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 (19731)	4/3/1998 11:19:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, there are already 15,000,000 hungry children in the United States. Most people, even those who believe adults should have to do community service to get food, understand that children are innocent, and deserve food to eat and grow up as strong and healthy as we can help them to be. This is for a very selfish interest, as well as compassionate ones--children who grow up hungry become the weak, ill people in the next generation who go to prison or somehow need to be taken care of by the society. So we pay a larger price later. While you think private food banks can do the job, they are already running short of food. It is simplistic to think you can dump millions of needy people on private charities and it will work well. The church leaders have already complained about this to president Clinton. I do believe children will be starving if we cut the public lunch program. How can you say they would not be? What you don't seem to understand is that having a private company cook the food still provides food to the children, paid for right out of your pocket and mine in taxes. Sure they have managed to save a little money, but the children are still being fed. If the program stopped, more children would go hungry. What is so hard for you to understand? Even if food banks could make up the difference, which they cannot, many parents of hungry children are not very well organized, and run chaotic households, and would not manage to get to the food bank at the right time. Some of them would try to sell the food to buy drugs or alcohol. And another group works full time, at jobs that pay so little the parents cannot afford both rent and food. This is very true in San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. The parents have decided to spend their money on rent, which is also a good choice, because children growing up in homeless shelters is not a very good situation. These are all pathetic situations, but they are not the fault of the children, who do not choose their parents. You have said nothing to convince me you do not want to starve children. I thought for awhile you had, since you posted that article, but now it seems you do not agree with it. The article clearly states there is a pervasive argument for feeding poor children at school. Here once again is the American Academy of Pediatrics article as well, explaining that it is important. aap.org Since you are apparently against federal taxes supporting the school lunch program, and there are several reasons food banks and churches are not practical, just what is your suggestion to solve the problem?