I feed people all the time. I just don't think the government should take money from me or anyone else to give to anybody. Certainly not people who obviously can afford their own food.

Many of the people getting "free" lunches can afford their own food. They just don't have to because we enable their poor choices.

Ok

There are some things government can do better. There are many more things the people can do better. One thing government can definitely do better is provide military protection for the people of the United States. Other things that our government can do better is insuring that all kids have their nutritional needs met and that they all receive at least a basic education. Yes, the government does fail at those sometimes. I like home schooling for children, but I do think the government should test to see that the kids are learning all they should. Most home school.kids learn what they should, but not all.

The administration of charity needs to be guided by rational thought.

Keith

That comment was in reply to this...

Exactly!

I was a single parent father with a daughter. Not having the best bookkeeping skills back then, I would flip her cash to pay for her school lunches. Well, because of my and her absentmindedness, she came up short for money a couple times for lunch- not because I was poor.- it was a lack of communication between me and her. They would give her a cheese sandwich for lunch. All those other kids getting free lunches and tthey couldnt bill me for a couple times a year or cover it for crying out loud.?

Forced charity does not glorify God.

my wife has worked for our school district for 25 years as cook, so before lunches were free for all , they were free for some low income, and the school was always after people to pay their bills, surprisingly the worst people to get money out of for their kids to eat was the well-off people doctor's lawyers, yet the school could not stop them from eating

My dad's father died when dad was an infant. Dad's mother never remarried and dad and his older brother grew up mostly in boarding, often without enough to eat. Dad finished high school, despite being "too hungry to learn," went to work, advanced and eventually owned the company. That allowed him to pay for brother and myself to attend college and graduate without a cent of debt. We went to school every day with a bag lunch.

I worked at a facility that had a cafeteria. I once priced what a bag lunch cost down to the penny, including the paper bag, and compared it to the cost of a sandwich from the cafeteria. I could take a bag lunch for the week (5 days) for less than the cost of one cafeteria sandwich. I mention this to demonstrate how poorly our tax dollars are being spent buying cafeteria lunches for kids whose parents already get food stamps, and could be sending them to school with a bag lunch.

Some will struggle to learn when they are hungry and others will excel when they are hungry…..

But

….you can’t say that.

The government could provide bag lunches cheaper still, by taking competitive bids and buying in bulk . They should do that instead of the more expensive lunches.

Keith

Is charity optional ?

Luke:19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

On the flip side if one leaves the corners at harvest, but the gleaners are too lazy to pick and eat then, that is not the growers fault?

I have a question for those who don't want to give. Have you never received something you didn't earn? It seems to me that it's just pride to say you would never accept or give charity. Jesus didn't say to only give if they deserve it.

Big difference in choosing to be charitable and being forced to....

Having a wife that has been a teacher for many years, I see closer to first hand. The fact is there are a bunch of crappy parents out there. There are some that abuse this system and a lot who it really does help. It’s a fact that some “parents” don’t feed their kids what they need. The free and reduced lunch and breakfast is the only food the kids ever get. I can see both sides of this argument but bottom line is kids need fed.

Its a simple decision for me so I'll just repeat what someone else said:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I'd skip my own meal and give it away before I would let a child go hungry because they have lousy parents. I know what its like to be pushed down and I know what its like to be lifted up. It is much easier to try and frame this subject on the generic masses and not see the specific kids but it always comes down to individual people. Kind of a "don't look at the trees, just see the forest" affect. I choose to see the trees.

Don't pay no never mind to loosegoose...we all know that Jesus was a liberal.

I've been in this argument before and it usually ends up that for the churchy believers its a necessary evil. Its my experience if I give grudgingly I won't be blessed because God blesses cheerful givers.
It usually ends in the argument about the distribution of it to the deserving people. In the old days the heads of the church thought they didn't have the time to be messing with the welfare of the widows and orphans so they put deacons in charge of it. That incident ended up in Stephen getting stoned. So even at the beginning welfare was no "picnic" and modern times are not perfect either.
Part of the problem with the Church of England was that the church was over the charity and if a widow or anyone else didn't go along with the church whims of the day then they would be cut off. For a widow with no children that could have been a death sentence. So in the fight for freedom of religion the Pilgrims set out to find that freedom.
Somewhere in the process so that no one got left out it got turned over to the state and that is where we are! Its not that the act of charity has changed, but the fact that people haven't changed, lol.
Peoples needs get complicated when mixed with wants. The word want used to mean needs.