First, only a liberal media source like the Washington Post would brag about a record number of children being dependent on a government program due to their parents not providing for them.
When the Rand-worshipping right wing has been spreading a lie that the government can't do anything right for decades and their base eats it up, it's pretty noteworthy to have rock-hard evidence that their claims are false. Not that you care, of course...
Whether it's a result of poor economic conditions where they live or lack of personal responsibility, it's nothing to be proud of.
Excuse me? Feeding the starving isn't something to be proud of?! I thought you were a Christian!
Second, calling these lunches free is fake news.
Just as I suspected. Any news that doesn't tell them what they want to hear must be fake, regardless of the evidence. The lunches are free in the sense that the kids don't have to pay for them. You had better not be implying that you think starving children should have to pay for their own meals or starve.
Just like every other government program from the Affordable Care Act on down someone is always paying for those who are incapable of or refuse to provide for themselves and their children.
First off, cut it out with the Just World Fallacy. Second, even if their parents are simply refusing to feed their children, somebody has to. And until your "Voluntary donations" start becoming sufficient to cover the custs, we're going to do it with taxation.
Third, this program and all others should only be for the truly poor and one has to be just that to not be able to afford a big $2.00 container of oatmeal and bananas to cut up and put over the top of it.
I've heard this before: "He's not really poor, he's buying lobster! He's not really poor, he's got s fridge!" You're not really poor unless you're emaciated and clad only in sackcloth and ashes, regardless of your financial situation. Just another excuse for a lack of empathy.
Finally, I have the misfortune of knowing several individuals who have children with 3-4 different women and don't provide for them.
First off, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Second, even if it were true that starving children are only starving because their parents are lazy (spoilers: it isn't), why should the children have to suffer and die because of their parents' irresponsibility? If the government shouldn't help them, and their parents won't, who does that leave?!
May the government start permanently sterilizing individuals who through their irresponsible actions and selfishness create a burden on the rest of society. They are a cancer in need of major radiation. They make me sick.
So you're against government intervention to feed starving children, but you're in favor of government intervention to impose eugenics? It's true: inside every Libertarian is a fascist who just wants to be the one doing the oppressing.
