Missouri Lawmaker Says Hunger Motivates Children!  

What can I say? I agree with you totally!
Annie

LOL well Taskr it could be worse, she could have said that those hungry kids could how signs at the side of the road saying "will work for food"

Good one, Zeph - "Will work for food"...lol!
When she said that about McDonald's letting them eat for free I knew she was full of it. I know a teenage girl who had worked at McDonald's for awhile a year or so ago and she got a discount, I'm not even sure if it was 50% It may vary from place to place. I'll bet this moron never had to job hunt at 16!
Annie

It would be interesting to know what percentage of our kids actually get nutritious, healthy food most of the time. I mean, we have the people who can only afford things like hot dogs and mac and cheese, we have the families who are so busy with both parents working that they rely on fast food and processed meals and we those parents who really don't have any excuse not to but they still don't give their kids healthy meals.

I believe our children are our future and we owe it to them to give them the best start possible towards growing into healthy, responsible adults. If part of what it takes to do that is for my tax dollars to go towards giving less fortunate kids a good meal or two every day that's fine with me. It's great for kids to work part time but no 16 year old should have to work to put food in their belly.
Annie

My cousin is a McDonald's manager and she told me that they get a free sandwich for a shift, it has something to do with how many hours they work. I probably have this wrong but, I think she said that if they work 4 hours or less the get a small sandwich and more than 4 they get a large sandwich.

all of those links are about "hunger motivation", so I am just wondering if you think that what this Davis woman is saying is right? That it might be a good thing to have children be hungry?

Cynthia Davis never once said that hungry children is a good thing. I'm surprized at Annie for how blatantly out of context she represented Davis's words.

Cynthia Davis was doing a commentary on a press release about a government program to provide nutritious meals. Part of the press release covered who would be eligible for the free meals program. Davis never said that hunger was good for kids, she said that hunger can be a positive motivator for kids to get out and get jobs to help their parents put food on the table.

I don't think it's the responsibility of kids to help buy food, but I would much rather see 16 through 18 year olds working to help the family than lining up for handouts.

I know in my case, when I became disabled, the money my oldest son earned as a caddy often went for food or other necessities. We hated having to use his money, and there were times he resented it. However, today it is something he is proud that he was able to do. He probably wouldn't remember what he spent the money on, but when he looks back on those days, it isn't with resentment, regret or anything else negative. He has nothing but positive thoughts about the time he was needed, and was there.

He's now a college graduate, married and working to support his own family. His strong sense of responsibility and family is all too uncommon in people his age. Imagine how much better our nation would be if we encouraged kids to stand up and be counted instead of acting like they are abused every time anything is expected of them?

Ted, I have no problem with teens getting summer and after school jobs, if they can find one these days which may be a challenge. I worked from the time I turned 16 and while I didn't have to work for food I guess when you think about it I made it a little easier for my parents to put food on the table since I used to money I earned to buy own clothes and other things and for when I wanted to do things like go to the movies or skating. Back then most high school kids had jobs and for many of us it was because we WANTED the responsibility of earning our own money. However, the idea that there shouldn't be meals in the summer for kids from lower income families because the older kids could get a job is absurd. I really don't see how I took her words out of context. I don't know what the economic conditions are in Rep. Davis's district are but it's probably fairly safe to assume there are fewer jobs available for anyone let alone high school kids and more lower income families who could really use the help in giving their children nutritious meals when school isn't in session. Sure hunger is a great motivator but I don't think we should want our kids to have that type of motivation this early in their lives if it can be prevented.
Annie

Im sorry to hear that you and your family had such rough times, and its great that your son was able to help your family out in such a way

but What about the kids who can't get a job to help out their families, even if they are of age to do it....my brother was about 16 when we were homeless and he wasn't able to get a job because we lived in a kinda small town, so those "handouts" he got at lunch were sometimes the only things he got to eat that day, as were the "handouts" that I got each day, at the age of 8 years old, sometimes were the only things that I got to eat some days because my parents couldn't find jobs and no there were no churches or charities that gave a damn about a homeless family in their town...I think that a politician who can sink as low as to question giving low income children free food is really disgusting no matter what spin they put on it...she frequently assumes in her statements that parents are able to feed their children, basically no matter what is what she sounds like she is saying, and i can tell you and her and everyone that is just not true and is a slap in the face to extremely poor and very loving parents, like my own, who were heartbroken when they couldn't provide for their children

Read both columns completely. She is merely pointing out that the expansion of the program is just one of a long list of ways the government intentionally works to replace personal responsibility in our lives.

"This program could have an unintended consequence of diminishing parental involvement. Why have meals at home with your loved ones if you can go to the government soup kitchen and get one for free? This could have the effect of breaking apart more families."

One of the biggest (not the only, so don't stretch it to there) things that perpetuate poverty and irresponsibility is the government mocking responsibility in the first place. It is a total assault on the family and the community. The perpetrators are no better than slave traders.

"Sure hunger is a great motivator but I don't think we should want our kids to have that type of motivation this early in their lives if it can be prevented."

So you agree, hunger can be a positive motivator.

The removal of hunger as a positive motivator has destroyed lives, families, communities and nations.

I think few things have motivated people to surrender freedom more than the whole, "well, they shouldn't have to..." scam.

you seriously think that having a free lunch and breakfast program at schools lessens personal responsibility? And I think comparing this to slave traders is a huge stretch and no I don't see how it is an assault on families that they are simply trying to help those who are in need, and are respectful enough to give their children nutritious meals,,,,how the heck do you compare that to slavery?

When the government comes in and tells parents that they don't shouldn't have to worry about providing for their families, that is an assault on families. When some power hungry politician moves in and replaces the role of the parent for their own political gain, that definitely compares to slave trading.

The people who allow the government to take the place of the family responsibilities are sellling themselves and their kids. When a family is 3 or 4 (maybe more) generations "on the dole" they aren't much different than the slaves who would rather be slaves than be free.

Institutionalization is a horrible condition, no matter how it is presented.

mind you, there is a difference between assistance and doing it instead of...

What would you suggest then, Ted? Let the kids of low income families go hungry or at the very least not get any nutritious meals? Is what we should be doing is refuse to provide any assistance to those in need because it will make them feel they don't have to do for themselves? There aren't enough jobs for every child 16 and older to get one and some kids have no way to get to a job if they could find one.

I'll say it again - KIDS should never go hungry!
Annie

What would I suggest? The same thing I suggest with most charity needs. Kids are first and foremost the responsibility of the family. That is where all responsibility should start, and that is where the community should insist it starts (immediate then extended). If the family can't or won't take care of the needs of their kids, the next step would be the community. Community includes the friends of the family, churches, and private organizations. Only after each the people of each of those "levels" have failed or refused to help should the government ever be approached. This keeps the focus where it belongs, on meeting the needs of the families. The only people served by runaway government welfare is politicians and people who refuse to grow up.

All situations should be handled at the smallest jurisdiction possible, with oversight from the next largest entity.

The problem with the upsidedown way we do it now, it encourages neglect and abuse, both of kids and of the taxpayers.

Yeah, why go somewhere and get a good meal if you can stay together and starve!
Annie

Will you stay home and starve with me even though I'm not family?