Free lunches at school

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And no, there's NO legitimate reason for anyone on any assistance to have acrylic nails

There is no way of regulating people's spending while they are on welfare though, and there shouldn't be either in a free society.

The simple point is that if a person has $50.00 to spend on a nail job while on public assistance, then that person is definitely receiving at least that $50.00 too much in public assistance. It's really not that hard to understand.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think the solution is to make these kids work for their lunches, preferably sweeping chimneys or going down coal mines with canary cages. Alternatively, I have a modest proposal that we might ease the economic problems of low income families by cooking and eating their children. I've hear young children are a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.

[KarenCee 3]

I totally agree with you Reinhard. In my earlier post I was just trying to get you to see that there might be another side to the "nails and hair thing". What if someone gifted that person in this way? I can see if it's a monthly thing...that's obvious a misuse of funds when one's child is in need of food and/or clothing. I'm just saying someone can be given something nice occasionally...and that person should not be judged because of it.

As a single mom I never indulged myself. I made sure my daughter ate and had clothes, not to mention her medical needs were taken care of. I did this on my own too, even during the 13 months that her deadbeat dad didn't pay child support. However, if someone had wanted to do something like this for me, I surely hope no one would have judged me for it, seeing as how I was poor and all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because you know what a GOOD mother will do to feed her child? With no other means possible, armed robbery and murder. Anything.

A good mother will do nothing of the sort.

Exactly. My parents had very hard times raising their own 3 and my aunt's 2 children after my aunt passed away at young age. It was hard for my parents to take on two more kids while they had a hard time providing for their own. But my cousins were about to be separated after having lost their mother and my parents decided that that ain't going to happen. So, we all cut back some more, dad took on a second job on the weekends and they raised all five of us without ever committing any armed robbery or murder. That is the most ridiculous piece of BS I have read in a long time.

[rebeccajo 14]

Because you know what a GOOD mother will do to feed her child? With no other means possible, armed robbery and murder. Anything.

A good mother will do nothing of the sort.

Exactly. My parents had very hard times raising their own 3 and my aunt's 2 children after my aunt passed away at young age. It was hard for my parents to take on two more kids while they had a hard time providing for their own. But my cousins were about to be separated after having lost their mother and my parents decided that that ain't going to happen. So, we all cut back some more, dad took on a second job on the weekends and they raised all five of us without ever committing any armed robbery or murder. That is the most ridiculous piece of BS I have read in a long time.

I'm thinking this was an analogy about what most Moms will do to provide for their children. Let's not get too carried away with the literalness of a post.

[rebeccajo 14]

rica...stop you're about to get LISAFIED®

LOLLLLLLLLLLLL

I need some kind of music to go along with that......

da da da!

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMwdAc1Dzfg

nah, that's wayyyy too old. But thanks for the effort!

Ok I tried.

One of the pluses of my advanced age is a vast musical memory. At least until I start forgetting...............

[Peikko 1,575]

Right, so, just because X decides to spend Y amount of their welfare on something that you don't think they should, everyone should have their allowance cut by Y amount because this is an indication that the welfare allowance is too high? There's logic for you...

[Peikko 1,575]

I believe someone in this thread actually tried to suggest that only those with enough money should be allowed to have children...the mind boggles...why are so many people with so keen on pointing and picking at those without? Seems mindless to me.

[rebeccajo 14]

Right, so, just because X decides to spend Y amount of their welfare on something that you don't think they should, everyone should have their allowance cut by Y amount because this is an indication that the welfare allowance is too high? There's logic for you...

You have to admit, one of the beauties of that scenario would be the free lunches wouldn't be taken away from the child.

Since the welfare check (a true means tested benefit) is a totally separate program.

Has anybody caught onto the idiosyncracy that the USDA is the department that administers this program, and one way they implement the program is to take products grown on subsidized farms to supplement the cost?

I mean - I don't hear anybody talking about cutting out farm subsidies. Or is that because the farmers grow food for EVERYBODY - not just the poor?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I mean - I don't hear anybody talking about cutting out farm subsidies. Or is that because the farmers grow food for EVERYBODY - not just the poor?

FArm subsidies are entitlement programs too - they also don't neccessarily support "poor American farmers" but big agribusiness.

Seriously, if we are going to talk about abuses in the system that we all pay through our taxes I have a lot bigger fish to fry than school lunches, which, I don't have the figures but we all probably pay about 2 cents a year for.

My mother is a social worker who coordinates benefits for the needy - she has never seen a cadillac or a lexus in the parking lot a single day of her working life in 30+ years. She has seen abuse, sure, some of the urban myths she hears are pretty hilarious.

Speaking of abuse, I wonder how many of the deductions on all our tax forms would get past an auditor? Taxpayers pay a lot for wealthy middle class people who never received an entitlement in their life.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Right, so, just because X decides to spend Y amount of their welfare on something that you don't think they should, everyone should have their allowance cut by Y amount because this is an indication that the welfare allowance is too high? There's logic for you...

So you're just one more person that has trouble distinguishing between wants and needs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the solution is to make these kids work for their lunches, preferably sweeping chimneys or going down coal mines with canary cages. Alternatively, I have a modest proposal that we might ease the economic problems of low income families by cooking and eating their children. I've hear young children are a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.

:lol:

[Clarky and Tarah 0]

And no, there's NO legitimate reason for anyone on any assistance to have acrylic nails

There is no way of regulating people's spending while they are on welfare though, and there shouldn't be either in a free society.

The simple point is that if a person has $50.00 to spend on a nail job while on public assistance, then that person is definitely receiving at least that $50.00 too much in public assistance. It's really not that hard to understand.

I definitely understand what you're saying. Many people who aren't receiving assistance can't afford to splurge on their wants. Public assistance should be used to pay for basic NEEDS until the individal/family can afford to pay for these needs on their own, then they can start focusing on their wants.

[Jenn! 918]

And no, there's NO legitimate reason for anyone on any assistance to have acrylic nails

There is no way of regulating people's spending while they are on welfare though, and there shouldn't be either in a free society.

The simple point is that if a person has $50.00 to spend on a nail job while on public assistance, then that person is definitely receiving at least that $50.00 too much in public assistance. It's really not that hard to understand.

I definitely understand what you're saying. Many people who aren't receiving assistance can't afford to splurge on their wants. Public assistance should be used to pay for basic NEEDS until the individal/family can afford to pay for these needs on their own, then they can start focusing on their wants.

So how do we go about making sure that people use public assistance for needs rather than wants? I know, why don't we have something like a free lunch program at public schools for those with a qualifying income, so we're sure that these children are fed as opposed to that money being spent on manicures? Oh, wait...

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So how do we go about making sure that people use public assistance for needs rather than wants? I know, why don't we have something like a free lunch program at public schools for those with a qualifying income, so we're sure that these children are fed as opposed to that money being spent on manicures? Oh, wait...

WE msut make sure children are punished for the mistakes/weaknesses of their parents. Terrible idea