Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON (June 16) -- With the school year ending in communities across America, more than 16 million children face a summer of hunger.

While classes were in session, they relied on free or discount cafeteria meals subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But they will not be reached by the patchwork summer food programs financed by the USDA, which feed fewer than one in five of the total number of kids poor enough to qualify.

The children caught in the gap will likely spend the next few months cadging leftovers from neighbors, chowing down on cheap junk, lining up with their families at food banks that are already overmatched or simply learning to live with a constant headache, growling stomach and chronic fatigue. When school rolls around again in the fall, they will be less healthy and less ready to learn than their peers.

Schoolchildren gather for lunch in Milwaukee, Wisc., where summer school will be in session this year for only four weeks ? meaning hungry kids will increasingly rely on help from groups like the city?s Hunger Task Force.

The problem is not new, of course, but indicators for a crisis are lining up. Federal studies show that "food insecurity" for children peaks during summer, said USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel, adding, "That's a cutting-edge research term for hunger." Demand for food stamps is already up. Demand at food banks is already way up. Donations, however, are down.

With the national economy limping and joblessness still high, a record 20.5 million students needed federally subsidized school lunches in 2010, up from 19.4 million in 2009, according to an AOL News analysis of federal statistics.

I don't understand...we've spent over a TRILLION DOLLARS in the war on Poverty...yet there are still poor people...

Can't we just pull out of this war too.....

Col Hogan wrote:I don't understand...we've spent over a TRILLION DOLLARS in the war on Poverty...yet there are still poor people...

Can't we just pull out of this war too.....

UNHWildCats wrote:WASHINGTON (June 16) -- With the school year ending in communities across America, more than 16 million children face a summer of hunger.

While classes were in session, they relied on free or discount cafeteria meals subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But they will not be reached by the patchwork summer food programs financed by the USDA, which feed fewer than one in five of the total number of kids poor enough to qualify.

The children caught in the gap will likely spend the next few months cadging leftovers from neighbors, chowing down on cheap junk, lining up with their families at food banks that are already overmatched or simply learning to live with a constant headache, growling stomach and chronic fatigue. When school rolls around again in the fall, they will be less healthy and less ready to learn than their peers.

Schoolchildren gather for lunch in Milwaukee, Wisc., where summer school will be in session this year for only four weeks ? meaning hungry kids will increasingly rely on help from groups like the city?s Hunger Task Force.

The problem is not new, of course, but indicators for a crisis are lining up. Federal studies show that "food insecurity" for children peaks during summer, said USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel, adding, "That's a cutting-edge research term for hunger." Demand for food stamps is already up. Demand at food banks is already way up. Donations, however, are down.

With the national economy limping and joblessness still high, a record 20.5 million students needed federally subsidized school lunches in 2010, up from 19.4 million in 2009, according to an AOL News analysis of federal statistics.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to take the money necessary to keep the schools open an additional 3 months and use it directly on food instead?

mebison wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:WASHINGTON (June 16) -- With the school year ending in communities across America, more than 16 million children face a summer of hunger.

While classes were in session, they relied on free or discount cafeteria meals subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But they will not be reached by the patchwork summer food programs financed by the USDA, which feed fewer than one in five of the total number of kids poor enough to qualify.

The children caught in the gap will likely spend the next few months cadging leftovers from neighbors, chowing down on cheap junk, lining up with their families at food banks that are already overmatched or simply learning to live with a constant headache, growling stomach and chronic fatigue. When school rolls around again in the fall, they will be less healthy and less ready to learn than their peers.

Schoolchildren gather for lunch in Milwaukee, Wisc., where summer school will be in session this year for only four weeks ? meaning hungry kids will increasingly rely on help from groups like the city?s Hunger Task Force.

The problem is not new, of course, but indicators for a crisis are lining up. Federal studies show that "food insecurity" for children peaks during summer, said USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel, adding, "That's a cutting-edge research term for hunger." Demand for food stamps is already up. Demand at food banks is already way up. Donations, however, are down.

With the national economy limping and joblessness still high, a record 20.5 million students needed federally subsidized school lunches in 2010, up from 19.4 million in 2009, according to an AOL News analysis of federal statistics.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to take the money necessary to keep the schools open an additional 3 months and use it directly on food instead?

You obviously aren't in government!

Technically, I'm employed by the state government and mostly financed by the federal government.

Speaking of which, I should get back to work.

mebison wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:WASHINGTON (June 16) -- With the school year ending in communities across America, more than 16 million children face a summer of hunger.

While classes were in session, they relied on free or discount cafeteria meals subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But they will not be reached by the patchwork summer food programs financed by the USDA, which feed fewer than one in five of the total number of kids poor enough to qualify.

The children caught in the gap will likely spend the next few months cadging leftovers from neighbors, chowing down on cheap junk, lining up with their families at food banks that are already overmatched or simply learning to live with a constant headache, growling stomach and chronic fatigue. When school rolls around again in the fall, they will be less healthy and less ready to learn than their peers.

Schoolchildren gather for lunch in Milwaukee, Wisc., where summer school will be in session this year for only four weeks ? meaning hungry kids will increasingly rely on help from groups like the city?s Hunger Task Force.

The problem is not new, of course, but indicators for a crisis are lining up. Federal studies show that "food insecurity" for children peaks during summer, said USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel, adding, "That's a cutting-edge research term for hunger." Demand for food stamps is already up. Demand at food banks is already way up. Donations, however, are down.

With the national economy limping and joblessness still high, a record 20.5 million students needed federally subsidized school lunches in 2010, up from 19.4 million in 2009, according to an AOL News analysis of federal statistics.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to take the money necessary to keep the schools open an additional 3 months and use it directly on food instead?

This is only a secondary reason for why the school year should be longer and year round.

How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

mebison wrote:Technically, I'm employed by the state government and mostly financed by the federal government.

Speaking of which, I should get back to work.

kalm wrote:How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

Spay and neuter them first!

mainejeff wrote:

kalm wrote:How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

Spay and neuter them first!

kalm wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Spay and neuter them first!

+1

kalm wrote:How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

First, if these people would take advantage of the opportunities offered and educate themselves, that way they would make themselves more attractive to their employer or prospective employers and maybe they will gain the privilege to be paid a higher wage.

Secondly, If they can't afford to feed children, maybe they shouldn't be breeding. Just saying....

Good luck finding teachers who will work for a whole year.

mainejeff wrote:

kalm wrote:How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

Spay and neuter them first!

PRC Commie Bastard!

kalm wrote:How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

How about they prepare themselves to EARN livable wages BEFORE they have children?

UNHWildCats wrote:This is only a secondary reason for why the school year should be longer and year round.

The first being that you've already finished your schooling.

Most "year-round schooling" still has the same number of schooldays as the traditional schedule.
It is just that instead of one long summer vacation, they divide it up into a number of smaller breaks.

So what are their parents spending their AFDC on?

This is a crock of sh!t.

Go with the 42" TV instead of the 65".

Just get basic cable and drop your NFL Sunday Tikket.

Just leave the stock rims on your car instead of the after market 22's.

Then you can feed your goddamn children.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:How about paying the dead beat parents enough in wages so they can buy their own damn food?

First, if these people would take advantage of the opportunities offered and educate themselves, that way they would make themselves more attractive to their employer or prospective employers and maybe they will gain the privilege to be paid a higher wage.

Secondly, If they can't afford to feed children, maybe they shouldn't be breeding. Just saying....

I don't disagree. Especially when you consider Microsoft and other companies a few years back lobbying for an increase in work visa's due to a growing demand in the college educated job market that evidently wasn't being met domestically. Of course it's tough to get a kid thinking about college when his belly's empty and when a college education is unaffordable.

CID1990 wrote:So what are their parents spending their AFDC on?

This is a crock of sh!t.

Go with the 42" TV instead of the 65".

Just get basic cable and drop your NFL Sunday Tikket.

Just leave the stock rims on your car instead of the after market 22's.

Then you can feed your goddamn children.

The resulting drop in demand from those on gov'mint assistance and the working poor will force layoffs at Best Buy, the Jacksonville Jaguars, Comcast, and CarQuest and the viscious cycle will continue.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:So what are their parents spending their AFDC on?

This is a crock of sh!t.

Go with the 42" TV instead of the 65".

Just get basic cable and drop your NFL Sunday Tikket.

Just leave the stock rims on your car instead of the after market 22's.

Then you can feed your goddamn children.

The resulting drop in demand from those on gov'mint assistance and the working poor will force layoffs at Best Buy, the Jacksonville Jaguars, Comcast, and CarQuest and the viscious cycle will continue.

Not quite true, but to the extent that it is true, your version of a worker's paradise is a house of cards, kalm.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: First, if these people would take advantage of the opportunities offered and educate themselves, that way they would make themselves more attractive to their employer or prospective employers and maybe they will gain the privilege to be paid a higher wage.

Secondly, If they can't afford to feed children, maybe they shouldn't be breeding. Just saying....

I don't disagree. Especially when you consider Microsoft and other companies a few years back lobbying for an increase in work visa's due to a growing demand in the college educated job market that evidently wasn't being met domestically. Of course it's tough to get a kid thinking about college when his belly's empty and when a college education is unaffordable.

A very decent college education is affordable for anyone willing to stay focused and work their asses off.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
The resulting drop in demand from those on gov'mint assistance and the working poor will force layoffs at Best Buy, the Jacksonville Jaguars, Comcast, and CarQuest and the viscious cycle will continue.

Not quite true, but to the extent that it is true, your version of a worker's paradise is a house of cards, kalm.

Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was such a Marxist.

mebison wrote:Technically, I'm employed by the state government and mostly financed by the federal government.

Speaking of which, I should get back to work.

You don't work for DDS, do you?