A local elementary that our church supports has kids that don't eat over the weekend. They have to feed them before they can teach them. It's beyond sad.
all of them can afford lunch, stop watching The View. Low SES kids get free or reduced lunches, they are the ones that may not be able to afford lunch. However, if they are on free or reduced lunches they also get food stamps. therefore free lunches are double dipping.
The ones that their parents can afford lunches, but decided to buy a pack of smokes or a 12 pack, explains their low SES status, which has already been discussed. Therefore there is not a group of hungry kids under performing because the system sucks.
I dont need your attitude and your dead wrong.
Are One In Five American Children Hungry?
Paul Roderick Gregory ,
CONTRIBUTOR
I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Childhood hunger is a nice, safe issue. No politician can be against hungry children, and we are told that the U.S. faces a child hunger problem of massive proportions. Advocacy groups repeat over and over that 16.2 million children (one in five) “struggle with hunger in the United States.” Television appeals show dispirited children going to bed hungry.
Childhood hunger and nutrition are one of the constants of political discourse. While the Super Committee stalemates, Congress debates whether pizzas should be counted as a vegetable in school lunch programs. The Occupy Wall Street crowd deplores childhood hunger as “violence against children.” Liberals complain that Rush Limbaugh jokes about childhood poverty. Sinister pizza, cola, and salt lobbyists block valiant efforts to make school lunches healthier.
Statistics that become part of our folklore should raise suspicion. When we dig into them, they are usually wrong. I cite as examples Bill Clinton’s “100,000 new cops on the street” or the “miserly pay of teachers.”
The one-in-five childhood hunger figure should raise red flags for three reasons.
First, studies of poor households show that almost half own their own homes, three quarters own a car, and almost all have a color television. The American poor seem to have money for things other than food for their children, if the one-in-five statistic is to be believed.
Second, advocacy groups (with Michelle Obama as a leading spokesperson) now appear to have decided that the problem is childhood obesity, not hunger. The children, especially of the poor, are not going to bed hungry. They are eating too much of the wrong foods.
Third, if the one-in-five statistic is correct, the public food stamps and school free lunch programs must be colossal failures. Despite their wide reach into poor communities, they apparently leave more than thirty percent of school children “struggling with hunger.”
Where does the one-in-five figure come from and what does it really measure?
It turns out that the official arbiter of family nutrition is the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Its annual survey classifies families as “food secure”, “food insecure”, and “very low food secure.” It publishes no direct measure of “hunger,” only of what it calls “food security.” The details of the survey are found in the statistical appendix to the annual survey – a document that few read.
Paul Roderick Gregory ,
CONTRIBUTOR
I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Childhood hunger is a nice, safe issue. No politician can be against hungry children, and we are told that the U.S. faces a child hunger problem of massive proportions. Advocacy groups repeat over and over that 16.2 million children (one in five) “struggle with hunger in the United States.” Television appeals show dispirited children going to bed hungry.
Childhood hunger and nutrition are one of the constants of political discourse. While the Super Committee stalemates, Congress debates whether pizzas should be counted as a vegetable in school lunch programs. The Occupy Wall Street crowd deplores childhood hunger as “violence against children.” Liberals complain that Rush Limbaugh jokes about childhood poverty. Sinister pizza, cola, and salt lobbyists block valiant efforts to make school lunches healthier.
Statistics that become part of our folklore should raise suspicion. When we dig into them, they are usually wrong. I cite as examples Bill Clinton’s “100,000 new cops on the street” or the “miserly pay of teachers.”
The one-in-five childhood hunger figure should raise red flags for three reasons.
First, studies of poor households show that almost half own their own homes, three quarters own a car, and almost all have a color television. The American poor seem to have money for things other than food for their children, if the one-in-five statistic is to be believed.
Second, advocacy groups (with Michelle Obama as a leading spokesperson) now appear to have decided that the problem is childhood obesity, not hunger. The children, especially of the poor, are not going to bed hungry. They are eating too much of the wrong foods.
Third, if the one-in-five statistic is correct, the public food stamps and school free lunch programs must be colossal failures. Despite their wide reach into poor communities, they apparently leave more than thirty percent of school children “struggling with hunger.”
Where does the one-in-five figure come from and what does it really measure?
It turns out that the official arbiter of family nutrition is the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Its annual survey classifies families as “food secure”, “food insecure”, and “very low food secure.” It publishes no direct measure of “hunger,” only of what it calls “food security.” The details of the survey are found in the statistical appendix to the annual survey – a document that few read.
I am not dead wrong, I am dead right. people such as you want to expand food stamps to 30 percent more of the population.
bless your heart.
it is not bless my heart, I just do not believe in public assistance when it is not needed.
If you think there are not a lot of kids going hungry either at home or school or both, then your uneducated on the matter.
why are they going hungry?
One in Five Children Receive Food Stamps, Census Bureau Reports
You are a liberal that wants the government to be every child's parent.
also, almost all schools will give a kid a free lunch, it just may not be what the kid wants to eat.
I'm no liberal and I dont want the government to have to be anyones parent.
So step off.
I'm not suggesting a solution other than parents need to step up. The fact remains, there are still hungry children.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Here’s some petrified wood I found on my place yesterday- Latest: OK Corgi Rancher
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[Sale/Trade] Ruger 10/22 charger, with threaded barrel, scope, extra mags ,ammo.- Latest: Dangerousways
-
-
