Free lunches at school

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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?

Rhetoric? I think not. its quite simple. They can feed them in the summer but not during the school year?

"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?

Seems your making bald judgements of me. All the while critisising my judgements of others. Twist and shout 6.

[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?

Rhetoric? I think not. its quite simple. They can feed them in the summer but not during the school year?

"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?

Seems your making bald judgements of me. All the while critisising my judgements of others. Twist and shout 6.

Well if you don't like it being done to you - why do you insist on doing it to others? That's not hard to understand is it?

None of it changes the fact that your stance on this issue (from what you presented so far) - has an entirely rhetorical (as opposed to factual) basis.

[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.

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.

Steve, so where does I feel sorry for him help?

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

"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.

Self reliance is a great thing and being too dependent on outside support can be a form of slavery - I agree. But it's silly to say someone should never rely on another. There are a multitude of unforeseeable circumstances that you yourself could find yourself in and I'd pity you if you hung on that belief instead of swallowing your pride if you had to ask someone to feed your kids because you couldn't.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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?

Rhetoric? I think not. its quite simple. They can feed them in the summer but not during the school year?

"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?

Seems your making bald judgements of me. All the while critisising my judgements of others. Twist and shout 6.

Well if you don't like it being done to you - why do you insist on doing it to others? That's not hard to understand is it?

None of it changes the fact that your stance on this issue (from what you presented so far) - has an entirely rhetorical (as opposed to factual) basis.

6, you havent even addressed the initial question. Who feeds these poor kids during the summer? Its a bullshite program. If the parents have the ability to feed the kids during summer break and all other holidays then they obviously can feed them year round. Answer it!

[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.

Self reliance is a great thing and being too dependent on outside support can be a form of slavery - I agree. But it's silly to say someone should never rely on another. There are a multitude of unforeseeable circumstances that you yourself could find yourself in and I'd pity you if you hung on that belief instead of swallowing your pride if you had to ask someone to feed your kids because you couldn't.

Steve, you just described "LIFE"

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steve, Imagine dialing 911 and you get no answer. What are you gonna do?

Live it.

[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?

Rhetoric? I think not. its quite simple. They can feed them in the summer but not during the school year?

"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?

Seems your making bald judgements of me. All the while critisising my judgements of others. Twist and shout 6.

Well if you don't like it being done to you - why do you insist on doing it to others? That's not hard to understand is it?

None of it changes the fact that your stance on this issue (from what you presented so far) - has an entirely rhetorical (as opposed to factual) basis.

6, you havent even addressed the initial question. Who feeds these poor kids during the summer? Its a bullshite program. If the parents have the ability to feed the kids during summer break and all other holidays then they obviously can feed them year round. Answer it!

They feed them through the summer because there's no other choice. That doesn't mean this program doesn't have a place. You're implying that everyone who makes use of these sorts of programs is lazy. Again - that's outrageous, and without any factual basis. At least none you have presented thus far.

Steve, Imagine dialing 911 and you get no answer. What are you gonna do?

Not call you.

Or expect to take a piss on a burning man.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

PB and J is not healthy. Especially if it's on white bread.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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?

Rhetoric? I think not. its quite simple. They can feed them in the summer but not during the school year?

"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?

Seems your making bald judgements of me. All the while critisising my judgements of others. Twist and shout 6.

Well if you don't like it being done to you - why do you insist on doing it to others? That's not hard to understand is it?

None of it changes the fact that your stance on this issue (from what you presented so far) - has an entirely rhetorical (as opposed to factual) basis.

6, you havent even addressed the initial question. Who feeds these poor kids during the summer? Its a bullshite program. If the parents have the ability to feed the kids during summer break and all other holidays then they obviously can feed them year round. Answer it!

They feed them through the summer because there's no other choice. That doesn't mean this program doesn't have a place. You're implying that everyone who makes use of these sorts of programs is lazy. Again - that's outrageous, and without any factual basis. At least none you have presented thus far.

I dont recall saying anyone was lazy, except you. hmmmmm.

Steve, Imagine dialing 911 and you get no answer. What are you gonna do?

Not call you.

Or expect to take a piss on a burning man.

I wouldnt piss on him, I would use a fire extinguisher.

Corners are a biotch, huh.

Edited August 25, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What corner is that? That just because a family at or below the poverty line has to feed their kids in the summer months that this means that they don't need these sorts of programmes to supplement a meagre income? Yes Marc - those people on low incomes are all lazy. Yes - that's the answer If you believe that you are more ridiculous than a case of fruitloops

Noone said this was about starvation - you seem to have jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. As far as schools go - what do you think the extra money is intended for? At a guess I'd say school supplies and supplementary activities.

Moreover, I wonder why you are so gung-ho about this when it has no impact whatsoever on your daily life.

[Elphie 0]

Im working in my community to eliminate the program.

You must be so proud of yourself that you want take a meal, perhaps the only hot meal they will receive that day, from a child. What kind of person are you? Are you even human? I'm sure there are some people who take advantage of it, but there are some people who really need it. You say you shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids, but are you so insensitive that you would begrudge a child? It's so easy for you to say that you are working to eliminate the program in your community, after all, you wouldn't be the one to tell a child...I'm sorry, but because your parents can't afford to pay for your lunch, you aren't going to be able to have it.

Something was also said about about overweight children. On average, children in the lowest income group are the ones who have the highest fat content on their bodies. It is because they are fed junk for the most part at home because...as we all know....junk food is cheap. It costs a lot more to buy healthy foods. Money that either the parents don't have...or in a lot of cases the parents aren't willing to spend on their children.

I am tired of children being the ones who are sh*t on day after day by adults who are supposed to take care of them. So sit there and be proud of yourself for stating this, after all, you won't really be the one who pays for it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Im working in my community to eliminate the program.

You must be so proud of yourself that you want take a meal, perhaps the only hot meal they will receive that day, from a child. What kind of person are you? Are you even human? I'm sure there are some people who take advantage of it, but there are some people who really need it. You say you shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids, but are you so insensitive that you would begrudge a child? It's so easy for you to say that you are working to eliminate the program in your community, after all, you wouldn't be the one to tell a child...I'm sorry, but because your parents can't afford to pay for your lunch, you aren't going to be able to have it.

Something was also said about about overweight children. On average, children in the lowest income group are the ones who have the highest fat content on their bodies. It is because they are fed junk for the most part at home because...as we all know....junk food is cheap. It costs a lot more to buy healthy foods. Money that either the parents don't have...or in a lot of cases the parents aren't willing to spend on their children.

I am tired of children being the ones who are sh*t on day after day by adults who are supposed to take care of them. So sit there and be proud of yourself for stating this, after all, you won't really be the one who pays for it.

Bleeding heart? What have you done lately? Feeling sorry doesnt fill a stomach.

Edited August 25, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

What corner is that? That just because a family at or below the poverty line has to feed their kids in the summer months that this means that they don't need these sorts of programmes to supplement a meagre income? Yes Marc - those people on low incomes are all lazy. Yes - that's the answer If you believe that you are more ridiculous than a case of fruitloops

Noone said this was about starvation - you seem to have jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. As far as schools go - what do you think the extra money is intended for? At a guess I'd say school supplies and supplementary activities.

Moreover, I wonder why you are so gung-ho about this when it has no impact whatsoever on your daily life.

Still no answer on who feeds these poor kids during the summer months. Show me some kids starving in america. That isnt the fault of the parent.

[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.

Steve, so where does I feel sorry for him help?

Offering a free lunch to children who need one is an action, not an emotion, regardless of the motivation behind it. It seems you are stuck on the motivation(s) as to why someone should or shouldn't need help, but I think the current method of basing that need on someone's income is a pretty good measurement.

Perhaps you'd like to know whether the kid's mother has never been married? Or that she didn't plan her pregnancies? Or that she can't seem to get her act together? My answer to that is - in the end, it's the child that suffers, regardless of who's mostly at fault (deadbeat dads, drug and alcoholic parents, etc). There are losers who are parents out there - we wouldn't have orphanages, shelters, and CPS without them. What can you do about those kinds of people? Short of something radical, like sterilization, the best way to prevent people from being irresponsible parents is through prevention. But again, Marc, you're making all kinds of presumptions about a parent's motivations if you think that because their children receive a free or reduced lunch while at school, those parents are irresponsible.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Mister Fancypants