Free lunches at school

[rebeccajo 14]

Kisschick...you really do look FANTASTIC! Keep up the great work!!!

MissBolinger - I'm really sorry with what you've gone through, and I can only say that I hope you and your family have found better times now. But to assume that those opposed to the abuse of the system have never had hard times is wrong.

I wound up $1 million in debt after having brain and spinal surgery. Because I was hit by a guy driving on the wrong side of the road who only carried 10k worth of coverage. Obviously, my job went bye bye...there was no AFLAC at the time, and let's just say that it was a very hard time all around. We all have our own cross to bear.

My grandfather used to say 'I used to feel sorry for myself cos I had no shoes. Then I saw a man with no feet.'

How is that relevant? Especially in light of the fact that if a family in either MissBollinger's or your scenario used the free/reduced lunch program, it certainly would not be abuse.

So some moms came into the salon and asked you to take WIC for services rendered. Big deal. For every stupid cow that does that, I'll lay you odds there are 100 who don't. Sure, it's outrageous that someone would do such a thing. I never doubted your story. Besides that, WIC isn't even the program Marc is lobbying to eliminate!! Anytime you have a program where a voucher is used it can be abused. I don't see how somebody can 'barter' a free lunch meal. Unless they offered you their kid.

At least MissBollinger learned a thing or two about charity and humilty at the foot of the cross she bore.

Edited August 27, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Fandango 1,439]

Kisschick...you really do look FANTASTIC! Keep up the great work!!!

MissBolinger - I'm really sorry with what you've gone through, and I can only say that I hope you and your family have found better times now. But to assume that those opposed to the abuse of the system have never had hard times is wrong.

I wound up $1 million in debt after having brain and spinal surgery. Because I was hit by a guy driving on the wrong side of the road who only carried 10k worth of coverage. Obviously, my job went bye bye...there was no AFLAC at the time, and let's just say that it was a very hard time all around. We all have our own cross to bear.

My grandfather used to say 'I used to feel sorry for myself cos I had no shoes. Then I saw a man with no feet.'

How is that relevant? Especially in light of the fact that if a family in either MissBollinger's or your scenario used the free/reduced lunch program, it certainly would not be abuse.

So some moms came into the salon and asked you to take WIC for services rendered. Big deal. For every stupid cow that does that, I'll lay you odds there are 100 who don't. Sure, it's outrageous that someone would do such a thing. I never doubted your story. Besides that, WIC isn't even the program Marc is lobbying to eliminate!! Anytime you have a program where a voucher is used it can be abused. I don't see how somebody can 'barter' a free lunch meal. Unless they offered you their kid.

At least MissBollinger learned a thing or two about charity and humilty at the foot of the cross she bore.

The assumption that those who oppose the abuse have never had it hard is wrong....I've seen medical and financial dire straits, as I'm sure a lot of other people have too. That was the point.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

She's right though - WIC specifically states a grocery item and a specific quantity. It can only be exchanged for specific foods.

Then bring up the point and ASK instead of 'I don't want to call you a liar BUT...' Gotta love that word 'BUT'...those three lil letters mean 'disregard everything I just said'

The women who would ask me to take it asked me to either give it to someone else for trade, or PAY MY STAFF WITH THEM.

Ask, don't assume I'm a liar.

And really....like lying on a messageboard 'proves' a point anyways. Cmon now.

I don't assume anything, but what she is saying (that WIC specifally states a grocery item like eggs or milk or whatever) is absolutely true. I'm sure someone, somewhere may have thought they could get round that requirement and exchange it for a manicure - I once worked in a store and a customer tried to pay with Hong Kong dollars - but actually abusing the WIC benefit isnearly impossible unless you find some sort of black market scenario, which is probably more effort than it's worth for people who receive the benefit.

I find it interesting that we discuss benefits - school lunches and WIC - that generally provide what they are supposed to and are actually ver ydifficult to exchange for something else - nutrition for Women Infants and Children (as is the case with WIC) or a hot dinner in the middle of the day for a kids who probably wouldn't have had it otherwise.

I'm sure we all could come up some tale of hardship in our lives where we bucked the odds and got ahead without any need for entitlements or handouts. The fact of the matter is, however, many of us grew up in a supportive family environment - most of us did not have parents who were drug addicts, mentally ill or whatever. Many people who receive benefits can't function in normal society. Regardless of their capacity to abuse benefits and whether you find it questionable whether your tax money should find them - should we punish their children because of this? Should they go without one hot dinner because their mother spent the last $15 on her nails? Many have fallen on hard times (like the woman I mentioned upthread whose husband's hands were crushed) and have already paid taxes and deserve a bare minimum of support in the same way we all expect to receive the social security we have paid into all our lives and are old and can no longer work.

My tax money funds a lot of questionable things. I honestly can't find it within me to get even mildly irked by one that 1. benefits children, the most vulnerable members of society 2. actually delivers what it is supposed to

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, my stance really is that the program is GOOD except for the abuse. I'm not against helping people when they need it. Resources aren't unlimited, so those who abuse the system take away from those who need it the most.

The poster may have been right as far as the WIC guidelines....but ask the questions before you call another poster a possible liar.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Yes but if a parent abuses the system, should the the benefit be taken away from the child? Because this is what I'm reading some are advocating on this thread. I'm not sure you can force them to become responsible parents overnight.

[Fandango 1,439]

Yes but if a parent abuses the system, should the the benefit be taken away from the child? Because this is what I'm reading some are advocating on this thread. I'm not sure you can force them to become responsible parents overnight.

Well that's not what *I'm* putting forth, but I am advocating checking all applicants first. Not like what one poster who works in the schools said - that a small percentage only gets checked.

And then if the child is still hungry, the child gets fed on the program & the money is billed to the family in some form of lien. No one should go hungry...but it is not the gov't responsibility to feed someone who would rather buy an ipod.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you work for BP at their corporate offices - you get a free meal every day.

And I could have sworn that if one works there one earned that. Unless they work there for free...

No - but if we're making assumptions that the people who make use of a school meals program are lazy, I guess we should also make the assumption that the people who work in a corporate office and enjoy a free meal are efficient, valuable workers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and your solution is to ban the programme rather than try to educate?

Makes perfect sense...

Educating parents to feed their kids? #######. Great a "new program" How to feed your kids, Totally absurd. Very typical response from someoneone who is driven only by emotion.

Driven by emotion!? :lol: :lol:

What are you driven by Marc? Take a look back at your posts in this thread.... You'll find far more 'emotion' there than in the post you highlighted above.

I should have been clearer I guess. Decisions should not be made based on emotions.

Ok - but then what is your basis for wanting this program to be scrapped? Based on what you've said so far it sure isn't based on anything specific or factual. Making a decision based solely on rhetoric is about emotion, not logic.

My basis for (scrapping) a fine bit of rhetoric that word, would'nt you say? I prefer the words not needed! When a person some how can find the means to pay for their kids food when school is not in session and then when school starts they some how have no means to pay, is utter non-sense.

I can cook a better meal than any school can. And I do make my boys lunches when I have them on school nights. It's a known fact that 80 to 90% of all fruit and veggies in a typical school lunch goes in the garbage. I see alot of sympathy for the kids which is fine, never is there follow up comments on the responsibility of the parents.

Thank goodness some of you werent around when this country was in its infancy. My mom was raised in an orchard during the depression, her story alone is enough for me to understand where I dont want to be.

Now go have your FREE lunch. After all you DESERVE it. Right!

I don't want a free lunch. Neither do I want to scrap it (and no - one word is not rhetoric) on the basis of an anecdotal (this would be rhetorical) diatribe about your childhood. Rather like people who look back on the 1960's as some sort of golden-age while conveniently ignoring the many, significant problems of that era.

I wasnt talking about you! Your assumptions say alot. Your usage of the word "scrap" shows your stance on the subject. The use of the word "diatribe"is also negative in nature,AKA rhetoric. Your anonymity also shows a Psychological need to stay hidden. Whats with that? Do you have a name?

Teaching dependancy in any fashion or form will only lead to disaster.

The human race and its accomplishments were built on success, not dependancy. Maybe some of you don't mind your 35 year old adult-child kikin back with their x-box 360, askin when dinner is gonna be ready. Its your choice but please,stay outta my wallet.

Ummm yeah... I still don't see the substantive reasoning behind any of the above. "Stay outta my wallet" because you're "lazy", "kickin back", "dependent". All I see are a bunch of broad unqualified assumptions about the people whose kids benefit from this program. Amazing how you can render judgment on circumstances and behaviour based on participation in a program.

Pickin and twistin with five sylabols! Your middle name is arent I smart.

Your concentration is waning here

Just asking me you to 'show me the money' here. Honestly, it really isn't that hard - but each time you post its too throw out more "daddy knows best" rhetorical nonsense.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Number 6

[britbird 4]

All around the country, poor folks are saving up the money they would otherwise have spent on school lunches just to buy ipods, manicures, Lexus's and crack. It's an epidemic! Run for the hills!

Good grief, let the kids have a hot lunch and aim your fire at the things that really cost tax money: Wars, corporate corruption, pork, Congressional ineptness and runaway spending (how the hell can we legitimize spending billions of dollars on NASA, while not giving children some food?)

[Heracles 417]

I read a statement here that said it was a relief just knowing the program was there just in case they needed it. How the hec can you get any releif from knowing something exists? Counceling is in order here.

Have you ever been in the position where the proverbial rug gets pulled from under you? You go from being an affluent family with no financial worries to the ###### what do we do now? Even with planning and saving nothing could have prepared us for the ####### we went through the last year. NOTHING and I mean nothing prepared us for it. One minute you have insurance a baby on the way, groceries paid for out of your housekeeping and BOOM. No insurance, you don't qualify for help because you're not a citizen yet. EVERY little and I seriously mean every little helped. We learnt a huge lesson in being humble last year. The charities we donated to all these years were the ones we had to turn to. To make the house payment and utilities. Sure we could have sold the house for a loss, moved into an apt that would have been the easy way. We held on to the home we had built together, the sweat, blood and tears we didn't want to give up. I can't count how many times I broke down and just cried. Never did I ever imagine it could happen to us. Our relationship was pushed to the limits, at one point we weren't even sure we would make it.

I tell you, some of you don't realize how good you have it until you experienced what we did as a family. Don't get me wrong, I was where you all on the high and mighty throne are now at one point. I NEVER thought I would need assistance in any way. I worked from when I was 14 onwards. Provided for myself and for the dead beat first husband. All I can say is watch yourselves because you never know when the shoe is on the other foot and you're the ones left scrambling trying to hold everything together. Feed your families and keep a roof over your heads.

I think aid should be given in these situations. That is, it should be there for people who genuinely need it and are out of luck. To get back on their feet.

The problem with the current system is that there are a hell of a lot of people who abuse it and are basically fine with living off someone else's hard work. You see it all the time in Aus, a highly socialized nation. I remember seeing a news report where 21 year old skanky mothers, with 2+ kids, where complaining that the government does not do enough to help them. Even though they where receiving rent assistance as well as $300 in weekly payments. They never asked how can I get a job or even for free daycare, to work, but complained they are not getting enough money..

The level of poverty is similar between the US and AUS yet the Aus government probably provides people with 10 times the welfare and benefits. Which also says something considering healthcare is free and medicine is subsidized, capped at a few dollars, for the low income. Point being, throwing money or free ###### at people never gets them out of poverty. Various African nations are living proof of that..

Edited August 27, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[rebeccajo 14]

Well, my stance really is that the program is GOOD except for the abuse. I'm not against helping people when they need it. Resources aren't unlimited, so those who abuse the system take away from those who need it the most.

The poster may have been right as far as the WIC guidelines....but ask the questions before you call another poster a possible liar.

But the abuse you are citing is not of the free lunch program. It's of another program entirely.

[Heracles 417]

Viewing the forest from the trees, in the overall US budget sense; any child in need of food is a good investment of my tax dollar.

Issues related to the parents? Not part of the equation, as the child had no choice in the matter.

This is what I've been trying to say and certain people just don't get it. Why make the child suffer because of the parents who abuse the system?

Because the child then grows up and stays in the same cycle of poverty and dependency.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yes but if a parent abuses the system, should the the benefit be taken away from the child? Because this is what I'm reading some are advocating on this thread. I'm not sure you can force them to become responsible parents overnight.

Well that's not what *I'm* putting forth, but I am advocating checking all applicants first. Not like what one poster who works in the schools said - that a small percentage only gets checked.

And then if the child is still hungry, the child gets fed on the program & the money is billed to the family in some form of lien. No one should go hungry...but it is not the gov't responsibility to feed someone who would rather buy an ipod.

A lien on what? You can't get blood out of a turnip.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All around the country, poor folks are saving up the money they would otherwise have spent on school lunches just to buy ipods, manicures, Lexus's and crack. It's an epidemic! Run for the hills!

Good grief, let the kids have a hot lunch and aim your fire at the things that really cost tax money: Wars, corporate corruption, pork, Congressional ineptness and runaway spending (how the hell can we legitimize spending billions of dollars on NASA, while not giving children some food?)

Seriously. Is there any way we can discuss this program without making assumptions about the people who use it? (in the absence of concrete data). Seems to me that its rather a "bait and switch" argument.

[rebeccajo 14]

Viewing the forest from the trees, in the overall US budget sense; any child in need of food is a good investment of my tax dollar.

Issues related to the parents? Not part of the equation, as the child had no choice in the matter.

This is what I've been trying to say and certain people just don't get it. Why make the child suffer because of the parents who abuse the system?

Because the child then grows up and stays in the same cycle of poverty and dependency.

Now THAT is REALLY overreaching. I've seen the system work miracles in the exact opposite direction and I gave readers an example of it a few pages back.

You can sit here all day long with your jargon and rhetoric but you won't convince me. I've seen the 'system' work miracles with children.

Until you get out there and spend some real working time amidst these children of 'system abusers', don't come on here with your vapid nonsense telling me about how 'the system' works. You don't know diddly-squat.

Edited August 27, 2007 by rebeccajo