When did I say it wasn't?
Also the government doesn't have the right to take money from one group of people and give it away so kids can go to school. Allow the free market to reduce costs for schools.
When did I say it wasn't?
First problem is Michelle "thunder thighs" Obama shouldn't be in charge of anything. She needs to shut up and leave us alone. She's over weight and ugly enough to scare a freight train off the tracks. Hell, she probably can't even pump her own gas or the pumps would run away.
Oh, for fuck sake. Grow the fuck up. I'd wager that she's more in shape than you are.
Jokes about Michelle O's figure are so tired.
You first,troll.
That's actually a compliment coming from a fucking retard.
Resorting to insults? Not surprised at all.
you have zero self awareness, don't you incorruptible?
"This is why East Germany built a wall. People, when they are able, always attempt to flee liberalism. "
*chuckle*
Oh, I see...the wall was built to keep people from flooding into EAST Germany.
I provided a valid reason (which you did not dispute) as to why the school lunch program is in the public interest, and you replied that "you don't have a right to other people's money." You agree that public education is a vital government function, however, the funding of public education requires the use of other people's money, as the majority of taxpayers do not have school age children.
Are you getting it yet?
There were some very interesting English experiments by ladies'societies in the late 19th and early twentieth century demonstrating the effects of decent early nutrition on children thought to be dull and unintelligent by virtue of genetics. To some degree, school lunches are the same. However, we're reaching the point that many of these children are being fed three times a day, even though the parent or guardian is already being provided money to feed the children. At that point, the parent or guardian IS the problem. In the English examples the families had too many children (due to lack of available effective birth control) coupled with too little income and economic and nutritional ignorance; they were doing the best they could. Today, far too often the children are ignored if not actually abused. Society is harmed far more by the lack of structure and imparted values than by hungry children.I provided a valid reason (which you did not dispute) as to why the school lunch program is in the public interest, and you replied that "you don't have a right to other people's money." You agree that public education is a vital government function, however, the funding of public education requires the use of other people's money, as the majority of taxpayers do not have school age children.
Are you getting it yet?