Is feeding children the responsibility of the state?

[Leeroid]

One issue that is regularly coming up on the news is child poverty and how they are not having breakfast or lunch. Campbell Live goes around and has a look at all these fridges to see what's in them and they're mostly empty. He then talks about how hard it for the kids to learn and how the parents are struggling to feed their kids so we should be helping them to do so.

http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/empty-fridges-highlight-kiwi-poverty-2014090119

Here's my opinion on this matter. Firstly, I believe in personal responsibility. If you can't feed your children, the first person to blame is yourself, not the system. Most of the families interviewed were families of 5-8 which means these parents are having 4 or 5 kids when they know they won't be able to raise them properly because they are still working on the minimum wage. There's something called family planning and it's not right to blame the government when you can't feed your kids.

It's also part of the reason why there are so many children in poverty. I always found it confusing how such a high proportion of children were supposedly living below the poverty line until I realised that it's the families in poverty that are having 3+ kids whereas most middle/upper class families are having only one or two children in order to ensure the best future for their offspring.

They showed the fridges of the families but what if they are simply having takeaways every night instead of cooking their own food? It seemed pretty obvious looking at the fridges that it wasn't the fridge of a family that cooks regularly. If I was to let my fridge run down for two weeks or so without shopping then there would still be little bits and pieces left over like sauces or dressings etc. It wouldn't just be a tub of margarine and some milk.

I don't believe that the best way to tackle this issue is to simply provide food at school. "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." This is an incredibly short term solution at best and won't actually fix the problem. Why not use the money to tackle the social problem at the roots? More family planning for young couples, providing cooking clases and maybe special future planning/life skill classes in low decile schools to substitute for the lack of guidance they should be getting from their parents at home.

I find it ironic how one moment they'll go on about child poverty and say that one quarter of kiwi kids live in poverty and don't eat enough then the next thing they say is one third of kiwi kids are obese. I'm just scratching my head like whatttt????

[Cameron_R]

One issue that is regularly coming up on the news is child poverty and how they are not having breakfast or lunch. Campbell Live goes around and has a look at all these fridges to see what's in them and they're mostly empty. He then talks about how hard it for the kids to learn and how the parents are struggling to feed their kids so we should be helping them to do so.

....

 

I find it ironic how one moment they'll go on about child poverty and say that one quarter of kiwi kids live in poverty and don't eat enough then the next thing they say is one third of kiwi kids are obese. I'm just scratching my head like whatttt????

 

Agree with most of what you said. But I'd add that this is a problem that will take a few generations to fix. I think you need to forget about the generation of parents who are now the ones with 7 kids, and focus your efforts on the kids.

Like you said teach the kids. The only thing I dissagree with you on, is that one very powerful way to teach the kids is to feed them the right food at school.

In the recent Nigel Latta program on Sugar he showed an example of a school in South Auckland where shit food was banned (even to the point that it was not allowed to bring crap food from home!). What the school has found, or so they say, is that the kids are acting as the triggers for change in their homes, teaching their parents.

[Leeroid]

 

Like you said teach the kids. The only thing I dissagree with you on, is that one very powerful way to teach the kids is to feed them the right food at school.

In the recent Nigel Latta program on Sugar he showed an example of a school in South Auckland where shit food was banned (even to the point that it was not allowed to bring crap food from home!). What the school has found, or so they say, is that the kids are acting as the triggers for change in their homes, teaching their parents.

Yeah I saw that program last night online. Nutritional education is definitely something that should be on the national curriculum. I think every child should be educated on the importance of proper nutrition so that they can make their own choice on what to put in their mouths knowing that what may be good for their tastebuds is not always good for their body. It's not necessary to feed them at school though for them to realise this.

I don't necessarily agree with banning certain foods outright at school as I believe that trespasses on your rights of freedom as an individual. In the same way as I don't believe in taxing fizzy drinks or "bad" foods. I don't want to pay extra for my cheat meal when I want to have it just because someone decided it was bad for me. Again, that's just another example of people trying to make the government responsible for our health and avoiding personal responsibility.

[Cameron_R]

Yeah I saw that program last night online. Nutritional education is definitely something that should be on the national curriculum. I think every child should be educated on the importance of proper nutrition so that they can make their own choice on what to put in their mouths knowing that what may be good for their tastebuds is not always good for their body. It's not necessary to feed them at school though for them to realise this.

I don't necessarily agree with banning certain foods outright at school as I believe that trespasses on your rights of freedom as an individual. In the same way as I don't believe in taxing fizzy drinks or "bad" foods. I don't want to pay extra for my cheat meal when I want to have it just because someone decided it was bad for me. Again, that's just another example of people trying to make the government responsible for our health and avoiding personal responsibility.

At what point do you start to slide from respecting everyone's personal freedoms to taking action to deal with the child abuse that is parents with 7 kids who continually feed them in such a way that WILL make them diabetic and obese?

I get it that you make correct decisions, and you don't want to pay more for a burger, but you are not the problem that needs fixing.

Problem as I see it is that there are way too many people who, if left to have their personal choice, will put their kids in early graves through poor choices. Put simply, if you don't take action, nothing will ever change.

(BTW I see from the election polling that most of NZ agrees with you, and not me :-) )

[GyzzBrah]

I watched a discussion last night about how one charitable cause is not nessessairly better than one other, but anyway:

Education in nutrition is important perhaps, but now that has more to do with national health, and preventing onset of diabetes, heart disease etc, and is important, too. But what were looking at here is children who don't have control over how many siblings their parents make, or where their parents work, how good of a education they got etc. So yes it's the parents fault, but it's not ok to let children needlessly suffer over choices of the previous generation they had no say in the matter.

So educating them is important, but so is feeding them. People may say that they don't want the government to spend tax dollars, but f*ck, If the govt can do something right, its feeding starving children and helping them see a good future that their parents never saw.

On another note, although poverty and health are very much co-related, Kids eating junk food > Kids eating no food. Then the education comes into play, and they can get jobs and better food choices etc. Wont cost the government that much either. So my take is, yes, it is the governmetns duty to look out for its citizens, especially ones who are helpless.

[Leeroid]

Yeah I saw that program last night online. Nutritional education is definitely something that should be on the national curriculum. I think every child should be educated on the importance of proper nutrition so that they can make their own choice on what to put in their mouths knowing that what may be good for their tastebuds is not always good for their body. It's not necessary to feed them at school though for them to realise this.

I don't necessarily agree with banning certain foods outright at school as I believe that trespasses on your rights of freedom as an individual. In the same way as I don't believe in taxing fizzy drinks or "bad" foods. I don't want to pay extra for my cheat meal when I want to have it just because someone decided it was bad for me. Again, that's just another example of people trying to make the government responsible for our health and avoiding personal responsibility.

At what point do you start to slide from respecting everyone's personal freedoms to taking action to deal with the child abuse that is parents with 7 kids who continually feed them in such a way that WILL make them diabetic and obese?

I get it that you make correct decisions, and you don't want to pay more for a burger, but you are not the problem that needs fixing.

Problem as I see it is that there are way too many people who, if left to have their personal choice, will put their kids in early graves through poor choices. Put simply, if you don't take action, nothing will ever change.

(BTW I see from the election polling that most of NZ agrees with you, and not me )

I guess it might be necessary initially to enforce some of these things. But it's critical that it's in conjunction with proper education so that we're not just putting a band-aid over an infection. Like you said, it is an issue that will take generations to fix.

It's a pretty slippery slope IMO. Like I don't agree with the excessive taxation on alcohol or tobacco either. It should be about educating the masses and letting them make their own decision which admittedly, does take a lot longer than taxes or restrictions to take effect.

[GyzzBrah]

I absolutley agree leeroid. Sometimes taxation can and will have delitrious effects on people. If you taxed ciggarates to 1000% per pop, there can and will be people who would sell their coat just to buy that, which, in turn, would have a worse flow on effect on that individual and his family that just not taxing the said product in the first place. That may be a drastic example, but there will always be people so addicted that they will be willing to pay any price for their drug, often placing it in importance above their childrens dinner etc.

On the other hand, more investement into rehab (or just privatise it idgaf) as well as education on drugs (we have enough of that at my school, so is it true that drug and health education is perceived differently in poorer schools??) so yeah, that would be a better Idea.

Fk me Im sounding like a green party member.

[Leeroid]

I watched a discussion last night about how one charitable cause is not nessessairly better than one other, but anyway:

Education in nutrition is important perhaps, but now that has more to do with national health, and preventing onset of diabetes, heart disease etc, and is important, too. But what were looking at here is children who don't have control over how many siblings their parents make, or where their parents work, how good of a education they got etc. So yes it's the parents fault, but it's not ok to let children needlessly suffer over choices of the previous generation they had no say in the matter.

So educating them is important, but so is feeding them. People may say that they don't want the government to spend tax dollars, but f*ck, If the govt can do something right, its feeding starving children and helping them see a good future that their parents never saw.

On another note, although poverty and health are very much co-related, Kids eating junk food > Kids eating no food. Then the education comes into play, and they can get jobs and better food choices etc. Wont cost the government that much either. So my take is, yes, it is the governmetns duty to look out for its citizens, especially ones who are helpless.

That's a good point. It's just that to me it seems that all these programs never really focus on the actual cause of these problems and only on feeding the children.

And then you get the left wing government saying that the solution to this problem is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage $18 per hour. Again, that's just another band-aid. A rather expensive band-aid that could potentially be disastrous for the economy.

[GyzzBrah]

And then you get the left wing government saying that the solution to this problem is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage $18 per hour. Again, that's just another band-aid. A rather expensive band-aid that could potentially be disastrous for the economy.

Mate you have no Idea. I go to a catholic school and the ammount retarded left wing crap I hear everyday...

[Realtalk]

No one in NZ is suffering from poverty.

if they have no food, clothing or shelter, it is by choice.

go to Thailand, Cambodia, Africa then you will see poverty. New Zealand people who we refer to as having poverty are rich compared to these people.

Majority are Maoris and Pacific Islanders who have too many kids, too lazy to work and rather spend their dosh on ciggys and piss rather than put shoes on kids feet or food in their lunch boxes are problem. I'm not racist statistics back that statement up.

You can spend all ur dole and dpb and walk into winz office and tell them that and get a fucking food grant no questions asked so I have no idea why people's fridges are empty. John Campbells film crew empty it... He like a modern day Robin Hood, extreme left wing faggat whose agaibst the the police.... The guys a fucken arsehole. Half his television audience probably don't even pay for their own power. 

[Skeletor]

No one in NZ is suffering from poverty.

if they have no food, clothing or shelter, it is by choice.

go to Thailand, Cambodia, Africa then you will see poverty. New Zealand people who we refer to as having poverty are rich compared to these people.

Majority are Maoris and Pacific Islanders who have too many kids, too lazy to work and rather spend their dosh on ciggys and piss rather than put shoes on kids feet or food in their lunch boxes are problem. I'm not racist statistics back that statement up.

You can spend all ur dole and dpb and walk into winz office and tell them that and get a fucking food grant no questions asked so I have no idea why people's fridges are empty. John Campbells film crew empty it... He like a modern day Robin Hood, extreme left wing faggat whose agaibst the the police.... The guys a fucken arsehole. Half his television audience probably don't even pay for their own power. 

Yeah thats pretty much how it is unfortunately.  I do a bulk of my work for Housing New Zealand and this is exactly what i see every day. Some parents i straight up feel like reporting the amount of things ive seen . Dont get me wrong there are a heap of parents putting the kids first and making do with what they have but others just shouldnt have children at all.

 

 

[Wookie]

No it's not the responsibility of the State, and to make matters worse, when parents believe it's the responsibility of the State to look after their kids, then they will be even less involved.

I'd like to add, the Left have been very smart framing this as a debate around child poverty. Do you not care for the children?!! It's the kind of debate framing whereby anyone who believed marriage was for a man and a woman only was labelled 'homophobic' regardless of their reasons.

Thing is, the definition of a child in poverty is if they live in a household with a combined income of less than 60% of the median wage. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to work out if you're basing it off medians, then if the income spread stays similar and the population increases, then more kids will be said to be in poverty. Which is why now it's said that a kid in Auckland is in poverty if the household income is below approx $42k. Which is completely unhelpful, as my son was born into poverty by that definition. My son, was one of the 270,000 kids who needed help. Yet, he had a mum to look after him all day, our rental house had a seaview. He had a heater in his room. We had 2 cars, and no debt. In what way could it be said that he was in poverty?

[Michael Knight]

There is no choice but to make it the states responsibility.

If bludging parents are going to spend their benefit on smokes, kfc, booze etc, instead of food for their families, then decrease their benefits and use the excess to pay for food in low decile schools.

If that doesn't solve the problem, decrease the benefits even further and make it all schools.

[Wookie]

There is no choice but to make it the states responsibility.

If bludging parents are going to spend their benefit on smokes, kfc, booze etc, instead of food for their families, then decrease their benefits and use the excess to pay for food in low decile schools.

If that doesn't solve the problem, decrease the benefits even further and make it all schools.

Breakfast, lunch, dinner, education and a place to sleep?

The State will gain the responsibility to raise children once it develops the ability to get pregnant.

[Michael Knight]

Short term, it's the only answer I can see.

People aren't getting any smarter or more responsible.

The govt has to step in. I'm no left winger, but you don't f*ck around with kids. There are a lot of parents out there that don't give a f*ck, punish them by taking away their free money, don't leave the kids in limbo.

[GyzzBrah]

As I said one option is not nessessarly more important than the other. Feeding kids... well their parents arent going to get smarter anytime soon, your just beating a dead corpse there. But can their children be educated? Hell yeah they can. Education for women (family planning etc) + Education for children is good.

But most likley, the majority of those maori / kiwi kids arent going to become ceo's or anything like that. They will mostly take up jobs in hospitality, trades, that kind of stuff (which is perfectly ok). But what will happen, If those kids grow up, and there are no jobs for them of that nature, because all those jobs are taken up by non citizen immigrants?

From an economic perspective, Immigration of skilled workers is a very good thing, even in the long term, the cost of poverty will be less than the profits of increaed productivity. This is a moral issue, not an economic one.

I could be wrong on all of this though. But Just as Wookie said, you can't just dismiss an argument by name calling eg thats racist.

[Realtalk]

If you own a bussiness you should be able to employ who you like, immigrant worker or citizen.

immigrants work harder, and they don't turn up to work stoned.

the "shortage" of truck drivers is a perfect example.

[Pseudonym]

The State will gain the responsibility to raise children once it develops the ability to get pregnant.

I don't agree with your politics, Wookie, but I had to quote this because it's such a brilliant line.

Actually, I do agree with some of your statements - just not the conclusions you draw from them...

when parents believe it's the responsibility of the State to look after their kids, then they will be even less involved.

That's probably very true.

the definition of a child in poverty is if they live in a household with a combined income of less than 60% of the median wage. ... it's said that a kid in Auckland is in poverty if the household income is below approx $42k.

That's interesting. When presented with thundering statistics like "xx% of NZers will experience poverty/violence/sexual assault/whatever", I often wonder how they define these things. If that's the only definition of poverty, I agree it's not particularly helpful.

 

But putting the definitions to one side, let's say there ARE children in families who are LEGITIMATELY too poor to afford the basics... What do you suggest doing with those kids, Wookie? Would you let them go hungry?

[Wookie]

The State will gain the responsibility to raise children once it develops the ability to get pregnant.

I don't agree with your politics, Wookie, but I had to quote this because it's such a brilliant line.

Actually, I do agree with some of your statements - just not the conclusions you draw from them...

Gracias. Well, I didn't actually draw much in the way of conclusions from this.

when parents believe it's the responsibility of the State to look after their kids, then they will be even less involved.

That's probably very true

[Wookie]

Jamie Whyte of ACT just put out this press release on Child Poverty:

 

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/act%E2%80%99s-5-point-plan-to-reduce-poverty-and-raise-incomes

[GyzzBrah]

But is there a reason thats not a) conspiracy theory (gay agenda) or b) Because god / bible / church said so?

It's the kind of debate framing whereby anyone who believed marriage was for a man and a woman only was labelled 'homophobic' regardless of their reasons.

 

[Wookie]

But is there a reason thats not a) conspiracy theory (gay agenda) or b) Because god / bible / church said so?

It's the kind of debate framing whereby anyone who believed marriage was for a man and a woman only was labelled 'homophobic' regardless of their reasons.

 

Here's one such place to start, Anderson, George and Girgis wrote an article from a non-religious standpoint called, 'What is marriage'. George is Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. It's about 40 pages in the the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The argument is based upon common law, biology and sociology.

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf

If you really care to know, you'd have a read.

As I said, masterful framing by those favour of gay marriage.

[GyzzBrah]

Hmm the document is well posed, sure, but at it's foundation it is still loosley based around ideas of the ''gay agenda'' (though granted, not as blatant or obvious) or disturbing sentiment. As in the article still implies some sort of severe negative reppurcussions of homosexual marriage in society or what have you.

As far as negative reppurcussions are concerned, If you remove homophobic concepts (gays = pedophile / cross-dresser/ child molester/ disease spreader), then all you really have left is the Idea that legalising gay marriage will hurt the culturaly estabished tradition of marriage, or religous sentiment of people. As far as tradition goes, it spits in the face of progress. Lots of traditional things that are now defunct have done nothing but harm others (i'll leave you to think of examples). And as far as hurting religious sentiment is concerned, in english, this just means that religious organisations / people will get pissed off for a while. Maybe forever (its their loss really). Not the states problem at all.

To be honest, im perfectly ok with christians being against gay ''marriage'', because christian marriage is a christian tradition, and as such, it is enteirly up to them on how they want to go about that traditon. However, legal marriage is a state affair, and as such is completly seperate (or should be) from church affairs.

Another idea is chaos theory based, in that Gay marriage will lead to legal incest, paedophillia, animal sex, and necrophillia... Again, societies idea is to create equal rights for Gays, not make their rights above anybody else. If a gay commits paedophillia, they should be arrested. Animals / Children cannot give consent, unlike two adult males. The other two im not discussing...

Biologically... well, long / short term gay relationships occour with a 10% frequency in mammals, possibly much less in humans due to our significantly bigger observable population and some other reasons. It's natural.

As far as christian marriage tradition is concerned, their traditions are their choice. But I have seen Catholic preists on forums etc actually tell gay people that 'god' has ''chosen'' them to be cellibate for life. This is also said in real life (I go to catholic school). That is just so fking sad, telling someone they will be looked down by god for not having a root for the rest of their lives. Humans were made for sex. Denial of this leads to all sorts of mental repurcussions. No wonder suicide rates are higher in Gays. The nerve of some people.

Anyway, that's my counter argument love your journal btw.

[hhh1]

^TL;DR

[Leeroid]

Good post Gyzzbrah