Free lunches at school

[Fandango 1,440]

Bad decisions in and of itself are a private issue. To complain about fee increases and things like you mentioned are not the same...because no public funds are going to your bank acct.

But when you're being subsidized to feed your kids by your fellow citizens, then it really is a public issue.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So what's the solution, let the kids starve because of the bad decisions made by their parents?

[Fandango 1,440]

So what's the solution, let the kids starve because of the bad decisions made by their parents?

Stronger regulation on who gets what.

If the parents have the money for frivolity, they don't need the money for their kids.

And if they don't need that money, WE CAN GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOES.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Stronger regulation how? - audits of how household income is spent before giving a benefit? Taking the benefit away when they spend money on manicures? Is that going to insure they feed their kids properly? I don't think so.

[Fandango 1,440]

Stronger regulation how? - audits of how household income is spent before giving a benefit? Taking the benefit away when they spend money on manicures? Is that going to insure they feed their kids properly? I don't think so.

I'm not really sure, tbh....but the abuse needs to be stopped somehow. One poster here said that only a small % of applicants for free school lunches were verified. Verifying all of them is a good start.

Nothing ensures they're going to feed their kids properly.....hell, if my salon took WIC the kids would be SOL.

The answer isn't 'oh there's nothing we can do to stop it, so lets just turn a blind eye'. The money is given to help people, but there's not an endless supply. The answer lies in somehow fixing the system so that the money is spent on the people who actually REALLY need it.

Yanno, my grandfather used to be very politically active in many organizations. And there was this young girl with a baby who was living in an abandoned apt sleeping in a CANOE. She didn't qualify for any assistance at the time because 'there was no electricity'. I'll have to ask my mother for more details cos they're quite fuzzy, and I might be wrong about something. But I do remember a canoe.

My grandfather and many others fought to get her assistance...and they eventually won. But where is the frickin logic there? Living in a canoe with a newborn. And then you have the disparity of women driving ESCALADES getting $40 in nail svcs twice a month asking if we'd take WIC.

Cmon now.

Edited August 26, 2007 by LisaD

[Caladan 19]

Bad decisions in and of itself are a private issue. To complain about fee increases and things like you mentioned are not the same...because no public funds are going to your bank acct.

But when you're being subsidized to feed your kids by your fellow citizens, then it really is a public issue.

(Only 20% of USCIS's budget comes from fees. That means someone's subsidizing your petition. Corn subsidies make food very cheap. That's as indirect a subsidy as 'gave food money so had money for nails.)

If bad decisions are themselves a private issue, then why is it a problem for you that someone else gets her nails done? You can't actually use EBT for manicures, as I'm sure your clients discovered, so it's not as though taxpayer dollars are paying for it. And it's a lot easier to come by an extra $50 than it is to have a reliable budget of $50 a month if you know what I mean. A little extra money here and there isn't hard to find, but that doesn't mean that it's reliable enough that we can take away an extra $50 in EBT from everyone (not just the women getting their nails done) with no harm.

I guess I figure the amount of money we spend on free lunches is so small compared to the tax dollars used to fund other things that I can't get all het up over someone spending some money on her hair and nails. Maybe she's got a job interview and wants to look nice. Maybe she HAS a job and wants to look nice and still qualifies for EBT. Maybe she doesn't want to look shabby because the last time she did, people sneered at her for not taking care of herself. ("God, what's the matter with these people. If they dressed nicely and looked neat, maybe they could get a JOB instead of being subsidized...")

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

yes, because all people on assistance are getting there nails and hair done all the time

That's not what's been said. But this applies to more than just a fringe element within the supported population. I invite you to head to subsidized housing complexes and count the vehicles that the residents should not be driving. I invite you to observe just how many people pay with food stamps that would appear to be quite capable to pay for food themselves. And so on and so forth. The abuse is everywhere. It's not just a one-off type deal. Not everyone but way too many for my comfort.

I guess I feel like it would like someone hearing me complain about the fee increase and saying, 'well, you just bought a new computer and you had enough money to go overseas, so surely an extra $300 doesn't mean anything to you.' Or someone complaining because his wife wants to send $100 a month home to her family and he doesn't have the cash, and responding by sneering, well, you obviously have enough extra cash for internet access. Or arguing that the retiree doesn't really need his Medicare because he has that 57 caddy that he lovingly restores that he should just sell.

When you're poor, all your bad decisions come into question as a reason for people to sneer. When you're middle class, you can make as many bad decisions but no one sneers because you look respectable. And then we wonder why the income of poor people often goes to quasi-luxury image goods.

And it's certainly easy to believe that people are just irresponsible. Quite a lot of being poor is mismanaging money. So is quite a lot of being human.

Poor people do make bad decisions with their money, but the studies I remember reading in college didn't show that middle class people were more responsible, but that they had more room for error when they screwed up (more relatives with money to bail them out, a higher paying job so that credit card bill can be paid, that sort of thing)

I'm not sure where these housing complexes with the Lexuses are. No Escalades either. The one near me (four blocks) people don't have cars or have relatively old cars. And sometimes people have nicer cars (this is usually outside of the projects), but it's hard to say whether it's their car, the car of their boyfriend, a project they've put together over a couple of years, or something they bought when they had more money and kept when they slipped below the poverty line, or a car that's shared by many people.

In any case, I'm not sure why it matters to the questions of school lunches. Suppose the child has an irresponsible... ooh, let's make her a single mom with a nice car and false nails. You might think it would be better if she took the $15 it cost to get her nails done and spent it on lunch. But she hasn't, and it's clear she's not going to. How does cutting off her child's lunch program help? Is she going to have an epiphany? Chances are the kid just ends up getting a bag of chips and soda for a lunch and then doesn't have the proper nutrition to be able to learn. I figure we're better off as a society with the free lunch program than without it.

I don't care what personal decisions a poor person makes. Not my business. As long as I don't fund it. Once I am asked to pay for it, I think I am entitled to an opinion on whether or not it's appropriate for me to be asked to fund it. A set of acrylic nails or a set of shiny wheels is something that I don't think the taxpayer ought to fund. Neither is a necessity. Medicare for a retiree is not even near the same as what we were talking about. Neither are immigration fees. Apples and Oranges.

If you'd like to see the subsidized housing complexes with them shiny wheels, come on down to Tampa, meet me in Nashville or Cincinnati. I can show them to you in any one of the places I've lived at. Lexus, Escalade, Navigator. Take your pick, they're all there. Complete with bling-bling wheels and premium sound systems. There's plenty of subsidized housing out there other than the projects. You're aware of that, yes?

The connection to the school lunches is simply the wide-spread abuse of what are supposed to be support systems for those really in need.

[Caladan 19]

The only way to 'improve' it would be to subject people to humiliating audits where social workers come in and see if they have their nails done, tsk-tsk, and deduct it from their kids' money. Of course, the salaries for the government auditors would have to be paid for out of taxes.

Or we could have actual reform that makes it easier to transition from public assistance to work. But none of this would actually affect the school lunch program, which comes out of a different pool of cash entirely.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Well, free school lunches actually does what it intends to do. It gives kids a hot meal in the middle of the day. People who receive the benefit can not use it towards manicures, escalades, or anything else. Do people receive the benefit who may get a manicure? Probably. Am I, the taxpayer, angry because $2 of my tax money is going to the kids hot lunch? Hardly. I am certain that parents who are not looking after their kids needs are not feeding them properly at home, and will not start to do so because someone took away their school lunch benefit.

I would like to see more oversight, but more on the nutritional quality of the meals they receive. Good nutrition means they will perform (and behave) better at school and maybe be able to break the cycle of poverty as adults.

[Fandango 1,440]

The only way to 'improve' it would be to subject people to humiliating audits where social workers come in and see if they have their nails done, tsk-tsk, and deduct it from their kids' money. Of course, the salaries for the government auditors would have to be paid for out of taxes.

Or we could have actual reform that makes it easier to transition from public assistance to work. But none of this would actually affect the school lunch program, which comes out of a different pool of cash entirely.

Why would those audits be 'humiliating'? Not that I'm certain auditing is the way to go, as that incurrs more cost to the system & I'm not sure whether there's a financial benefit to that...but I have to wonder why you call it humiliating?

Once you take gov't money for subsidy, you have someone to answer to. It's not 'hey come take our money and we don't care what you do with it'. It shouldn't be thought of as 'no strings attached'. And answering what you've done with the money given to you shouldn't be thought of as 'humiliating'.

Well, free school lunches actually does what it intends to do. It gives kids a hot meal in the middle of the day. People who receive the benefit can not use it towards manicures, escalades, or anything else. Do people receive the benefit who may get a manicure? Probably. Am I, the taxpayer, angry because $2 of my tax money is going to the kids hot lunch? Hardly. I am certain that parents who are not looking after their kids needs are not feeding them properly at home, and will not start to do so because someone took away their school lunch benefit.

I would like to see more oversight, but more on the nutritional quality of the meals they receive. Good nutrition means they will perform (and behave) better at school and maybe be able to break the cycle of poverty as adults.

True, it gives kids a hot meal. But for those who really wouldn't normally qualify, it frees up money at home for extra 'rewards'. We're not funding 'rewards'.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So if we audit someone (which probably makes entitlements more expensive instead of providing a savings) and find mother had a manicure we take away the kids free lunch? Because we know the mother is going to take that $15 and apply it instantly towards healthy salads every day for junior?

[Caladan 19]

I don't care what personal decisions a poor person makes. Not my business. As long as I don't fund it. Once I am asked to pay for it, I think I am entitled to an opinion on whether or not it's appropriate for me to be asked to fund it. A set of acrylic nails or a set of shiny wheels is something that I don't think the taxpayer ought to fund. Neither is a necessity. Medicare for a retiree is not even near the same as what we were talking about. Neither are immigration fees. Apples and Oranges.

If you'd like to see the subsidized housing complexes with them shiny wheels, come on down to Tampa, meet me in Nashville or Cincinnati. I can show them to you in any one of the places I've lived at. Lexus, Escalade, Navigator. Take your pick, they're all there. Complete with bling-bling wheels and premium sound systems. There's plenty of subsidized housing out there other than the projects. You're aware of that, yes?

The connection to the school lunches is simply the wide-spread abuse of what are supposed to be support systems for those really in need.

I'm not against reform, or a second look at the eligibility. We can revisit income levels.

But I am against going in like an auditor on the assumption that poor people should have the decency to look like poor people. You are not funding their Escalade or their Lexus (yes, I'm aware of the existence of other subsidized housing. Again, the bling-bling is a small percentage, ime, of the burned out Hondas), because $200 for a family of four is not going to get you an Escalade. You cannot use EBT to pay for nails. You cannot use it to qualify for a car loan.

Are you sure, by the way, that the Escalade is owned by someone personally receiving EBT? I can see a guy having a job and an expensive car and his girlfriend being on EBT and WIC and the whole alphabet soup, but if she rides in the car that doesn't actually make it her income or benefit.

Reducing the benefit will only hurt the families legitimately in need, not the scam artists who aren't legitimately claiming income (that may or may not be legally earned.)

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

AS I mentioned upthread my mother has been a social worker for over 30 years. From her own personal experience, she will tell you there is abuse but this talk of escalades, cadillacs and lexuses is VERY exaggerated.

[Caladan 19]

How it could be humiliating? Would you like to explain every one of your purchases over the past month to someone who is trying to find fault with everything you did? Would you like to explain that no, you weren't being irresponsible, it was just that your mom gave you some money to get your nails done for your birthday? Or that the new coat was a present from a boyfriend? Oh, no, this suit is secondhand from a tag sale. Yes, I bought my kids new shoes so they'd last. I can't imagine much more stressful or embarrassing or, and this is the real point, not actually likely to reduce poverty or spending on poverty.

Listen to the stories of people who are legitimately in need and on public assistance. It's embarrassing. They can't believe they got there. And they're usually pretty glad that the EBT card looks like a normal credit card, and they still have to deal with the teenage cashier rolling their eyes because they bought a half-gallon of ice cream instead of spending their food stamps on something the teenage cashier deems appropriate.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Caladan

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You cannot use EBT to pay for nails. You cannot use it to qualify for a car loan.

No. But you can be a little creative: All it takes is to find a cooperating store in the neighborhood and cash those food stamps. You can do anything with cash, right? Now, don't tell me that that doesn't happen. There's been quite a bit of publicity whenever they busted such stores. There were numerous cases that I am aware of.