School lunches are not something I know much about. We had lunches in Catholic school but all I remember about them is that they received surplus food from the agriculture department's program to support farmers -- apparently pea farmers needed the most support judged by the volume of peas we were served.
And all i remember about that is that my mother was incensed when she discovered that surplus butter was not being given to us in school but was allowed to go rancid in the kitchen at Our Lady of the Assumption school. We couldn't afford to eat butter at our house; we ate the cheapest margarine.
The other day I heard bits and pieces of a radio interview about the history of school lunches while I was working around the house but I still do not know much about school lunches.
At least part of that interview was about payment subsidies -- as opposed to food subsidies -- for children whose parents are unable to feed them. In my area, and many others, there are now programs to send backpacks of food home with children over the weekend, and some schools keep serving meals during vacation.
It struck me that if there is even a colorable argument that millions of children in this country whose parents work need government lunches, then our economic system has failed.
[OP:] It struck me that if there is even a colorable argument that millions of children in this country whose parents work need government lunches, then our economic system has failed.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that if such an argument were, in fact, colorable, then you would supply us with concrete examples of how many millions of children, and where, are the recipients of government lunches.
After all, there is a colorable argument that, to the extent such a thing is happening, other factors besides our economic system might be involved.
Unless, of course, your conclusion was pre-cooked.
Hunger is always an economic argument. And it happens everywhere, but I hear your racist dog whistle.
ReplyDeleteHunger is always an economic argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd it happens everywhere, but I hear your racist dog whistle.
When I was typing that, I was thinking, among other things that stand outside economics, of Appalachia.
And I was also thinking of our inner cities, and about how much actual racism -- which isn't an economic system, and therefore not a way in which our economic system failed -- had to with the need for government lunches.
And also how many illegal immigrants' children, fleeing failed economies, which can't be an indictment of our economic system, are getting government lunches.
Now, I am thinking you are an idiot, proving once again that everytime a progressives use the word "racist", they are exhibiting brain death.
'And also how many illegal immigrants' children, fleeing failed economies, which can't be an indictment of our economic system, are getting government lunches.'
ReplyDeleteYou mean to tell me the disaster of the banana republics is not an indictment of the US economic system? I keep telling you you know nothing of history and you keep proving me right.
You mean to tell me the disaster of the banana republics is not an indictment of the US economic system? I keep telling you you know nothing of history and you keep proving me right.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what I'm telling you. Your fondness of single factor explanations for complex phenomena would be astonishing in a mediocre first year philosophy student.
And I've already pointed that out: if US interventions in central and south American countries suffice to explain their plight today, then eastern Europe should be far worse off. But it isn't; in fact, after shucking the horror show of communism and implementing free markets, it is far better off.
You, who is the most blinkered "analyst" I have ever read is in no position to accuse others of not knowing history, considering your willful disregard of every bit of it that is inconvenient to your socialist sympathies.
Of course, you could prove your point by picking a central or south American country, and demonstrate how US intervention (which is in an entirely different realm than our economic system) created the disasters of today.
I suggest you start with Venezuela. Of course, you could cite El Salvador or Honduras, and demonstrate to us how much better off they'd be had they only been allowed to become communist.
You know, like Cuba and Venezuela.
Oh, btw. You owe me an apology your nasty slander. Which, of course, will not be forthcoming, no how matter how transparently idiotic it was.
Progressives are all alike.
'which is in an entirely different realm than our economic system)'
ReplyDeleteWow. That is really stupid. Beyond ordinary or garden variety.
It isn't stupid, it is a statement of the blindingly obvious. Our interventions in South America during the last half of the 20th century were intended to resist the totalitarian ideology of which you collectivists are so enamored.
ReplyDeleteIf it was all about our economic system, then we would have intervened everywhere that had a different one, and all the interventions would have created economic disasters. But we didn't, and they didn't.
In the former pile put Venezuela, for just one of a myriad of examples. In the latter, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan and Russia.
When it was the USSR, it was a complete shithole. Worst place I've ever been. Somehow, Bernie and you missed that.
So you are the stupid one, Harry. Relentlessly simplistic, with insuperable antibodies against learning anything you haven't decided you already know.
Your have a template. Pronunciamento that collapses under even the most superficial examination, then heroically avoid that examination.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you could prove your point by picking a central or south American country, and demonstrate how US intervention (which is in an entirely different realm than our economic system) created the disasters of today.
I suggest you start with Venezuela. Of course, you could cite El Salvador or Honduras, and demonstrate to us how much better off they'd be had they only been allowed to become communist.
You know, like Cuba and Venezuela.
Why don't you try actually supporting your pronunciamentos?
Oh, wait. I know why.
Oh, btw. You owe me an apology your nasty slander. Which, of course, will not be forthcoming, no how matter how transparently idiotic it was.
ReplyDeleteAnd you wonder why the term "progressive" leave such a foul odor easily detectable to everyone but your co-religionists.
United Fruit Company. The perfect example of the US economic system unfettered by the checks of democracy and education.
ReplyDelete[Harry:] Hunger is always an economic argument. And it happens everywhere, but I hear your racist dog whistle.
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty serious charge.
Tell us, Harry, what is it, exactly, that I said to cause your dog whistle to reverberate in your cranium.
I have lots of time Harry. Before I address the childish simplism and irrelevance of your invoking the United Fruit Company, I need to know what it is, exactly that I said to cause your dog whistle to reverberate in your cranium.
ReplyDeleteI predict either silence, or frantic goal post shifting.