Free lunches at school

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Listen to the stories of people who are legitimately in need and on public assistance.

I have sympathy for those. It's the freeloaders that I am angry about.

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.

Well, then I must just happen to run into those freeloaders all the time. Maybe I ought to consider changing my shopping patterns so I see more of the decent crowds.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Personally, I think the focus should be on the fact that the free hot lunches (or subsidized, if you prefer) are assisting all of the kids in the classroom by ensuring that the students have the energy and nutrition to focus in school and participate in their own education. It seems the main focus in much of the conversation is on - hey, their parents are getting away with something and it's not fair so let's take it away from the kids and force the parents to feed their own children! Well, if you could ensure that they would indeed end up feeding their own children instead, there may be some merit in that, however what is more likely to happen is that the kids will still go without.

My brother worked as a teacher in a poor community and he was astonished how many kids came to school without breakfast, unwashed, tired and wearing the same clothes they had worn the day before. Generally, it was nearly impossible to teach them in the morning, and because these students were non-participatory, it was disruptive to the rest of the class and everyone's education suffered. In the afternoon, however, after they had had a hot lunch, it was a totally different story. The kids were attentive and alert and able to learn. The whole class benefited. His school eventually started a hot breakfast program as well for those whose parents were unable or unwilling to provide it themselves. The difference in the classroom and the learning experience was greatly enhanced for all students. (The breakfast program, by the way, was sponsored by different organizations and businesses within the community who also believed in the importance of ensuring students were physically and mentally fit enough to participate in their education, another option in stead of tax dollars if that is the major concern - although there are tax dollars being wasted in far more disturbing areas than school lunches).

I don't have kids and my step- grandchildren are home-schooled so we have no one in the school system however I have no objection to my tax dollars being used to support the education system AND providing a hot meal at noon as part of that program. If all of the kids don't need it, I am still willing to carry them as well to ensure that the ones who do need it get it. Think of it as an investment in the future rather than worrying about someone getting away with an extra $2 a day. The collective benefits far outweigh the program costs.

(Hey, but then I am one of those 'socialist' Canadians, hehehe - who believe that helping out someone else actually helps me out as well, and that in the long run it does all work out for the collective good!)

Edited August 26, 2007 by Kathryn41

[sara535 15]

I wonder how much of my monthly withholding tax is actually going to pay for free lunches? hmm, maybe 2 cents? Its not breaking my bank. I guess I just dont MIND that I am paying a few cents, maybe even a dollar, every now and then for a kid who is less fortuante than mine to have a hot meal.

And personally, I find it 100 times more infuriating that, as an example, the non-compete contracts handed out to Halliburton/KBR subsidiaries for cafeterias, meals, fuel, etc in Iraq have been found to have overcharged the government by some insane amount in the tens of millions of dollars. As others have pointed out, if you want to be pissed about the government's handouts to the wrong people there are a lot of bigger fish to fry than kids who want or need a free lunch.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Listen to the stories of people who are legitimately in need and on public assistance.

I have sympathy for those. It's the freeloaders that I am angry about.

I get angry about freeloaders too, but low income people aren't the only ones who screw the system. There was a conversation at work about accountants and I learned that my upper-middle class co-workers make the following deductions on their taxes:

their cable bill

every movie ticket

personal vacations

magazine subscriptions (we are talking about People magazine)

dinners at restaurants

These people all earn 6 figure salaries. Some of those might be legitimate business expenses, many are not. This winds me up a lot more than welfare cheats.

[Caladan 19]

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.

That, though, is a problem with corruption, not the system itself. Crack down on the stores so they don't do that. But saying, well, some stores will give you cash back on your EBT purchase meaning someone could use them on acrylic nails so we must reduce the benefit doesn't really seem to follow. And I'm not saying that we can't re-evaluate who legitimately qualifies for lunches and assistance, just that it's better done before the fact rather than by counting up 'bad decisions' after the fact.

I just think that 'has painted nails' is a bad proxy for 'doesn't really need assistance', especially since the assistance is not all that much anyway. In my experience, at my local store where you can see someone paying for groceries with the plain gray EBT card, it's more likely that they're also tossing on $20 to afford what's in their cart.

[Fandango 1,439]

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.

I see nothing wrong with asking to see finances if one is receiving benefit.

In fact, I think it'd be a GREAT program to help some see where they're going wrong. If some poor have a 'poor mentality', well then educating them while rec benefit would go a long way to help them change their POV.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Listen to the stories of people who are legitimately in need and on public assistance.

I have sympathy for those. It's the freeloaders that I am angry about.

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.

Well, then I must just happen to run into those freeloaders all the time. Maybe I ought to consider changing my shopping patterns so I see more of the decent crowds.

Some of the people my mother has helped arrange benefits for who do have nicer cars and other things and are people who are hard working and never received entitlements before but have fallen on hard times. Like a woman whose machinist husband's hands were crushed and was unable to work. Their healthcare costs forced them to declare bankruptcy.

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

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.

From what I recall, the cash value of a food stamp applicant's car can actually disqualify them. In fact the restrictions for welfare are so punitive that those who use welfare as a temparory safety net are easily punished for trying to get back on their feet. Clinton's Welfare Reform really didn't help the working poor. It has forced single mothers to work outside the home, often leaving their children without proper supervision. There's just no pretty way to deal with poverty except in the bigger scope of things - raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, affordable housing, a quality education for all children. Many European countries do a hell of a lot better job at that then we do and the results show that those children perform much better in schools.

Like you and Caladan have pointed out, there's really not much else in terms of what is currently being done with screening applicants for any type of public assistance and the main purpose of such assistance is for the benefit of the children. I'm still baffled why people get outraged when someone takes advantage of gov't. subsidies allotted for the poor, but not outraged (or not as vocal) about corporations taking advantage of gov't subsidies (such as farm subsidies).

[Caladan 19]

They've already seen finances in order to qualify for the benefit (if they haven't, that needs to be addressed.) I can't see how you wouldn't find it embarrassing, even if you knew that someone had given you the benefit.. people seem to find it embarrassing when USCIS asks about their sex life even though it's for a benefit. And I think you're kidding yourself if you think a home-check by a social worker to make sure no one has her nails done or is wearing too nice clothing is going to amount to teaching someone fiscal responsibility.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Listen to the stories of people who are legitimately in need and on public assistance.

I have sympathy for those. It's the freeloaders that I am angry about.

I get angry about freeloaders too, but low income people aren't the only ones who screw the system.

There I am angry about the tax code which provides way too many loopholes. So much so that Warren Buffet's effective tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. That is something that angers me too. I am not blind to the fact that while there are freeloaders on the lower end of the spectrum, there are also freeloaders on the upper end of the scale. I'd like to have both addressed. The upper end would be easily taken care of if we just instituted a flat tax on every dollar earned in the US w/o any exemptions beyond the existential minimum.

[Caladan 19]

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.

From what I recall, the cash value of a food stamp applicant's car can actually disqualify them. In fact the restrictions for welfare are so punitive that those who use welfare as a temparory safety net are easily punished for trying to get back on their feet.

I haven't applied for welfare, but I think this is right: income, plus assets, which includes property owned, like a car or a home. Sort of like the I-864 in reverse.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I just don't see how talking away school lunch benefits is going to deter welfare farud. If anything, I'd like to see more oversight on the quality of nutrition and see it expanded - judging by the number of fat children I see, middle class people aren't feeding their children properly either.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I slept on this topic (I mean it, read it last night up to page 10 and went to bed). You all know I am childless by choice, and in previous posts I have said and I repeat that it is none of my cute biz to figure out the reason why people reproduce: and it's certainly not my job to argue for an eugenic society -- the day only "certain people" are allowed to reproduce, I hope I'm dead my friends. Brave New World, 1984, Fatherland.... haven't we learned something from the literature? and that's SciFi people.... but we have plenty of examples in the world WE are creating.

I just cannot understand how we can carry on and on talking about denying children food - that's disgusting. And as an educator, I agree with my colleagues around: children cannot learn on an empty stomach. Whether their parents are freeloaders sons of $$$, playing the system, or (god forbid) illegal immigrants, children should be fed, nourished, nurtured, and educated. Thinking otherwise is plain evil. Children are indeed, our future. Not just their parents' future, OUR future (yours and mine and everyone's)... So....

Let's categorize the ones whodeserve food and sustenance, then starve the undesirables... and while we're at it, round up their parents, because they are all the same bunch of lazy and sub-human people, shoot them in the back (wait, that's too spendy, let's gas them) and throw them in a crematorium.... sound familiar???????

Still thinking of peace, L.

And in case someone gets offended, my apologies.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

My brother was just as passionate about this issue as you, Len, because he too had seen first hand what happens when children go unfed. You make some very good points. The focus should be on the children first (again, spoken by someone without children of her own and thus no personal benefit to be obtained :-)). We are in this together - it is not a competition where someone is getting ahead by having 'more' than they are entitled to.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Kathryn41

[Fandango 1,439]

My God, NO ONE here is advocating children starve.

Show me ONE POST which proves that wrong.