>>37
I assume you're talking about discount school lunch programs, because every school I've been to, you pay for the meals yourself, unless you can't afford em. Since the government requires you by law to go to school until a certain age, that would be a little cruel to just take away the only meal they may get in the day.
And WHY is that the only meal they might get in the day? Why exactly do some kids starve in this country? Is it because some parents were irresponsible by having kids that they couldn't afford? ... Or is it alllllll just either the president's fault or
socieeeeetyyyy's fault?
DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO FEED THEM. Get a damn job, move out of the sticks if you're going to have kids and want em to be fed, unless you live on a farm. It's called being responsible.
Oh wait, maybe they had money, had kids, then went broke! Who's fault is that? Nobody's it would seem, right? Just the fault of nature or whatever, right? Don't think they could have done anything to actually
prepare for a disaster, had some sort of back-up plan or funds? What a concept! It's still irresponsible to have a kid until you know without a doubt they'll be secure until they can fend for themselves. And before you all come up with some kind of irrational rhetoric in response, just ask yourself, is he right or not? I already know I'm being insensitive.
>>39
You make it sound like we're right down there with Africa...