$108 million to rebuild a Cathedral, or 10-14 million a year to provide free lunches in low decile schools??

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › $108 million to rebuild a Cathedral, or 10-14 million a year to provide free lunches in low decile schools??

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1861977 10-Sep-2017 21:11

I'm not sure about the troubles of the world. A lot of them are chicken and egg type stories.

Low SES -> lots of kids -> hungry kids -> grow up to be low SES is one example

Who's responsibility to fix this?

THrowing money is an answer but I'm not sure how it solves anything.

Let's try this again

Low SES -> lots of kids -> free food -> hmm ... let's have more kids! -> grown up expecting free food -> no need to work -> lots of kids ...

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1862004 10-Sep-2017 22:12

Wiggum:
amiga500: Our politicians are fast to find millions to pay for fleets of BMWs and transport projects yet c
ome up with dozens of reasons why giving poor hungry kids two decent meals a day at school is a bad idea.
Providing these is hardly a new idea - it's just that NZ has not done what many other countries have done for generations. Shame on the politicians who voted against this bill..

Its a bad idea because it takes the responsibility from parents, and places it on schools/government. In short, it will make already bad parents even worse.

If a child is hungry at school it should never be the schools/governments fault. Bad parenting needs to be tackled.

So I assume you would be ok to let children starve and develop all the illnesses that brings

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1862071 11-Sep-2017 08:35

MikeB4:
Wiggum:

amiga500: Our politicians are fast to find millions to pay for fleets of BMWs and transport projects yet c
ome up with dozens of reasons why giving poor hungry kids two decent meals a day at school is a bad idea.
Providing these is hardly a new idea - it's just that NZ has not done what many other countries have done for generations. Shame on the politicians who voted against this bill..

Its a bad idea because it takes the responsibility from parents, and places it on schools/government. In short, it will make already bad parents even worse.

If a child is hungry at school it should never be the schools/governments fault. Bad parenting needs to be tackled.

So I assume you would be ok to let children starve and develop all the illnesses that brings

Please don't twist my words.

Children going to school without lunch is never OK. Its unacceptable, and its criminal.

If children are going to school without lunch, and starving, then can I suggest there is a bigger issue at play. As a parent I find it very hard to understand why some parents would send their kids to school without lunch. Its unacceptable in this day and age, a loaf of bread costs $1 and thats enough for a kid for a few days school lunch, add a few toppings etc and it can work out to less than $1 per day. Kids going to school without lunch is certainly not a "poverty"/financial thing. More like a lazy parent thing! I'm not implying it does not happen, just making the statement that there is 0 excuse for it. Any parent that allows this to happen needs to be made accountable (unfortunately we are too light on this kind of child abuse in NZ).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1862086 11-Sep-2017 08:48

Wiggum:

Please don't twist my words.

Children going to school without lunch is never OK. Its unacceptable, and its criminal.

If children are going to school without lunch, and starving, then can I suggest there is a bigger issue at play. As a parent I find it very hard to understand why some parents would send their kids to school without lunch. Its unacceptable in this day and age, a loaf of bread costs $1 and thats enough for a kid for a few days school lunch, add a few toppings etc and it can work out to less than $1 per day. Kids going to school without lunch is certainly not a "poverty"/financial thing. More like a lazy parent thing! I'm not implying it does not happen, just making the statement that there is 0 excuse for it. Any parent that allows this to happen needs to be made accountable (unfortunately we are too light on this kind of child abuse in NZ).

You have a very simplistic view of the world, or you are wearing the biggest set of blinkers on and you are frankly not worth the effort to discuss this with you.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1862099 11-Sep-2017 09:05

MikeB4:

You have a very simplistic view of the world, or you are wearing the biggest set of blinkers on and you are frankly not worth the effort to discuss this with you.

Actually, lets just say that I am very well traveled, have witnessed extreme poverty in the world and it has opened my eyes.

People in NZ who use the term "poverty" to describe the poor here are really the ones with the blinkers on. We very fortunate to be living in NZ where we all have access to such a great welfare/healthcare system.

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#1862143 11-Sep-2017 09:39

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

Please don't twist my words.

Children going to school without lunch is never OK. Its unacceptable, and its criminal.

If children are going to school without lunch, and starving, then can I suggest there is a bigger issue at play. As a parent I find it very hard to understand why some parents would send their kids to school without lunch. Its unacceptable in this day and age, a loaf of bread costs $1 and thats enough for a kid for a few days school lunch, add a few toppings etc and it can work out to less than $1 per day. Kids going to school without lunch is certainly not a "poverty"/financial thing. More like a lazy parent thing! I'm not implying it does not happen, just making the statement that there is 0 excuse for it. Any parent that allows this to happen needs to be made accountable (unfortunately we are too light on this kind of child abuse in NZ).

You have a very simplistic view of the world, or you are wearing the biggest set of blinkers on and you are frankly not worth the effort to discuss this with you.

It is an fortunate fact in NZ that charity is increasingly being perceived as a supplementary income stream for many people.

I realise that situations change and I believe in safety nets, but planning to permanently depend on welfare is a broken attitude.

People (tax payers & politicians) will have increasingly hard attitudes to being charitable when they see it being abused and see it as encouraging dependence (ie not being used a safety net).

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#1862148 11-Sep-2017 09:51

The fact that kids without lunches continue to acquire new siblings is evidence that a problem exists that isn't going to be solved with free lunches.

A striking comment my horse riding teacher friend made to me the other day was that if they noticed a horse as perpetually sick with skin saws and as malnourished some of their students they would report it to the SPCA as a case of animal cruelty.

The SPCA would not stand for a farmer staving his stock and simultaneously acquiring more stock. We would label such a person as ignorant and callous and re-educating them about stocking levels and concepts such as duty-of-care. Repeat offences result in appointed managers taking over their farms and a ban on owning stock in the future.

How sick is it that we hold farmers to a higher standard than parents in this country?

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1862170 11-Sep-2017 10:25

tripper1000:

The fact that kids without lunches continue to acquire new siblings is evidence that a problem exists that isn't going to be solved with free lunches.

A striking comment my horse riding teacher friend made to me the other day was that if they noticed a horse as perpetually sick with skin saws and as malnourished some of their students they would report it to the SPCA as a case of animal cruelty.

The SPCA would not stand for a farmer staving his stock and simultaneously acquiring more stock. We would label such a person as ignorant and callous and re-educating them about stocking levels and concepts such as duty-of-care. Repeat offences result in appointed managers taking over their farms and a ban on owning stock in the future.

How sick is it that we hold farmers to a higher standard than parents in this country?

You have a better chance of educating kids if they are not hungry then maybe we will be able to break the cycle in so many areas. Education is the key It appears to me that some of our forum commentators have missed out on some their education which deals with compassion and understanding ( never criticise others until you have walked in their shoes)

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1862184 11-Sep-2017 10:53

I used to feel one way about kids and lunches being provided by charity/state, but ultimately you can't punish children for their parents stupidity, lack of responsibility, or poor parenting skills. You also can't punish kids for parents with low incomes that struggle. Kids should be getting 3 meals a day.

I do think however, that it shouldn't be a one pronged approach and parents who continually can't feed their kids should be supervised or assisted with budgeting, family management skills etc. It's a really hard thing though, because it's very complex and complicated.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1862216 11-Sep-2017 11:19

A lot of people assume that these kids are in this position because of "their parents stupidity, lack of responsibility, or poor parenting skills" While that is true in some cases it is not the case in the majority. We have all read about such things as the housing crises yet some how that should not be regarded when looking at why kids go to school with out being fed. Rents have sky rocketed including HNZ prices. Wages are low in real terms, until recently Benefits have been frozen and the recent increase was no where near close to making a real world difference for these households. Then factor in such things as power increases etc and the recipe for a social disaster in NZ becomes clear. All the budgeting skills in the world will not help if outgoings exceed income.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1862217 11-Sep-2017 11:20

networkn:

I used to feel one way about kids and lunches being provided by charity/state, but ultimately you can't punish children for their parents stupidity, lack of responsibility, or poor parenting skills. You also can't punish kids for parents with low incomes that struggle. Kids should be getting 3 meals a day.

I partially agree with what you saying, but don't you think its better to fix the problem itself rather than focus on just the consequence?

If kids are hungry at school, there is a bigger problem at play, and giving them food at schools is not fixing it. What happens to these same kids over school holidays, out of school hours, every evening etc? The government/school is not the one punishing for not supplying the food, the bad parents are.

Low incomes as I have already highlighted is not an excuse for parents who dont feed their kids. Lunchbox food is not expensive and on a tight budget should not cost more than a dollar per day.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1862219 11-Sep-2017 11:22

Just because people have a right to have as many kids as they want doesnt mean its right for them to have as many kids as they want. Until you educate people on just how much it costs to raise kids, and that needs to start in year 7 or 8 at school before many are even thinking of having kids, then money by itself will not solve the problem.

Should kids be left hungry, ofcourse not. But, if regular assistance is required either for a small group within a school, area etc, then part of the requirements for getting that assistance surely has to come with strings attached, such as budgeting help for the parents, lessons on how to live frugally but nutritionally and dare I say it, contraception to those that want it to minimise adding to their already bad positions.

No parent likes to see their child go hungry and I don't doubt that they feel they are doing their best, but if we don't draw a line in the sand and break the cycle, nothing will change. More will become dependant on handouts because they haven't changed their pattern of behaviour.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1862234 11-Sep-2017 11:28

sen8or:

Just because people have a right to have as many kids as they want doesnt mean its right for them to have as many kids as they want. Until you educate people on just how much it costs to raise kids, and that needs to start in year 7 or 8 at school before many are even thinking of having kids, then money by itself will not solve the problem.

Should kids be left hungry, ofcourse not. But, if regular assistance is required either for a small group within a school, area etc, then part of the requirements for getting that assistance surely has to come with strings attached, such as budgeting help for the parents, lessons on how to live frugally but nutritionally and dare I say it, contraception to those that want it to minimise adding to their already bad positions.

No parent likes to see their child go hungry and I don't doubt that they feel they are doing their best, but if we don't draw a line in the sand and break the cycle, nothing will change. More will become dependant on handouts because they haven't changed their pattern of behaviour.

Have you heard the term "change in circumstances" ? Many start off in good positions but due to loss of partner, loss of job(s), illness etc etc their lives turn to disaster beyond their control and they are no longer in the position to feed, house clothe when previously they could.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#1862235 11-Sep-2017 11:29

Wiggum:

networkn:

I used to feel one way about kids and lunches being provided by charity/state, but ultimately you can't punish children for their parents stupidity, lack of responsibility, or poor parenting skills. You also can't punish kids for parents with low incomes that struggle. Kids should be getting 3 meals a day.

I partially agree with what you saying, but don't you think its better to fix the problem itself rather than focus on just the consequence?

If kids are hungry at school, there is a bigger problem at play, and giving them food at schools is not fixing it. What happens to these same kids over school holidays, out of school hours, every evening etc? The government/school is not the one punishing for not supplying the food, the bad parents are.

Low incomes as I have already highlighted is not an excuse for parents who dont feed their kids. Lunchbox food is not expensive and on a tight budget should not cost more than a dollar per day.

You seem to be able to criticise everyone who doesn't agree with your life-Style How about making a sensible suggestion on how we attempt to cure these problems. Have you ever been in situations like those you are continually putting down. From reading your comments it appears you have little understanding about how many difficulties these families or individuals face. As I have stated education is the only way I can see we can resolve these problems but with attitudes such as yours I am sure you wouldn't want to put your tax refund into this area. I am another who no longer will debate with someone who is not prepared to take other points of view into consideration. I suggest you join your parties campaign with SJ

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1862237 11-Sep-2017 11:33

I can't believe all the negativity in this post. The cathedral was an iconic building that represented Chch itself. The real crime is why did the Anglicans take so long to decide.

Based on the negative vibes in this thread, maybe the Government should have left Chch in rubble.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4