Free lunches at school

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

I think discounted, subsidized lunches should remain available for those who need them.

These types of programs are set in place for US Tax payers & LEGAL residnets who are burdened with financial problems. Unfortunatly wuith all the ILLEGAL Aliens having Anchor babies and flooding schols, & other public services without contributing anything into the system are jepordising the future existance of these types of programs, the same way quality education is suffering and hospitals are forced to close & Helath insurance premiums are at record highs where over 20% of US Citizen households are without medical Insurance.

Some parents may have gone through life changing circumstances that put them in thier financial position. Thier children should be able to get some type of subsidized lunch program. I agree that if a family is not able to support itself they should not continue to have children, but what if the time they had children they were financial independent and something out of their control put them in financial hardship, say medical bills or loss of Job?

I think recipients of these & other social programs should have to provide documentation on an annual basis showing they qualify for such programs.

These kinds of programs are suffering for many reasons which is why there needs to be a craack down on those receiving social benefits that aren't in this country legally.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

There was a poster here who works in a school, who told how a majority of the free lunch applicants aren't tested, how they have ipods and whatnot....my lil story was just a spawn off of a conversation that has taken several turns.

School lunches are a means tested benefit.

[SteveLaura 0]

A few points then I've really got to do some work:

1) In an ideal world, every child would be planned, wanted and the parents financially responsible and mature enough to cope with having an extra mouth to feed. Back in the real world, this doesn't happen and saying what should happen is futile. Unless anyone is arguing that people should have a license to have kids (and I haven't read that so far), then I'm not sure what the point is being made here.

2) In the same way that businesses take into account losses due to theft and yet still manage to make a profit, welfare programs should (if they don't already) take into account that they are open to abuse. Not everyone going into a store is a shoplifter. Not everyone filing taxes is fiddling the system. Not everyone claiming school meals or welfare is committing fraud. The fact that a few do does not mean you dispose of the whole system.

3) There are bigger fish to fry. Programs such as these help those in need to be a little better off. Any abuse, I'd wager, is a drop in the ocean when compared with the some of the tax-dodging abuses that some companies get away with. Not for need, mind you, but for greed.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

There was a poster here who works in a school, who told how a majority of the free lunch applicants aren't tested, how they have ipods and whatnot....my lil story was just a spawn off of a conversation that has taken several turns.

School lunches are a means tested benefit.

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.

Since the federal minimum wage is 5.85 per hour it is possible for 2 working parents to have to rely on this benefit.

[Fandango 1,439]

There was a poster here who works in a school, who told how a majority of the free lunch applicants aren't tested, how they have ipods and whatnot....my lil story was just a spawn off of a conversation that has taken several turns.

School lunches are a means tested benefit.

I'm sorry robin, I meant verified/checked.

[almaty 19]

A few points then I've really got to do some work:

1) In an ideal world, every child would be planned, wanted and the parents financially responsible and mature enough to cope with having an extra mouth to feed. Back in the real world, this doesn't happen and saying what should happen is futile. Unless anyone is arguing that people should have a license to have kids (and I haven't read that so far), then I'm not sure what the point is being made here.

2) In the same way that businesses take into account losses due to theft and yet still manage to make a profit, welfare programs should (if they don't already) take into account that they are open to abuse. Not everyone going into a store is a shoplifter. Not everyone filing taxes is fiddling the system. Not everyone claiming school meals or welfare is committing fraud. The fact that a few do does not mean you dispose of the whole system.

3) There are bigger fish to fry. Programs such as these help those in need to be a little better off. Any abuse, I'd wager, is a drop in the ocean when compared with the some of the tax-dodging abuses that some companies get away with. Not for need, mind you, but for greed.

amen brother steven...

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

There was a poster here who works in a school, who told how a majority of the free lunch applicants aren't tested, how they have ipods and whatnot....my lil story was just a spawn off of a conversation that has taken several turns.

School lunches are a means tested benefit.

I'm sorry robin, I meant verified/checked.

Well, they should be verified. But I don't want to see a program such as this mired in bureaucracy either

[britbird 4]

Cost of National Free Lunch Program in 2006: $8.2 billion

Cost of Federal Pork Barrel spending in 2006: $29 billion

I know which spending battle I'd rather fight.

Anyone who wants to take lunch away from a child needs to take a step back and realize what is truly important in terms of societal change. Punishing those who cannot make the change (the children) is cruel and logically unsound.

[almaty 19]

Cost of National Free Lunch Program in 2006: $8.2 billion

Cost of Federal Pork Barrel spending in 2006: $29 billion

I know which spending battle I'd rather fight.

Anyone who wants to take lunch away from a child needs to take a step back and realize what is truly important in terms of societal change. Punishing those who cannot make the change (the children) is cruel and logically unsound.

total agreement....i know allot of big companies like haliburton got more than free lunches

[Heracles 417]

Cost of National Free Lunch Program in 2006: $8.2 billion

Cost of Federal Pork Barrel spending in 2006: $29 billion

I know which spending battle I'd rather fight.

Anyone who wants to take lunch away from a child needs to take a step back and realize what is truly important in terms of societal change. Punishing those who cannot make the change (the children) is cruel and logically unsound.

Taking away free lunch does not literally mean not feeding the kids. It means no 'free' lunch. Therefore the parent will receive the bill for their kids lunches. Pay it off in 5 years if need be. Or is that also too much to ask..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

School lunches are a means tested benefit.

Just a few pages ago, it apparently wasn't.

Just thought I'd throw in the little technical curve that school lunches are not a means tested benefit...

Change happens rather quickly sometimes...

[britbird 4]

the costs involved in going after parents to pay for the lunches after the fact, and the additional bureaucracy needed to fund that would in all likelihood cost more for taxpayers than the initial cost of the free or subsidized lunch.

[SteveLaura 0]

Eligibility guidance for school meals - pdf

From my quick skimming of this, it seems that parents must show proof of income to be eligible. There is also the possibility of someone being eligible for a temporary period (for lay-offs, for example) and the school following up 45 days later. Verification is done on a randon sampling of 3% of the applicants. Not dissimilar to auditing taxes, I would imagine.

Edited August 27, 2007 by SteveLaura

[Lyuba 0]

I am shocked.

America already has so few social benefits that taking the free lunches away seems like a crime. The majority of developed (and some not so developed) countries have state paid pensions, free medical care, free higher education, paid maternity leave, etc. and nobody there is even thinking about removing free lunches!

America has money to pay for this terrible war but none to help its own citizens.

Not everybody who is poor is lazy. Terrible things happen to good people.

I do my own nails and they look beautiful. A woman wants to feel attractive even if she is poor.

PS My mom was a single mom and she raised two kids my herself. My brother and I both have master's degrees and we turned out to be just fine. It wouldn't have happened without free medical care, free school lunches, free day care and free college. Trust me.

[Heracles 417]

the costs involved in going after parents to pay for the lunches after the fact, and the additional bureaucracy needed to fund that would in all likelihood cost more for taxpayers than the initial cost of the free or subsidized lunch.

A school is a place for kids to learn and not a childcare center. Many people seem to forget that.

I also love how the people who pay the most tax always get the least out of government services.