It's Hard to Learn if You're Hungry

Poverty is one of the main problems that the government would like to solve. But there are some politicians who want to eliminate the financial options of the people because they believe that it would solve the financial crisis we are facing. But what they do not realize is that financial options like payday loan can help a consumer in time of emergency situation like natural disaster. Read more on Credit Repair. If the government would really like to solve the economic crisis we are facing today they must at least provide the people things that could help them on how to cope up in the present situation.

I don't know how old Sara is but I am 50 years old and I have lived through numerous presidencies each pledging and supporting school nutrition programs. The first president I ever voted for when I was 18 was Jimmy Carter and he increased the funding for this program. Despite the support of the public, congress and the executive branch, we continue to have declining test scores and graduation rates for kids from poverty areas. What is the root cause? Is it because their stomach is growling. No, their stomach is not growling during school because these kids are receiving breakfast and lunch during the day. In fact there is so much food available, school cafeterias through food away. Providing food to schools does not make the problem go away, no matter how noble the quest is. It feels good, its sounds good but it has not solved the problem. And now we have the young intellectuals who, like the young "muscians" in the music industry reinventing past songs, think they have invented the next greatest thought. May I suggest to you based on historical facts, kids in school will get fed,however, test scores will continue to decline, violence in schools will increase, and drop out rates will increase.

I am totally for Obama and feel he can change the world around (or the United States and its economy, rather) and I did vote for him, however this plan still seems a bit flawed.
The first recommendation to reaching the goal to ‘end child hunger’ is to provide all children with a free school breakfast. I think this is unreasonable and unreachable. Would you be only providing breakfast to elementary school kids? Elementary and junior high? All students through high school? Including private schools and charter schools? There are many factors that would have to be taken into account, not to mention the number of schools this would entire. I’m an 18-year-old college student and don’t eat breakfast, and I don’t feel that it affects my learning that much, because I still manage to get A’s and B’s (and the same went for high school.) I understand that younger kids need more nutrients and vitamins to grow and breakfast can help them, but I’m just saying in my case I don’t feel breakfast helps. Also, I feel that just because you provide a student with breakfast, doesn’t necessarily mean that they will go home to a family and have a healthy meal for dinner (provided that if they are indeed poor, they receive a free lunch as well.) If they are poor or low-income, they might not be able to afford a very well-balanced dinner. In order for breakfast’s to be free, and dinners to be well-balanced, it all depends on lowering the poverty level first. The question becomes, is it really realistic to reach that by 2015? Poverty won’t go away in a few years. I’m sure it will remain a part of society for as long as I’m alive.

The third is to support working families. I do feel that this will help the poverty issue in America and that it can indeed lower the amount of children who are going hungry in our country, however, I feel that it is more easily said that done and that even when the President-Elect is in office, he cannot address every working family in the United States. It seems simply impossible. Yes, he may be able to make sufficient efforts at supporting these families, and in so, decrease child hunger in the United States, but in no means will child hunger be abolished completely. It is just another unrealistic thing in the pile of unrealisms.

Connecting families to social services and resources to help with food needs may help some, but just imagine how many families there are that really need this help. It will take a major overhaul of our economy before this can be touched upon. There is no way that we can possibly provide enough food at free or low costs to every famiy in the world who needs them, and our state of economy simply wouldn’t allow that much to be used without getting payment back towards society.

Reducing world hunger is a realistic, achievable thing, but ending it, as the President-elect claims he will do, does not seem possible in the years that are ahead of us until 2015. Let’s shoot for something more realistic by 2015, like fixing the economy, which should be the first priority on that very long list of many…

President-elect Obama's plan to end hunger is a great idea, and I hope that someday our country never has a hungry person in it. But, I feel that with the economy and all other factors of low-income parents, that it is impossible to accomplish. Students who've used the lunch plan when I was in school only ate at school. When they went home, they went to bed hungry. So it only was in effect when the student was at school. What about when the child is at home? Is the President to be going to take care of hunger at home also? So I feel that it is a great idea, but can the plan really be taken into action?