Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (19729)	4/3/1998 10:19:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, the costs were cut. I have no problem with cutting costs at all, and believe that things need to be done well and efficiently at the same time. Why waste money? I certainly don't support that. What you seem to be missing is that your very same federal tax dollars still ended up feeding the children. It is nice that they got better food to eat. I am sure we can both be happy about that. But the only difference was that instead of school districts running their own kitchens, the job was contracted out to private companies, the food tasted better, and slightly less was spent overall. An elegant solution all around!! What I said originally was that a society as rich as this one is, has an obligation to feed children in need at school with our tax dollars. If a cost effective means can be found to do this, great, I am all for it. You were instead arguing that private food banks should feed them, and not at school, either, incidentally. So now you are supporting the efficient, tax-supported feeding of poor children at school, for lunch and probably breakfast as well. Excellent!! Thank you for being compassionate and coming around to a morally and ethically defensible point of view.