Free lunches at school

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I went a couple times and had lunch with my 9 year old at her school.

WOW! Hi carb and grease. Very few vegies.

Healthier to brown bag it with PB and J and a apple like we did when we were kids.

Takes some effort but my kid has a lunch box now.

She has to take her own water anyway now as most public water systems are undrinkable.

Exactly! If you can feed your kid during the summer months, you can feed them during the school year. The program is BS

[Lewis 0]

I went a couple times and had lunch with my 9 year old at her school.

WOW! Hi carb and grease. Very few vegies.

Healthier to brown bag it with PB and J and a apple like we did when we were kids.

Takes some effort but my kid has a lunch box now.

She has to take her own water anyway now as most public water systems are undrinkable.

Good points. Some of the schools up here actually had to bring in bottled water due to groundwater contamination, others had lead in their water. Lunches may be free for some, but they are still quite unhealthy.

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

I only know about the state of Arizona and California since I've had my children enrolled in both of those states. The reduced cost lunch program is income contingent based. If a family qualifies for food stamps, then they are automatically qualified for the free or reduced lunches. There were a few occasions, like when I was in college or when I lost my job back in March of this year that we applied for it.

There have been studies that have shown that many children today suffer from malnutrition and being fat is no indication that a child is eating a healthy diet. The school lunch program is suppose to provide a healthy balanced diet for all school children and the cost is reduced or free depending on someone''s income level. Its silly to believe that somehow that's an incentive for people to work lower wage jobs to get reduced lunches for their kids.

In California, we even have to pay school buses - $136 per student, per semester where I'm currently living. Add the costs of clothes, medical insurance, after school activities or if both parents work, after school childcare and parents can be bogged down financially. If your kids want to participate in a sport like football, the cost can be hundreds of dollars. Putting more money into schools to pay for such things to ease the burdon off of parents is a worthwhile investment in our future generations, IMO. It's really the only way to help ensure that all children are afforded the same opportunites.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

BTW - Is this what we're talking about?

Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, 130 percent of the poverty level is $26,845 for a family of four; 185 percent is $38,203.)

Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay a full price, though their meals are still subsidized to some extent. Local school food authorities set their own prices for full-price (paid) meals, but must operate their meal services as non-profit programs.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I only know about the state of Arizona and California since I've had my children enrolled in both of those states. The reduced cost lunch program is income contingent based. If a family qualifies for food stamps, then they are automatically qualified for the free or reduced lunches. There were a few occasions, like when I was in college or when I lost my job back in March of this year that we applied for it.

There have been studies that have shown that many children today suffer from malnutrition and being fat is no indication that a child is eating a healthy diet. The school lunch program is suppose to provide a healthy balanced diet for all school children and the cost is reduced or free depending on someone''s income level. Its silly to believe that somehow that's an incentive for people to work lower wage jobs to get reduced lunches for their kids.

In California, we even have to pay school buses - $136 per student, per semester where I'm currently living. Add the costs of clothes, medical insurance, after school activities or if both parents work, after school childcare and parents can be bogged down financially. If your kids want to participate in a sport like football, the cost can be hundreds of dollars. Putting more money into schools to pay for such things to ease the burdon off of parents is a worthwhile investment in our future generations, IMO. It's really the only way to help ensure that all children are afforded the same opportunites.

You have mentioned nothing of "parent responsibilty" Maybe you should pretend you on your own (NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS). This scenario will guide you on the decisions that you make. When and if your decisions are based on this type of thinking, you will truly be free of dependancy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can't use rhetoric to make sweeping statements about people's lives by assuming laziness merely because they don't make much money. How arrogant is that?

Edited August 25, 2007 by Number 6

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

Reliance is the same as slavery. One should never rely on another. Make your bed? sleep in it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

Reliance is the same as slavery. One should never rely on another. Make your bed? sleep in it.

More rhetoric. What does that even mean? Do you honestly go around looking at people and making bald judgements about their lifestyle and circumstances merely by eye?

[Lewis 0]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

Reliance is the same as slavery. One should never rely on another. Make your bed? sleep in it.

I guess that makes me a slave to the electric company in order to post this electronic message.

[SirLancelot 1]

In California, we even have to pay school buses - $136 per student, per semester where I'm currently living. Add the costs of clothes, medical insurance, after school activities or if both parents work, after school childcare and parents can be bogged down financially. If your kids want to participate in a sport like football, the cost can be hundreds of dollars. Putting more money into schools to pay for such things to ease the burdon off of parents is a worthwhile investment in our future generations, IMO. It's really the only way to help ensure that all children are afforded the same opportunites.

MFP, I'm confused, is this $136 paid directly by the parent(s) of the enrolled student or is that $136 per head 's being paid by the government per enrolled student? If the former, I was not aware that parents had to pay a school bus fee. Perhaps it varies by school district and counties.

As for the rest of your statement, again, we come back to can the parent(s) afford to have a child? If not, why should the individual be allowed to even have a child in the first place if he or she can't afford the financial responsibility of raising the child? Why should the rest of society pay for the upbringing of that child? Let's not even include this to immigrants or illegal immigrants. Let's specifically talk about native born USCs. If native born USCs can't afford to raise a child, then as parents, why should they be allowed to have children?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

Reliance is the same as slavery. One should never rely on another. Make your bed? sleep in it.

I guess that makes me a slave to the electric company in order to post this electronic message.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

Reliance is the same as slavery. One should never rely on another. Make your bed? sleep in it.

More rhetoric. What does that even mean? Do you honestly go around looking at people and making bald judgements about their lifestyle and circumstances merely by eye?

6, your compassion is as deep as a mud puddle. Rhetoric? My god young man, it must be nice to preach love for the down trodden, All the while doing nothing to make the human experience a positive. Your attitude speaks volumes why there are people stuck in self pitty. Mirrors do wonders for this type of attitude!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"if you can". You have to! I wonder though how someone would explain doing away with that program to a single mother who relies on the extra income during term time to make her monthly budget.

So basically you only 'benefit' if you're dirt poor. Taking that away... what is that? Punishment?

Reliance is the same as slavery. One should never rely on another. Make your bed? sleep in it.

More rhetoric. What does that even mean? Do you honestly go around looking at people and making bald judgements about their lifestyle and circumstances merely by eye?

6, your compassion is as deep as a mud puddle. Rhetoric? My god young man, it must be nice to preach love for the down trodden, All the while doing nothing to make the human experience a positive. Your attitude speaks volumes why there are people stuck in self pitty. Mirrors do wonders for this type of attitude!

Again what does that mean? You're taking a stand on this issue based on what exactly? That evidence has come to light to show that the scheme is being abused? That the money allocated for this is being embezzled or misappropriated?

None of the above. You've simply drawn a line in the sand, calling anyone who participates in such a program lazy or an enabler based on little more than a stereotypical conception of how you imagine poor people to be.

This is just another example of how someone without serious money worries can look at someone who does and think that their failure is somehow justified.

Sorry. That is B U L L S H I T.

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

I only know about the state of Arizona and California since I've had my children enrolled in both of those states. The reduced cost lunch program is income contingent based. If a family qualifies for food stamps, then they are automatically qualified for the free or reduced lunches. There were a few occasions, like when I was in college or when I lost my job back in March of this year that we applied for it.

There have been studies that have shown that many children today suffer from malnutrition and being fat is no indication that a child is eating a healthy diet. The school lunch program is suppose to provide a healthy balanced diet for all school children and the cost is reduced or free depending on someone''s income level. Its silly to believe that somehow that's an incentive for people to work lower wage jobs to get reduced lunches for their kids.

In California, we even have to pay school buses - $136 per student, per semester where I'm currently living. Add the costs of clothes, medical insurance, after school activities or if both parents work, after school childcare and parents can be bogged down financially. If your kids want to participate in a sport like football, the cost can be hundreds of dollars. Putting more money into schools to pay for such things to ease the burdon off of parents is a worthwhile investment in our future generations, IMO. It's really the only way to help ensure that all children are afforded the same opportunites.

You have mentioned nothing of "parent responsibilty" Maybe you should pretend you on your own (NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS). This scenario will guide you on the decisions that you make. When and if your decisions are based on this type of thinking, you will truly be free of dependancy.

Marc, there's nothing shameful or wrong to be dependent on others from time to time. Families seek the support of one another in times of need. Statistically it is men who've abandoned their financial responsibilities to their children, leaving mothers to do it all on their own. It's easy to find fault or say that somebody should have prepared for such circumstances...until it happens to you or a family member of yours.

I've got a family member, a dedicated and loving father, where the mother of his children is addicted on drugs and it's torn the family apart. He's a hard working paramedic, trying to figure out how to raise his kids by himself. You'd be a heartless ####### to walk up to him and tell him he's not doing enough for his kids if he were to seek out assistence with his children's school lunches. I don't know what kind of help he's gettting if any, but I can tell you that he's a damn fine father who saves lives everyday.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've got a family member, a dedicated and loving father, where the mother of his children is addicted on drugs and it's torn the family apart. He's a hard working paramedic, trying to figure out how to raise his kids by himself. You'd be a heartless ####### to walk up to him and tell him he's not doing enough for his kids if he were to seek out assistence with his children's school lunches. I don't know what kind of help he's gettting if any, but I can tell you that he's a damn fine father who saves lives everyday.

Sounds rather like my wife's cousin's situation. The man works 75-100 hour weeks!