And we cannot do anything about untying the Gordian Knot until we do something
about the increasing gap between those who use their wealth to purchase
political power that enables them to suck up wealth from those who do the actual
I will add my amen to Richard and Sharell.Parenting by parents is
superior to parenting by the government.
So just another letter complaining about something without any suggestion to
remedy or fix the situation. If you are going to whine then come up with some
idea(s) to resolve the problem otherwise why complain.
As someone who went to school in Canada I still find it amazing that schools
here are in the business of feeding the students. We, or our parents, were
solely responsible to feed ourselves. Really, that's how it should be.
Seems like there is no pleasing conservatives. A main plank in their platform
is the quote “A person who would trade freedom for security, deserves
neither”. This letter seems to say “a person should not trade
security for freedom”.When the government, or someone else,
does a task for you, they are giving you freedom. Doing things for us is one of
the main jobs we ask government to do. Freedom is having the time,
ability and the permission to do what you want to do. Perhaps the
saddest and untold part of this story is that behind the school breakfast is a
private enterprise making a profit from the tax money for education. So in
effect the mother has traded some funds for education for a few moments of
freedom. Then again, food is good, it might make the school
experience more enjoyable to the student and enhance the possibility for
education. I think people should know and understand the give and
take of civilization before they complain about a small part of it.
You're honestly opposed to poor kids getting breakfast? Seriously?
Repubs make for the most entitled and (worst) parents out there. They'd
rather focus on Mammon and trying to live like Mitt Romney rather than focus on
the children who they created but refuse to raise.
As these parents are stretching their time and paychecks for breakfast and lunch
for their children, what areas should they make decreases in? Should
they cut their power bill? Or maybe they should move to a crappier apartment in
a less safe neighborhood?I know, I know - it's not really your
problem or concern, it is their responsibility to raise their children - as long
as heir birth control is not being paid for by their employer or taxpayers and
they are not getting abortions, what so we care?
"When the government, or someone else, does a task for you, they are giving
you freedom""Repubs make for the most entitled and (worst)
parents out there....children who they created but refuse to raise.""Doing things for us is one of the main jobs we ask government to
do. "" honestly opposed to poor kids getting breakfast?
Seriously?""We, or our parents, were solely responsible to
feed ourselves. Really, that's how it should be."Some real
thoughtful nuggets here.Straw men, non sequiturs, bizarre
statements, and complete agenda driven misdirection.The opinion
expressed was:"But we are sickened that headlines and school
guidelines say to parents, If you are too busy or if you find it difficult to
stretch your pay check, you needn't feed your children breakfast.
We'll do it for you.We cannot begin to untie the Gordian Knot
that binds our nation's economy by increasing the number of families
dependent upon the government."From the comments I am to believe
that less parental involvement and more reliance upon government is good?Strange world we live in.I add my Amen to the opinion
I'd rather pay taxes to feed school children breakfast here, Than pay
taxes to feed troops breakfast, lunch, dinner THERE.Besides-- Kids get out of school after only 12 years, our troops can't get
out of the Middle East after 13...
I think a great idea would be to just sign over your kids to the schools at age
5. The schools could feed, clothe, house, and teach them. Then at 18 they
would be let go. Of course, parents (or those who gave birth since parents is
such a loose term) would have visitation rights. That would solve all of our
problems, not one homeless child in America.
JMHOSouthern, UTI think a great idea would be to just sign over your
kids to the schools at age 5. The schools could feed, clothe, house, and teach
them. Then at 18 they would be let go. Of course, parents (or those who gave
birth since parents is such a loose term) would have visitation rights. That
would solve all of our problems, not one homeless child in America.12:44 p.m. Jan. 23, 2013------------Great idea!Isn't that what the priveldged rich parents do with their kids
sending them off to private schools and institutions?Harry Potter
and Mitt Romney turned out all right.
To "Ultra Bob" you are wrong. When you trade more time at home for a
free/discounted breakfast for your kids you are giving up freedom. Look at it
this way, when you go to work, the first 2 hours of every day you are working to
pay for government (on average). Are you more or less free if you now have to
work 2 hours 15 minutes for the government, and only benefit from 5 hours 45
minutes of work. So, to maintain the same income level you now have to work 15
minutes more each day.Are you more or less free now that you have to
work more to maintain and support the government?To "Open Minded
Mormon" so what you are saying is that you don't want to have to
actually touch, look at, or personally care for the poor. You would rather
write a check and let an uncaring bureaucrat care for the poor so that you
don't have to. Meanwhile, you would rather that the poor and oppressed in
foreign nations remain so by removing the US military from helping liberate
@Redshirt"Look at it this way, when you go to work, the first 2 hours
of every day you are working to pay for government (on average). Are you more or
less free if you now have to work 2 hours 15 minutes for the government, and
only benefit from 5 hours 45 minutes of work. ...so what you are saying is that
you don't want to have to actually touch, look at, or personally care for
the poor."Newsflash to Redshirt: For the last couple hundred
years, we've had this thing called "Specialization". A guy named
Adam Smith was very excited about it becuase it allows workers to develop more
skill in their specific areas, increases output and increases innovation.We decided a long time ago that it's way more efficient for us to do what
we're best at all day, but give some of that money (from a few hours of it
anyway) to build roads, feed the poor, etc. rather than go out and work on the
roads, travel to inner citties to help the poor, etc. ourselves. So we voted to
hire the government to do all that stuff for us and it's worked fabulously.
Open Minded: I personally don't care what other people do with their
money. The fact that you call anyone "priveldged rich parents" shows
you have some contempt for other people's money. I find it interesting how
easily people beg for a king when they are free and then will have to fight to
be free when they have a king.
To "The Taxman" wow, what a non-answer.Since you cannot
actually say anything coherent about what I said, I assume that you either agree
with me or begrudgingly accept the fact that by allowing the government to do
for you what you can do for yourself you are in fact giving up freedom.
Freedom is having the time, ability and the permission to do the things you want
to do.So, when someone does something for you that frees up some of
your time, they are giving you one of the most important ingredients of freedom.
You may use that time to do something you want to do. Maybe call your mother.
Having the ability is not too hard to understand, it is simple the
limitation put upon us by the natural world. Permission is mostly
what other people give us in return for our lost freedom to do harm to them. It
usually comes from government, church, parents and other people. Our allotment of time is given us sometime around the time we were born in an
indefinite amount and is actually the only thing we have to trade for the other
things we want. Because we have no control over it, it is like having a loan
that is being paid back by automatic withdrawal from our account. It is for each of us, when we can, to decide what we get in return for the
time paid out.
@RedshirtI think, for those intelligent enough to see, by pointing
out that you are living under a 200 year-old (for all but the Amish) paradigm, I
adequately answered your ridiculous question.But to be more
elementary, yes I feel very free because I have had the opportunity to vote for
a representative government that has followed my wishes and provided the
services I want to make me more effective in doing what I do best. There, can
you understand that? What part of being able to vote for a representative
government who carries out our wishes do you find oppressive?By the
way, I don't know how to build a good road (nor do I want to learn), so I
am not allowing the government to do for me what I can do for myself.
I agree with most conservatives here... Kids who can't afford breakfast
should be banned from school. Education should only be provided for the well
off. Poor people? Nah you don't need education.
To "The Taxman" lets make this clear. You don't mind selling your
freedom for a sense of security because that is what you want to do.Again, you don't mind losing freedom as long as your belly is full.
@RedshirtAll I can suggest at this point is that you move to
Mogadishu. Your belly won't be full, but you'll have total freedom
from the government taking your money or regulating you in any way. I doubt
you'll be able to post (internet connectivity isn't so great there),
but please do write a letter to the DN editor and let us all know how
you're doing.For me, I'll stay here and be happy to live
in our representative democracy, gladly paying my taxes and directing my leaders
through my votes to provide the services I desire.
To "The Taxman" since when is anarchy freedom? To have freedom you need
to have some sort of structure in place to enforce property rights.What is it with your ilk's confustion between anarchy and freedom?But I do like how you are willing to sell your freedom for a full belly.
How well has that worked out for Cubans or North Koreans?
@Redshirt"To "The Taxman" since when is anarchy
freedom?" According to Merriam Webster:"ANARCHY:1c: a
utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without
government"So, I guess, Redshirt, anarchy became freedom for me
(specifically "complete freedom without government") when I was a child
and learned what the word meant.I doubt most Americans would agree
with you comparing No Korea and Cuba to our current situation in the United
States. Seems like incoherent babbling at this point...
To "The Taxman" it is a utopian ideal. Communism is a utopian ideal
where everybody is taken care of and has all of their needs met. In practice is
fails miserably to achieve its utopian idea. So, since it is just a utopian
ideal that anarchy is freedom, I contend that it still is not freedom because,
as Somalia shows us, anarchy is not freedom, but a breeding ground for
despots.Actually comparing North Korea or Cuba is quite appropriate.
Their leadership was able to get into power by promising to take care of
everybody's needs. You know, like free healthcare, money when you are
unemployed, food for you and your kids when you don't think you can afford
it. All they ask is that you give up some freedoms.I am sorry to
inform you that giving up freedoms for some security is exactly what went on in
those communist nations.