Guest Foxin_mad Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 Just now, Buce said: You really are the ugly side of the Nasty Party, you vile little man. I am not in the Labour Party or momentum and I am not little or vile. You are such a kind caring individual calling someone over the Internet you have never met vile because you disagree with them. That weed must be frying the caring section of your left wing brain.
Alf Bentley Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 14 hours ago, MattP said: He should just be honest and start explaining to his followers why he is pro-Brexit - it's natural position for an anti-Thatcherite left winger. If he wants to implement the radical reforms he wants he'll probably have to be out the EU anyway, unless him and McDonnell want to end up in there as another Tsipras and Varoufakis. Come off it, Matt! Are you also calling on May, Hammond, Green & Rudd to tell their Tory followers why they're pro-Remain?! Except in extreme circumstances, politicians adapt their political principles to national and international realities - and to the reality of views within their own parties. Leading Tory Remainers lost the referendum so will now seek a Soft Brexit deal. That's an outcome Corbyn would be quite happy with, I suspect. It's true that there's a long history of Euroscepticism on the Hard Left, Corbyn included - and he's certainly not an ardent Remainer like so many of his activists. But some on the Left have realised that ideas of "socialism in one country" became non-viable by the 70s, due to the internationalization of capitalism and finance (& then communications). Ken Livingstone has long been pro-EU, I believe. I do wonder how much Corbyn thinks about complicated, important issues like political strategy and the reality of dealing with the global economy. I sometimes feel he just has a list of "principles", not strategies, good or bad. McDonnell has more strategic sense, I reckon, nasty bastard as he might be (every party needs a Robert Huth!). I suspect he might realise that the "socialism in one country" days are gone, even if it was ever a good idea. I imagine that he might like the extra bit of govt freedom that would come with being outside the EU, subject to staying closely aligned with the EU for trade, standards etc. Knowing that most of their activists are Remainers, along with the majority of their voters, Labour's natural position is now somewhere between Soft Brexit (effectively the current stance) and Remain subject to EU reform, if the public mood shifts dramatically. What is the natural Tory position, though? The Tory party is now effectively 2 parties in 1. Labour has divisions, but not as existential as the Tory divisions. I cannot see how there's not going to be a big schism in the Tory party in the next 2 years. 2
ealingfox Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 Other Tories reading foxin_mad's posts be like
Innovindil Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 14 minutes ago, ealingfox said: Other Tories reading foxin_mad's posts be like Not really. It's not like he's the first extremist right person to post here.
Guest Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: As is the belief that everyone is so poor all the children are starving and the poor are dying and rotting in the streets like the Victorian era. Its complete bollocks! but it doesn't stop the left keep banging on about it for political point scoring. Yes the country is not perfect, it never will be. If you think its bad now I cant wait to see what they think when their is mass unemployment, rampant inflation because of the devalued pound if we ever get the misfortune to have a Corbyn led extreme left government. I didn't say everyone does. What annoys me is the bleeding heart brigade saying everyone is dying on the streets right before us, yet in reality if you go outside the majority are fine. Yes there are some families in very bad situations but not everyone is poor and desperate as the left like to make out. Those people should get genuine help absolutely. I've never said anything about people at the top working harder, some have some haven't. People at the bottom are often the hardest workers and many who work hard with the right attitude will be rewarded with the right business. The evidence is there, we are spending more than ever on a day called black Friday. Drive around the majority of large estates and you will see large TVs in at least 80% of rooms, pretty much everyone has the latest phone to go on Snapchat or Instgram - why is this? Driving around the same estates you very rarely see a car older than 10 years old, again many years ago I drove a 20 year old car it was fine. It could be that more children are going to school hungry because there are more selfish crap parents obsessed with vanity and material objects than ever maybe?! But you're ignoring the fact that large tvs are all you've been able to buy for about the last 10 years. You can buy a 32" flatscreen for less than you could buy a 24" 'fatscreen' 15 years ago. Likewise, mobile phones are everywhere but the idea that the poor are rushing to the Apple store for the iPhone 10 is bollocks. With cars, let's be honest they just don't last as long as they used to and the vast majority of cars purchased now are purchased through finance deals. If you look carefully you'll see that there are two growth areas in most retail environments - the high end and the budget. The middle is being hollowed out. Which makes sense when you look at wage and debt data. The rich ARE getting richer and the poor ARE getting poorer. You see, the real world mirrors what we see in the data, not what you imagine. Edited 13 December 2017 by Guest
Fox Ulike Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 53 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: As is the belief that everyone is so poor all the children are starving and the poor are dying and rotting in the streets like the Victorian era. Its complete bollocks! but it doesn't stop the left keep banging on about it for political point scoring. Yes the country is not perfect, it never will be. If you think its bad now I cant wait to see what they think when their is mass unemployment, rampant inflation because of the devalued pound if we ever get the misfortune to have a Corbyn led extreme left government. I didn't say everyone does. What annoys me is the bleeding heart brigade saying everyone is dying on the streets right before us, yet in reality if you go outside the majority are fine. Yes there are some families in very bad situations but not everyone is poor and desperate as the left like to make out. Those people should get genuine help absolutely. I've never said anything about people at the top working harder, some have some haven't. People at the bottom are often the hardest workers and many who work hard with the right attitude will be rewarded with the right business. The evidence is there, we are spending more than ever on a day called black Friday. Drive around the majority of large estates and you will see large TVs in at least 80% of rooms, pretty much everyone has the latest phone to go on Snapchat or Instgram - why is this? Driving around the same estates you very rarely see a car older than 10 years old, again many years ago I drove a 20 year old car it was fine. It could be that more children are going to school hungry because there are more selfish crap parents obsessed with vanity and material objects than ever maybe?! But how do you distinguish between children with crap parents and children in genuine hardship? And does it really matter? Are you going to ignore children going hungry because their parents are selfish and crap? You have to provide a solution to an issue like this. Moaning about their parents serves absolutely no purpose. It's irrelevant (unless you propose that such children should be left hungry until their parents feed them?) The way I think people should think about it is to actually imagine those children in front of you. What would you actually do if you worked at such a school? If you would ignore them and say it's not your problem, then fair enough - but if you would help to give them food yourself, then you're as big a member of the "bleeding heart brigade" as anyone else!
Strokes Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Come off it, Matt! Are you also calling on May, Hammond, Green & Rudd to tell their Tory followers why they're pro-Remain?! I genuinely think they should, this is a massive constitutional change and we should expect honesty from all public officials on it. 47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Except in extreme circumstances, politicians adapt their political principles to national and international realities - and to the reality of views within their own parties. Leading Tory Remainers lost the referendum so will now seek a Soft Brexit deal. That's an outcome Corbyn would be quite happy with, I suspect. It's true that there's a long history of Euroscepticism on the Hard Left, Corbyn included - and he's certainly not an ardent Remainer like so many of his activists. But some on the Left have realised that ideas of "socialism in one country" became non-viable by the 70s, due to the internationalization of capitalism and finance (& then communications). Ken Livingstone has long been pro-EU, I believe. I do wonder how much Corbyn thinks about complicated, important issues like political strategy and the reality of dealing with the global economy. I sometimes feel he just has a list of "principles", not strategies, good or bad. McDonnell has more strategic sense, I reckon, nasty bastard as he might be (every party needs a Robert Huth!). I suspect he might realise that the "socialism in one country" days are gone, even if it was ever a good idea. I imagine that he might like the extra bit of govt freedom that would come with being outside the EU, subject to staying closely aligned with the EU for trade, standards etc. Knowing that most of their activists are Remainers, along with the majority of their voters, Labour's natural position is now somewhere between Soft Brexit (effectively the current stance) and Remain subject to EU reform, if the public mood shifts dramatically. I don’t think their personal position of brexit is in any doubt and had the GE come before the referendum I wonder whether they would have campaigned leave, maybe not. 47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: What is the natural Tory position, though? The Tory party is now effectively 2 parties in 1. Labour has divisions, but not as existential as the Tory divisions. I cannot see how there's not going to be a big schism in the Tory party in the next 2 years. It’s impossible to answer as the divide is so vast, those that want out, want properly out and I think that’s why the Conservative party look more divided. Whereas the majority of leavers in labour are far softer in their vision. 1
Guest MattP Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 41 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Come off it, Matt! Are you also calling on May, Hammond, Green & Rudd to tell their Tory followers why they're pro-Remain?! Except in extreme circumstances, politicians adapt their political principles to national and international realities - and to the reality of views within their own parties. Leading Tory Remainers lost the referendum so will now seek a Soft Brexit deal. That's an outcome Corbyn would be quite happy with, I suspect. It's true that there's a long history of Euroscepticism on the Hard Left, Corbyn included - and he's certainly not an ardent Remainer like so many of his activists. But some on the Left have realised that ideas of "socialism in one country" became non-viable by the 70s, due to the internationalization of capitalism and finance (& then communications). Ken Livingstone has long been pro-EU, I believe. I do wonder how much Corbyn thinks about complicated, important issues like political strategy and the reality of dealing with the global economy. I sometimes feel he just has a list of "principles", not strategies, good or bad. McDonnell has more strategic sense, I reckon, nasty bastard as he might be (every party needs a Robert Huth!). I suspect he might realise that the "socialism in one country" days are gone, even if it was ever a good idea. I imagine that he might like the extra bit of govt freedom that would come with being outside the EU, subject to staying closely aligned with the EU for trade, standards etc. Knowing that most of their activists are Remainers, along with the majority of their voters, Labour's natural position is now somewhere between Soft Brexit (effectively the current stance) and Remain subject to EU reform, if the public mood shifts dramatically. What is the natural Tory position, though? The Tory party is now effectively 2 parties in 1. Labour has divisions, but not as existential as the Tory divisions. I cannot see how there's not going to be a big schism in the Tory party in the next 2 years. I don't understand the comparison at all here, why would me (or anyone) call on May, Hammond, Green & Rudd to tell their Tory followers why they're pro-Remain? They already have, they did it during the referendum campaign or have still done afterwards. Makes no sense at all to compare that to Corbyn. Here is May doing it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/25/theresa-may-wants-you-to-stay-in-the-eu-has-she-blown-her-chance/ Hammond - https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/eu-referendum-interview-with-philip-hammond-reveals-his-views-on-ukip-a-second-in-out-referendum-and-how-britain-would-be-punished-for-leaving-1-7741903 Green (still backs it) - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/damian-green_uk_59ddcbe5e4b01df09b7756b7 Rudd (If anyone missed her on stage during the big EU debate backing remain) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/04/all-female-team-is-remain-campaigns-secret-weapon-to-beat-boris/ No Tory I know is kidding themselves that these people geniuinely want to leave, they just now expect them to carry out the decision they handed over to the people. McDonnell said just a few months ago on the Andrew Marr that staying in the single market would not be respecting the referendum result - https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/86604/labour-rules-out-trying-keep-britain-eu-single-market. Corbyn barely ever asks a question on the subject at PMQ's and he wanted to invoke Article 50 the next day! Had he been PM we'd now have about 6 months to wrap this up - http://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/ If anyone wants to believe these two are moderating on the issue they are free to do so but I've not seen a jot of evidence yet to back it up. They both seem to vanish whenever a debate about the issue comes up and leave it to Keir Starmer to try and prove they are still batting for both sides of the debate. (I don't blame them for that either, it seems to be working) What is the natural Tory position? As far as I can from the government it's still to leave the single market, it's still to leave the customs union and it's still to seek a transitional period, I still can't see anything that is different from the aims that were set out in either the Lancaster Houise speech or the Florence speech. What is Labour's current position? I'd love to know, I've seen ten Labour MP's on TV over the last couple of weeks and still not a single one can explain if they want to stay in the single market or customs union, we just get cliche after cliche about "jobs first" or "not taking anything off the table" - must like we have done with every other thing on the issue when they are asked about it.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: But you're ignoring the fact that large tvs are all you've been able to buy for about the last 10 years. You can buy a 32" flatscreen for less than you could buy a 32" 'fatscreen' 15 years ago. Likewise, mobile phones are everywhere but the idea that the poor are rushing to the Apple store for the iPhone 10 is bollocks. With cars, let's be honest they just don't last as long as they used to and the vast majority of cases purchase now are purchase through finance deals. If you look carefully you'll see that there are two growth areas in most retail environments - the high end and the budget. The middle is being hollowed out. Which makes sense when you look at wage and debt data. The rich ARE getting richer and the poor ARE getting poorer. You see, the real world mirrors what we see in the data, not what you imagine. Pretty sure most of those TV are not 32 inch or the cheap ones you can get from Lidl either! Which are perfectly fine for watching TV. There are certainly a large percentage of supposedly poor with a large collection of gadgets that they don't actually need to live, they choose to have them which is fine but some are choosing to do that over more important life choices, the same with booze and smoking. Cars will last a while if you look after them. We have become a throw away material society that has a need to buy stuff possibly encouraged by the media, I am not blaming the people involved who have been let down by the education system. People feel they need to have a new phone ever other year, they need a new car every 5 years, they need a Curvy TV because apparently society says they have to. It all depends on your definition of rich and/or poor I suppose. The cost of living has risen but also the belief that non essential items need to be part of our weekly household budgets is adding extra cost. I am sure there are genuinely hard hit people and families who perhaps need and should get more help but it is not a majority or 'the many' as Labour like to call it. Go outside and look around the majority are in work and going about their daily lives with relative happiness, safety and wealth. I think that the whole everyone is poor thing is a little bit of an exaggeration! Yes there are some poor and news is there will be a lot more under a Socialist regime.
Strokes Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: But how do you distinguish between children with crap parents and children in genuine hardship? And does it really matter? Are you going to ignore children going hungry because their parents are selfish and crap? You have to provide a solution to an issue like this. Moaning about their parents serves absolutely no purpose. It's irrelevant (unless you propose that such children should be left hungry until their parents feed them?) The way I think people should think about it is to actually imagine those children in front of you. What would you actually do if you worked at such a school? If you would ignore them and say it's not your problem, then fair enough - but if you would help to give them food yourself, then you're as big a member of the "bleeding heart brigade" as anyone else! What happened to the breakfast programme that was going to be introduced into schools? I thought they were replacing that with the free school meals.
Rogstanley Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: Pretty sure most of those TV are not 32 inch or the cheap ones you can get from Lidl either! Which are perfectly fine for watching TV. There are certainly a large percentage of supposedly poor with a large collection of gadgets that they don't actually need to live, they choose to have them which is fine but some are choosing to do that over more important life choices, the same with booze and smoking. Cars will last a while if you look after them. We have become a throw away material society that has a need to buy stuff possibly encouraged by the media, I am not blaming the people involved who have been let down by the education system. People feel they need to have a new phone ever other year, they need a new car every 5 years, they need a Curvy TV because apparently society says they have to. It all depends on your definition of rich and/or poor I suppose. The cost of living has risen but also the belief that non essential items need to be part of our weekly household budgets is adding extra cost. I am sure there are genuinely hard hit people and families who perhaps need and should get more help but it is not a majority or 'the many' as Labour like to call it. Go outside and look around the majority are in work and going about their daily lives with relative happiness, safety and wealth. I think that the whole everyone is poor thing is a little bit of an exaggeration! Yes there are some poor and news is there will be a lot more under a Socialist regime. What a load of absolute tosh. Quite who appointed you surveyor of television sets is anyone's guess but I seriously doubt anyone has let you in their living room with a tape measure. You're trotting out the divisive sound bites of the right without giving it a moments thought. Very, very weak arguments. Meanwhile the rich are still taking an ever greater share of the wealth. Have you ever considered that your priorities might be a little out of whack? 2 1
Fox Ulike Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 3 minutes ago, katieakita said: Jesus wept that's poor. Who on Earth funds these clowns? How do Momentum get their money?
Webbo Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: But how do you distinguish between children with crap parents and children in genuine hardship? And does it really matter? Are you going to ignore children going hungry because their parents are selfish and crap? You have to provide a solution to an issue like this. Moaning about their parents serves absolutely no purpose. It's irrelevant (unless you propose that such children should be left hungry until their parents feed them?) The way I think people should think about it is to actually imagine those children in front of you. What would you actually do if you worked at such a school? If you would ignore them and say it's not your problem, then fair enough - but if you would help to give them food yourself, then you're as big a member of the "bleeding heart brigade" as anyone else! So what's your solution? Will giving more money to these selfish parents make them less selfish. Would rewarding bad behaviour make it happen less? Is it right to let emotional blackmail succeed?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: But how do you distinguish between children with crap parents and children in genuine hardship? And does it really matter? Are you going to ignore children going hungry because their parents are selfish and crap? You have to provide a solution to an issue like this. Moaning about their parents serves absolutely no purpose. It's irrelevant (unless you propose that such children should be left hungry until their parents feed them?) The way I think people should think about it is to actually imagine those children in front of you. What would you actually do if you worked at such a school? If you would ignore them and say it's not your problem, then fair enough - but if you would help to give them food yourself, then you're as big a member of the "bleeding heart brigade" as anyone else! What we need to do is educate the parents in many ways. Unfortunately there are people who have children who probably should not. The parents need to be supported to feed the children cheaply and prioritise their household spending. There are charity programmes that do this. There need to be for everyone better education at school on managing a budget and the majority of people have no clue on this. If the children are being poorly treated then I would investigate and refer to Social services in cases where there is neglect and meet any urgent needs. Unfortunately it is not the schools job to feed Children who have not been looked after by the parents. Edited 13 December 2017 by Foxin_mad
Fox Ulike Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: What we need to do is educate the parents in many ways. Unfortunately there are people who have children who probably should not. The parents need to be supported to feed the children cheaply and prioritise their household spending. Their are charity programmes that do this. There need to be for everyone better education at school on managing a budget and the majority of people have no clue on this. If the children are being poorly treated then I would investigate and refer to Social services in cases where there is neglect and meet any urgent needs. Unfortunately it is not the schools job to feed Children who have not been looked after by the parents. OK. So broadly speaking you think this is an issue for charity programmes, not the Government? So if a child turns up to school hungry you'd send her to the local charity food bank?
Fox Ulike Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: So what's your solution? Will giving more money to these selfish parents make them less selfish. Would rewarding bad behaviour make it happen less? Is it right to let emotional blackmail succeed? Good point. Upon reflection I think I would probably just let these children starve. Not my problem is it?
Innovindil Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: What we need to do is educate the parents in many ways. Unfortunately there are people who have children who probably should not. The parents need to be supported to feed the children cheaply and prioritise their household spending. Their are charity programmes that do this. There need to be for everyone better education at school on managing a budget and the majority of people have no clue on this. If the children are being poorly treated then I would investigate and refer to Social services in cases where there is neglect and meet any urgent needs. Unfortunately it is not the schools job to feed Children who have not been looked after by the parents. 100% this. School kids can name all the sky fairies of each religion but don't understand anything to do with finances. Mortgages, savings accounts, interest rates, none of it. Seems backwards as hell tbh. 1
Webbo Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Good point. Upon reflection I think I would probably just let these children starve. Not my problem is it? They're not starving though are they?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: What a load of absolute tosh. Quite who appointed you surveyor of television sets is anyone's guess but I seriously doubt anyone has let you in their living room with a tape measure. You're trotting out the divisive sound bites of the right without giving it a moments thought. Very, very weak arguments. Meanwhile the rich are still taking an ever greater share of the wealth. Have you ever considered that your priorities might be a little out of whack? Ditto. My priorities are fine. You are the one believing that everyone is poor and dying in our streets. Saying its like Victorian Britain out there, wake up its not. Also weak, extremely weak arguments, fact is (look outside, if you can maybe look up from whichever left wing news blog your read) the vast majority of people are getting on with life, they have jobs, they have a home, there might be a bit of a squeeze on budgets due to increasing inflation and wages not growing as fast due to cheap imported labour; artificially holding down wage growth, but you cut out a take away or a meal out you are fine. There might be a relatively small number of people with problems; I am sure some of them get help and some of them maybe let down by the system. That is always going to happen unfortunately, can it improve maybe, will throwing unlimited amounts of money and staff at it make a difference probably not. Its not bad out there, this country is still one of the best places to live in the world and will continue to be so. The delusion that a mad hard left Socialist can fix the minor problems this country has by spanking the rich and business with extra tax, the ones who employ records numbers of normal average people who are doing fine seems a little bit like shooting yourself in the foot. Now again I find it funny to read the remain posts on here saying business will desert Britain because of Brexit (I believe if it makes us less competitive this could be true) but they support Corybn a mad socialist and say that increasing tax wont cause business and individuals to move abroad. Both have the potential to cause a business and jobs exodus. A Labour government is certainly not in the interests of the many in work if they wish to keep their jobs.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: OK. So broadly speaking you think this is an issue for charity programmes, not the Government? So if a child turns up to school hungry you'd send her to the local charity food bank? Well the government do not force people to have children that for whatever reason certain people can not look after. Many charity programmes are funded by the government. Education is the solution. Giving a child a meal is a sticking plaster, you need a long term solution. I would ensure their immediate needs are met, but something needs to be done to fix it long term, be that education of the parents or in extreme cases of neglect removal of the child to a better home. Schools can not feed hungry children at breakfast on a regular basis. I should think that by lunch time that child would be on free school meals so if they could wait until then, they will be fed. Edited 13 December 2017 by Foxin_mad
Fox Ulike Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 13 minutes ago, Webbo said: They're not starving though are they? True. They're just 'going hungry'. They're just turning up for school having not been fed, and with no money to buy food. So no real problem then. As long as they don't embarrass the whole nation by dieing of starvation, who cares? 1
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 16 hours ago, toddybad said: What a load of bollocks. Ever thought to ask your lecturers why the vast majority of economists worldwide didn't support cutting at the point an economy was starting to recover from near collapse? Look at least admit when you say people should be educated on a matter, you really mean they should be taught your version of everything. I agree people need to learn what these things really are rather than what the newspapers tell them. Still, before we get to government debt, I think we need to start with GDP.
Fox Ulike Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Well the government to force people to have children that for whatever reason certain people can not look after. Many charity programmes are funded by the government. Education is the solution. Giving a child a meal is a sticking plaster, you need a long term solution. I would ensure their immediate needs are met, but something needs to be done to fix it long term, be that education of the parents or in extreme cases of neglect removal of the child to a better home. Schools can not feed hungry children at breakfast on a regular basis. I should think that by lunch time that child would be on free school meals so if they could wait until then, they will be fed. Do you have children!!? But OK, you'd just tell them to wait until lunch time. Every day. Fine.
Webbo Posted 13 December 2017 Posted 13 December 2017 3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: True. They're just 'going hungry'. They're just turning up for school having not been fed, and with no money to buy food. So no real problem then. As long as they don't embarrass the whole nation by dieing of starvation, who cares? So if the parents are too lazy to make kids breakfast giving them more money will stop that? I don't even think this is a big problem. We're in the middle of an obesity epidemic, which is ironically often blamed on austerity.
Recommended Posts