Free lunches at school

[Chica Yeyé 41]

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.

Wise words Kathryn, wise words. If the children loose, we all do.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

How are you going to enforce a parent spending money on lunches for their kids if you take the free lunch benefit away? How will you guarantee the meal is nutritious?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

My God, NO ONE here is advocating children starve.

Show me ONE POST which proves that wrong.

Lisa,

I was taking the point to the extreme of irony... or the extreme of stupidity if you will (with the reference to the nazi method as the utmost example of human stupidity). But it still sounds to me that a lot of folks are clamoring for eugenics... who can/should/would have children and who should not.... and that is fkkked up. If someone tried to make decisions or question my/your/others right to reproduce or not, I would be equally adamant against it.

Peace, L.

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

Those on the Right, since Reagan, have used such notions as Welfare Mommas to try and demonstrate that welfare doesn't work. They have to keep preaching that notion because God forbid if most Americans recognized the benefits of welfare - it'd put a hole right through the argument that the Government can't do anything right. You'll see this argument take on many forms, often focusing on anecdotal stories of abuse and ignoring any success stories of children who've benefitted from welfare.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I assume the same people who put forward the "people who can't afford to have children" argument will happily give up claiming their children on their tax return and fund their children's education themselves. I mean, they can afford it, right? Why should the childless effectively subsidize their choices?

[Tinker 0]

Amazingly it looks like we're back on Topic.

Like I stated before, my son attended a gifted school,(from the time he was in grade 3) incase your unsure of what I mean, a school for higher learning, it was MANDATORY that all of the kids went across the road and had the HOT BREAKFAST to start their day, as well has having the hot lunch program.

This should tell people something!! Kids need nourishment to learn, to retain, to continue on with their education, to become something great!!

[Fandango 1,439]

My God, NO ONE here is advocating children starve.

Show me ONE POST which proves that wrong.

Lisa,

I was taking the point to the extreme of irony... or the extreme of stupidity if you will (with the reference to the nazi method as the utmost example of human stupidity). But it still sounds to me that a lot of folks are clamoring for eugenics... who can/should/would have children and who should not.... and that is fkkked up. If someone tried to make decisions or question my/your/others right to reproduce or not, I would be equally adamant against it.

Peace, L.

You weren't the only one to make this point, and tbqh...it's a ridiculous retort because no one here is advocating what's bein thrown around. It's great to use hyperbole to make a point, but at the same time, TO ME it just shows an emotional knee jerk response that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

No one here wants any kid to go hungry. I don't even think that the people sharing my POV have even said that the program should be done away with. <--I may be wrong about that, so I'll have to check. The 'unpopular' stance that myself and others have been pointing out is that there is abuse of the system and that abuse should not be allowed to continue. I really cannot see what the big deal that really is....and retorts of 'OH LETS GAS THEM' aren't really contributing anything to a rational discussion about something that is a problem. No matter which side of the fence you sit on.....abusing public resources should be considered a problem by everyone of us here. Cos if there's people abusing it, we're spending money on people who don't need it....and possibly not spending the money on the people who do.

And emotional accusations only show that perhaps people aren't understanding what's being said.

Edited August 26, 2007 by LisaD

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

My God, NO ONE here is advocating children starve.

Show me ONE POST which proves that wrong.

Lisa,

I was taking the point to the extreme of irony... or the extreme of stupidity if you will (with the reference to the nazi method as the utmost example of human stupidity). But it still sounds to me that a lot of folks are clamoring for eugenics... who can/should/would have children and who should not.... and that is fkkked up. If someone tried to make decisions or question my/your/others right to reproduce or not, I would be equally adamant against it.

Peace, L.

Charles' sign, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" comes to mind. Lisa must not be wearing her bifocals.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

But if parents are abusing the system it's okay for the kids to suffer? The OP is campaigning to get rid of the school lunch program and the reasons put forward as to why this is a good idea or needs to be curtailed is because of manicures and lexuses, etc. This is the non-emotional conclusion I reached with those posts.

[Tinker 0]

I don't quite understand how people can be abusing the lunch program.

I'm not in the States so help me out here. Do not all applicants have to show proof of their income to qualify? Or are they automatically put on through your system when filing their income tax (GST, and CT credit up here)?

People have posted about qualifying, but others make it sound like you can just tell the you want your child enrolled? Are there no controls over the program?

Then again, I see nothing wrong with a teacher, seeing a student not eating and performing poorly, placing the student in the program themselves.

[Fandango 1,439]

Charles' sign, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" comes to mind. Lisa must not be wearing her bifocals.

That still doesn't prove he wants kids to starve. Does it?

Let's ask him: Charles, are you advocating children starve?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

They may not starve without the school lunch program, but they'll likely have one less meal a day unless you can figure out how to apply the $15 apparently spent on manicures towards the guaranteed purchase of a healthy meal.

[Marilyn. 340]

My God, NO ONE here is advocating children starve.

Show me ONE POST which proves that wrong.

Lisa,

I was taking the point to the extreme of irony... or the extreme of stupidity if you will (with the reference to the nazi method as the utmost example of human stupidity). But it still sounds to me that a lot of folks are clamoring for eugenics... who can/should/would have children and who should not.... and that is fkkked up. If someone tried to make decisions or question my/your/others right to reproduce or not, I would be equally adamant against it.

Peace, L.

You weren't the only one to make this point, and tbqh...it's a ridiculous retort because no one here is advocating what's bein thrown around. It's great to use hyperbole to make a point, but at the same time, TO ME it just shows an emotional knee jerk response that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

No one here wants any kid to go hungry. I don't even think that the people sharing my POV have even said that the program should be done away with. <--I may be wrong about that, so I'll have to check. The 'unpopular' stance that myself and others have been pointing out is that there is abuse of the system and that abuse should not be allowed to continue. I really cannot see what the big deal that really is....and retorts of 'OH LETS GAS THEM' aren't really contributing anything to a rational discussion about something that is a problem. No matter which side of the fence you sit on.....abusing public resources should be considered a problem by everyone of us here. Cos if there's people abusing it, we're spending money on people who don't need it....and possibly not spending the money on the people who do.

And emotional accusations only show that perhaps people aren't understanding what's being said.

the reason CarolsMarc started this thread was because he is trying to do away with the lunch program altogether... i am not saying he wants them to starve though...

Edited August 26, 2007 by MarilynP

[Chica Yeyé 41]

the reason CarolsMarc started this thread was because he is trying to do away with the lunch program altogether... i am not saying he wants them to starve though...

Ditto Marylin, that was the start up to the thread.- trying to cut the program from his/her community.

As per my opinions, they're mine. They're staying with me so not to panic, they are not contagious. I am indeed all about people's rights, so sue me. And when it comes to children, my emotions have no limits.

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

I don't quite understand how people can be abusing the lunch program.

I'm not in the States so help me out here. Do not all applicants have to show proof of their income to qualify? Or are they automatically put on through your system when filing their income tax (GST, and CT credit up here)?

People have posted about qualifying, but others make it sound like you can just tell the you want your child enrolled? Are there no controls over the program?

Then again, I see nothing wrong with a teacher, seeing a student not eating and performing poorly, placing the student in the program themselves.

I lost my job back in March was out of work for 2 months, during which time I applied for it. I had to show them my termination letter and my unemployment statement. It was also a requirement for getting free busing to and from school. My step son arrived a day after I was laid off and he needed to be enrolled in school.

I think it's actually crazy that in the state of California, the richest in the nation, people here don't want to pay taxes for such things as bus service for students. At $136 a semester, per student - most parents end up driving their kids to school or carpool, which just adds to the traffic congestion, not to mention the consumption of fuel and the pollution.