Free lunches at school

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

The word you are looking for here is 'perhaps'. And I'd say falling into a "cycle of poverty and dependency" is not something that's going to happen merely by taking advantage of a school meals program.

[JamalNTam 1]

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.

So your answer is to starve the child, because they MAY end up needing financial help in their lives??

Edited August 27, 2007 by JamalNTam

[Caladan 19]

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.

Is that supposed to be a benefit of taking away the lunch?

LisaD, they could send them a bill, but aside from expensive and probably inaccurate auditing, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. How are they going to track someone's frivolous expenses? By what they have? How are you going to tell a gift, a hand-me-down, or a thrift store purchase from someone who (frivolously!) bought clothes at the mall from a store that was too expensive?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

LisaD, they could send them a bill, but aside from expensive and probably inaccurate auditing, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. How are they going to track someone's frivolous expenses? By what they have? How are you going to tell a gift, a hand-me-down, or a thrift store purchase from someone who (frivolously!) bought clothes at the mall from a store that was too expensive?

The other (obvious) question regarding auditing is whether it would cost more money than it would save. If so - then that's a pretty solid reason for not doing it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

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.

Or possibly, the child gets a healthy meal, is able to concentrate and perform in school and break the cycle of poverty. Obviously, giving them a chance to buck the cycle of poverty isn't too high on your agenda.

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?)

I agree. Although I have always been happy to fund the space program. Congressional pork and earmarks is the biggest entitlement program of all.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

The meal at the coprporate office isn't free. It is earned.

[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.

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.

Well there's a lot of other assuming going on that those who are on the free lunch program are also abusing welfare, WIC and other programs - so I guess 'assuming' should allow for valid points in this discussion?

[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.

The meal at the coprporate office isn't free. It is earned.

In theory, sure.

[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.

So your answer is to starve the child, because they MAY end up needing financial help in their lives??

No. Personally I never said the kids should not be provided with lunch. The parents should be billed and allowed to pay over time. Unless they are ill or disabled.

What happens when they are on their 2nd or 3rd of 4th kid on free lunches??? Should the tax paper still be paying for these kids? No one seems to have a legitimate answer to this one. I am not saying if they fall on hard times in one hit but talking about someone who has a kid every year or so yet cannot afford it.

What about dead beat parents who walk out on or neglect their kids? Those kids should be provided with lunch but the parent/s should then be tracked down and forced to pay for it.

[Marilyn. 340]

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.

The meal at the coprporate office isn't free. It is earned.

we got a free lunch at one of the places I used to work and believe me some of the people who worked there didn't really earn their lunch they would constantly go for smoke breaks etc.... and when they weren't smoking they didn't really do a a lot of work.. I had to pick up their slack a lot of the time

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.

So your answer is to starve the child, because they MAY end up needing financial help in their lives??

No. Personally I never said the kids should not be provided with lunch. The parents should be billed and allowed to pay over time. Unless they are ill or disabled.

What happens when they are on their 2nd or 3rd of 4th kid on free lunches??? Should the tax paper still be paying for these kids? No one seems to have a legitimate answer to this one. I am not saying if they fall on hard times in one hit but talking about someone who has a kid every year or so yet cannot afford it.

What about dead beat parents who walk out on or neglect their kids? Those kids should be provided with lunch but the parent/s should then be tracked down and forced to pay for it.

all the lunches in this program aren't free.. some of them are low cost...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

So your answer is to starve the child, because they MAY end up needing financial help in their lives??

No. Personally I never said the kids should not be provided with lunch. The parents should be billed and allowed to pay over time. Unless they are ill or disabled.

What happens when they are on their 2nd or 3rd of 4th kid on free lunches??? Should the tax paper still be paying for these kids? No one seems to have a legitimate answer to this one. I am not saying if they fall on hard times in one hit but talking about someone who has a kid every year or so yet cannot afford it.

What about dead beat parents who walk out on or neglect their kids? Those kids should be provided with lunch but the parent/s should then be tracked down and forced to pay for it.

What about them? Honestly why do you always have to reach for the extreme and/or ridiculous to make a point? Do you actually have any facts and figures to show the extent of how this program is being abused and is a waste of taxpayers money?

all the lunches in this program aren't free.. some of them are low cost...

That's what I read too.

[Caladan 19]

Given that many people fall into poverty after having been able to afford their lifestyle due to illness or an unexpected layoff, which of their three or four children would you have them strangle so as to look responsible enough for you?

[Marilyn. 340]

How does the National School Lunch Program work?

Generally, public or nonprofit private schools of high school grade or under and public or nonprofit private residential child care institutions may participate in the school lunch program. School districts and independent schools that choose to take part in the lunch program get cash subsidies and donated commodities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lunches that meet Federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced price lunches to eligible children. School food authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in after-school educational or enrichment programs.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLun...LPFactSheet.pdf

How do children qualify for free and reduced-price meals?

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.

After-school snacks are provided to children on the same income eligibility basis as school meals. However, programs that operate in areas where at least 50 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals may serve all their snacks for free.

Edited August 27, 2007 by MarilynP

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

i want free cable!

[Sinergy 3]

lunches in school are expensive.

My daughters in Middle School and the regular lunch is nastey. So to have a salad and fruit and water she spends almost 4$ a day. I make her lunch as well but sometimes she would just like to get lunch there. If they lowered prices for the GOOD FOOD, moms who are working our butts off and the only one in the home working, would be able to afford our kids to eat better.

its almost like eating healthier is being punished.

also not being a bitty, but i think if you have kids, you appreciate free lunches so much better bc you understand and your dealing with it.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Ionescu