for food...that doesn't bother you at all?? I'd find that amazing, if so.

I heard this guy the other night, and it absolutely blew my mind:

Quote:
Forbes columnist John Tamny's declaration on The Daily Show that food stamps are "cruel" and would be replaced by private charity if people were "literally starving" with "distended bellies" is in keeping with his past remarks on the program -- In his regular role as a Fox panelist, Tamny has lamented that food stamp recipients are not publicly shamed and embarrassed for receiving the benefits.

On The Daily Show, Forbes columnist Tamny spoke to correspondent Jessica Williams about the $5 billion recently cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps). Tamny told Williams, "If I were in control, I would abolish SNAP all together. I think food stamps are cruel." He added, "I don't think anyone is happy if they're reliant on someone else, if they're taking a handout."

WILLIAMS: What does literally starving look like?

TAMNY: This is going to come off the wrong way, but I guess it's where people have literally distended bellies where they're getting almost nothing. We don't hear about the poor in this country starving on the streets.

He went on to deny that the food stamp program keeps people from starving. Tamny argued that if people were "literally starving," a "massive outpouring of charity" would "make up for that fact."

“I wonder if there are any programs currently in place that are preventing people from starving in the streets,” said Williams, now openly trolling a man who doesn’t even know he’s being trolled.

“I wonder too, I haven’t heard of any of them, something tells me they don’t exist, but I’ve certainly not heard of any such program,” said Tamny.

“If you’re going to be poor, this is the country you want to be poor in,” he concluded.

Tamny's reach goes beyond his role as a Forbes columnist.

He's a regular panelist on Fox News' Forbes on Fox Saturday business program, having appeared on the network over 20 times in the last 10 months alone. He also serves as a senior director at the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

And like this Daily Show appearance, Tamny has used the Fox platform to disparage Americans who rely on government programs such as food stamps and Social Security -- He's previously promoted the public shaming of food stamp recipients in order to make them feel embarrassed, and labeled recipients of Medicare and Social Security as "congenitally socialist." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12/18/the-daily-show-is-not-the-firs
t-time-forbes-joh/197337

Does he, or do any of you guys, actually believe this is what should be necessary in this country before we help people...this and put the children to work to earn food?

(By the way, private charities currently provide $5 billion...you seriously think they can take over for SNAP ($80 billion) without us HAVING people walking around "literally starving"??)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 20, 2013 6:49 PM

I object to the author calling his views 'Dickensian' when Dickens campaigned against social inequality and was particular noted for his concern for the welfare of poor children.

I dunno, the right in America just appear to hate the poor and want to punish them. I guess being poor is seen as being 'unamerican'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 20, 2013 8:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I object to the author calling his views 'Dickensian' when Dickens campaigned against social inequality and was particular noted for his concern for the welfare of poor children.

I dunno, the right in America just appear to hate the poor and want to punish them. I guess being poor is seen as being 'unamerican'

How is this remotely appearing to 'hate' the poor? That has zero to do with it , what so ever. It's about teaching personal responsibility and the understanding that " the poor " aren't entitled to other people's money.

( And same goes for telling Sandra Fluke that she isn't entitled to tax payer funded birth control either. )

It's about teaching accountability. Oh, boo freaking hooo.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 20, 2013 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

How is this remotely appearing to 'hate' the poor? That has zero to do with it , what so ever. It's about teaching personal responsibility and the understanding that " the poor " aren't entitled to other people's money.

( And same goes for telling Sandra Fluke that she isn't entitled to tax payer funded birth control either. )

It's about teaching accountability. Oh, boo freaking hooo.

Most people, even those with hardline views on welfare, would probably think that child labour and child starvation are unacceptable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 20, 2013 8:25 PM

America loves a winner!

Child labor ? Starvation ? Oh dear lord, please stop. I believe the issue is sweeping floors and maybe picking up some trash. No one is suggesting 15 hr days in the coal mines or textile factory.

Good grief.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 20, 2013 8:43 PM

OONJERAH

"Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys.
They'll never stay home and they're always alone,
Even with someone they love."

But it ain't all on Mama. The sapling cowboy, bent as he already is,
gotta make a choice to become functional in the real world.
V
I gotta go with Au on this one.

I worked at the school cafeteria in the 7th grade. So did my sis 2 years
older; only she made it thru (succeeded) & worked there in the 8th grade
too. Working at the Cafeteria wasn't a blow to my self-esteem; it wasn't
worse. It was, in fact, an opportunity. A golden opportunity! Not only
could I earn my food, I could show up and be useful. That was better
for me.

I don't recall sweeping the floor and I did not wash the dishes. I helped
set out the food trays, and refilled them as needed; I dried and put away
the dishes. It was considered normal, not slave, labor. It was one hour
of work a day.

This is a fairly powerful ghost from my past. The thing I remember most
about it:
If I did not earn a good-worked-for lunch at the cafeteria, I did not have
$0.35 to buy a lunch, no. I'd have a bag lunch: peanut butter sandwich &
a banana. That's a pretty good lunch, but not as good as a hot lunch.

Most of the kids at school bitched about how terrible the cafeteria food
was. There I was drooling for it, & they were sorry to get it. If that
wasn't shaming, then it certainly showed the gap between me & them.
When you're poor, you don't need a politician with an occassional tact-
less remark to remind you of it. You need a better way to go.

Trust me on this one.

====================== :>
The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. ~George Orwell

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:12 AM

"There's no such thing as a free lunch" would have to be one of the biggest myth's of capitalism. Of course there are free lunches - but only if you are already wealthy and privileged. In which case dining out at the expense of others is expected and part of being wealthy and privleged.

Now if you are going to have a system that gives some support to families and children who are suffering hardship, then at least do it in a way that doesn't further shame. I live somewhere where there are no free lunches, nor are there food stamps - something I am grateful for (the no food stamps). Instead we have a generous welfare system - at least compared to the US.

Now I actually think provision of lunches at school is a good idea, often kids in hardship have poor diets and have little or no lunches. That's the poverty trap. If you are hungry you can't concentrate or behave in class - that's just just a fact.

What I would do is target those schools with a low socio economuc status and provide free lunches for all. No distinguishing between kids at the school but basically you are targetting funds where they are needed most. And make the lunches nutritious. Ask for a coin donation if you want to instil some sense of user pays in the young, but make sure no one gets turned away if they have no coin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:34 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
"There's no such thing as a free lunch" would have to be one of the biggest myth's of capitalism. Of course there are free lunches - but only if you are already wealthy and privileged. In which case dining out at the expense of others is expected and part of being wealthy and privleged.

Not only are you failing to comprehend the concept of what is meant by 'free lunch ', your follow up comments make absolutely no sense at all. I can't even begin to untangle your words.

Quote:

Now if you are going to have a system that gives some support to families and children who are suffering hardship, then at least do it in a way that doesn't further shame. I live somewhere where there are no free lunches, nor are there food stamps - something I am grateful for (the no food stamps). Instead we have a generous welfare system - at least compared to the US.

" Food Stamps" , as they were once known, are a thing of the past. Now welfare recipients have debit cards which resemble any other ATM, Credit Card. It use to be a hassle and a purposeful bit of public reminder that you were getting your food from the taxpayers, and that was to motivate the user to try to at least get OFF public assistance. Now it's made so easy, there's no incentive. Folks have become quite comfortable on public welfare.

Quote:

Now I actually think provision of lunches at school is a good idea, often kids in hardship have poor diets and have little or no lunches. That's the poverty trap. If you are hungry you can't concentrate or behave in class - that's just just a fact.

We've been feeding our kids school meals more and more, and their grades have been sliding more and more. The " conventional wisdom " doesn't seem to be holding true here. If anything, it's getting worse. Michelle Obama, well meaning as she may be, was behind sweeping new menus for school meals, and guess what ? Most of that over priced, bland tasting food went in the garbage. The kids hated it.

Michelle Obama-touted federal healthy lunch program leaves bad taste in some school districts' mouths

...The USDA (which administers the program) says growing pains are to be expected, but the complaints from school officials are getting louder; they say kids aren't eating the vegetables and low-fat choices and end up too hungry to learn. And they're saying they're losing money from throwing out all the uneaten food.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michelle-obama-touted-federal-healthy-lunc
h-program-leaves-bad-taste-in-some-school-districts-mouths/

Quote:

What I would do is target those schools with a low socio economuc status and provide free lunches for all. No distinguishing between kids at the school but basically you are targetting funds where they are needed most. And make the lunches nutritious. Ask for a coin donation if you want to instil some sense of user pays in the young, but make sure no one gets turned away if they have no coin.

Only not all kids NEED "free lunches ". In fact, many parents prefer to send their kids to school with their own prepared lunches, and the school districts are disallowing it ! It's been a constant battle , where schools eager to inflate their enrollments for school meal programs, will sign up anyone and everyone, no matter what, just to get more $. Doesn't matter if the kid actually EATS the meal or not, the school district still gets the $ , and that seems to be the driving force behind the program. NOT feeding the kids.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Not only are you failing to comprehend the concept of what is meant by 'free lunch ', your follow up comments make absolutely no sense at all. I can't even begin to untangle your words.

Really? Is that because I use words of more than two syllables occasionally?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:01 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Not only are you failing to comprehend the concept of what is meant by 'free lunch ', your follow up comments make absolutely no sense at all. I can't even begin to untangle your words.

Really? Is that because I use words of more than two syllables occasionally?

Yeah,words hard.

Expand on what you mean by this...

" In which case dining out at the expense of others is expected and part of being wealthy and privleged."

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:28 PM

AGENTROUKA

I guess it comes down to the question of "why are the poor so poor?"

Are they all lazy, avoiding decently-paid work that is offered in plenty?

If you're looking at poor people in numbers large enough that someone is considering it a problem, you may want to start asking why so many are so damn poor. And it's likely going to be for reasons that go well beyond "It's their own fault".

I certainly don't see how shaming people for it (as IF that's not already happening) is going to solve any problems if the reasons for their poverty are beyond their control.

Historically, I doubt wide-spread poverty was EVER related to laziness. It tends to correlate with unemployment or with being paid really, really badly in spite of working hard.

Hard work is not the solution for systemic poverty. It can make a difference in individuals when they are provided with an opportunity, but it doesn't make sense when they are few real opportunities for the sheer number of poor.

I also don't see how making kids sweep floors for food is going to provide them with the opportunity to land a decent paying job later in life, which is the real issue. It doesn't provide them with profitable job skills, it doesn't make professional networks appear.

Basically, if you can't provide kids with real opportunities, why NOT provide them with a free lunch?

What is the point of singling them out for shame if you have no solution to the poverty problem to begin with? Just shame them for shame's sake?

Or, if sweeping floors for food is such a great lesson/motivator, shouldn't ALL kids enjoy that particular opportunity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:59 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, Rouka, for summing this up so well and so concisely, especially this part:

Quote:
Basically, if you can't provide kids with real opportunities, why NOT provide them with a free lunch?

What is the point of singling them out for shame if you have no solution to the poverty problem to begin with? Just shame them for shame's sake?

Or, if sweeping floors for food is such a great lesson/motivator, shouldn't ALL kids enjoy that particular opportunity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I guess it comes down to the question of "why are the poor so poor?"

Are they all lazy, avoiding decently-paid work that is offered in plenty?

If you're looking at poor people in numbers large enough that someone is considering it a problem, you may want to start asking why so many are so damn poor. And it's likely going to be for reasons that go well beyond "It's their own fault".

I certainly don't see how shaming people for it (as IF that's not already happening) is going to solve any problems if the reasons for their poverty are beyond their control.

Historically, I doubt wide-spread poverty was EVER related to laziness. It tends to correlate with unemployment or with being paid really, really badly in spite of working hard.

Hard work is not the solution for systemic poverty. It can make a difference in individuals when they are provided with an opportunity, but it doesn't make sense when they are few real opportunities for the sheer number of poor.

I also don't see how making kids sweep floors for food is going to provide them with the opportunity to land a decent paying job later in life, which is the real issue. It doesn't provide them with profitable job skills, it doesn't make professional networks appear.

Basically, if you can't provide kids with real opportunities, why NOT provide them with a free lunch?

What is the point of singling them out for shame if you have no solution to the poverty problem to begin with? Just shame them for shame's sake?

Or, if sweeping floors for food is such a great lesson/motivator, shouldn't ALL kids enjoy that particular opportunity?

What you are saying makes perfect sense to me, but I dont think it fits the American right's view of the world, which really is ALL poor people are poor because they are lazy and stupid and ALL wealthy people are wealthy because they are hardworking and smart. So the wealth deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty, and the only way you will eradicate poverty is by teaching the poor some valuable lessons about taking responsibility, standing on their own two feet and doing a decent day's work. Right Rap, Geezer, Jongs?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:47 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 22, 2013 12:21 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Making kids scrub floors for food...that doesn't bother you at all??"

It doesn't bother Geezer - he said so himself. He said he'd have NO PROBLEMS with the article but for these lines - "See, I’ve lived in the South and I know what that means. SHHHH, don’t tell anyone – it means the black kids. THEIR head. Get that free myth outta their lazy head." That was his only objection.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'd have no problem with this article if it wasn't for this.

Quote:
Out of “their head”. See, I’ve lived in the South and I know what that means. SHHHH, don’t tell anyone – it means the black kids. THEIR head. Get that free myth outta their lazy head.

Yeah. Play that race card.

Sheesh.

So if you ever consider Geezer to be a human being rather than a religious ideologue who considers people to be unimportant in the face of his all important ideology, remember this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:10 AM