Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it is a good program... Personally, I don't think ANY students should have to pay for lunch at school... supper is definitely a bonus... I wish I could be wealthy enough to pay all the student lunches...
No, they don't have to pay. Their parents can send them to school with a bagged lunch. What a concept.
And, again.....school breakfasts, school lunches, (now) school dinners, summer meal programs when school's out of session.....yet no decrease in the SNAP benefit.
No, they don't have to pay. Their parents can send them to school with a bagged lunch. What a concept.
And, again.....school breakfasts, school lunches, (now) school dinners, summer meal programs when school's out of session.....yet no decrease in the SNAP benefit.
Increase, not decrease.
I posted a link about the changing trends in SNAP.
The majority of SNAP is now used by working people.
Low wage service jobs doesn't cut it and they need SNAP.
Im not even bothering to write a new post answering the same illogical question so here is a copy paste job
Whenever the food gets eaten at home, that student and the family still ate the food.
The food stamp program exists to provide food to a family for a month. This food can be eaten at any hour in that month, any day of that month etc.
You create this weird and strange understanding of the program and then carry it to double dipping and all of these weird projections that don't make sense because the goal of the program is to provide food for families for one month at a time, not for specific meals and not for specific times. You don't have to sign a food stamp pledge that you'll eat lunch on Tuesdays at 12noon. SMH
And the students are in school for 35hrs out of a 168hr week. This idea that they have no time to eat at home is a joke. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Regardless of how one feels about public assistance, it does seem that Informed Consent makes perfect sense about the "double dipping."
Iamme, in your post I quoted, you are assuming that all of the extra SNAP benefits (that are available because the children ate many of their meals at school) are still being used for good to feed the family. Well, they could certainly be selling the extra benefits, they could be buying more expensive food than really necessary, they may be buying more food than the family needs and becoming overweight, who knows? But Informed Consent (and others) are saying that if each child is eating 10-15 meals a week at school (or even more when food is given by the school for the child to take home for the weekend) then they do not need the same amount of SNAP as if they were providing all 21 meals a week at home. I don't understand how anyone could dispute that.
I'm not saying this is the most egregious waste of taxpayer dollars that anyone could cite. I'm not saying that children should not have food to eat. But I am having a hard time understand how anyone could dispute IC's "double dipping" claim.
It would be like having my health insurance company pay for me to get my 90-day supply of prescription meds from my mail-order pharmacy, then also pay for a month's worth as my local pharmacy during that same time frame, just because I want to stock up on extra pills. They've already provided for what I need. They will not pay for extra refills. (not a perfect analogy, but I'm trying to give you another way to look at this double dipping thing).
so it's not a problem unless 100% of the kids get both?
It's not a problem for me at all. I applaud the school for offering this small "reward" to those students that participate in extra-curricular activities.
Too often the focus is on what schools don't do, kids dropping out, etc. it's nice to read an article that provides a positive message.
It is a real shame that people want/need to turn it into something negative.
The point I was making is that people are making a lot of assumptions without any proof.
A thought: El Paso is a border town. It is also the home of Fort Bliss. By the logic illustrated by some in this thread, one would conclude that since El Paso is a border town Fort Bliss must be populated by SNAP-collecting leeches.
Now, I do know for a fact that there are military members that do receive SNAP. Does that mean all of them do?
No.
It's not a problem for me at all. I applaud the school for offering this small "reward" to those students that participate in extra-curricular activities.
Too often the focus is on what schools don't do, kids dropping out, etc. it's nice to read an article that provides a positive message.
It is a real shame that people want/need to turn it into something negative.
The point I was making is that people are making a lot of assumptions without any proof.
A thought: El Paso is a border town. It is also the home of Fort Bliss. By the logic illustrated by some in this thread, one would conclude that since El Paso is a border town Fort Bliss must be populated by SNAP-collecting leeches.
Now, I do know for a fact that there are military members that do receive SNAP. Does that mean all of them do?
No.
Well you can read facts, data and demographics published by the government to get your answers or you can just make up stuff about Ft Bliss personnel.
But this "dinner" is served between 4:00 and 4:30. Do some people actually eat dinner that early? These students can't throw a granola bar or piece of fruit into their backpack to hold them over until they get home?
I was involved in plenty of after-school activities as a teenager. It never occurred to me or my friends that the SCHOOL should provide dinner for us.
Does no one value self-sufficiency anymore? Do people truly think it is in the best interest of our nation to continue creating dependency on the government for the simplest of things, like being sure your hunger pangs at 4:00 are satisfied? I find it frightening that so many here see nothing wrong with this attitude of helplessness and increased dependency on (translated: control by) the government.
Yes some people eat dinner at 4:30, but the time is immaterial. So why make it a point of emphasis? The school is going to pick a time to serve food and that's the time they choose.
You all are losing this argument that is why instead of dealing with meat of the program you are nibbling at the margins of it or changing the subject.
The basic reality is it makes perfect sense for a school to feed all students who participate in after school programs and who may not have eaten for hours.
This fact is so logical and so rational that there is no controversy. So the focus on the time of the meal which is irrelevant.
I don't care what you did as a teenager in school. This is yet another illogical and irrelevant point.
So schools forever and ever can only function how they functioned while you were in school? What kind of point is that to make? Oh an irrelevant one.
Oh the old lie of self sufficiency and government dependency. Yet another irrelevant point and a distraction.
Here are very simple questions that matter.
Do you think schools should feed students while they are in school?
Hell do you think public schools should exist?
How about Public universities?
Public utilities?
Public roads and highways?
How about social security?
How about the military?
How about the Medicare?
How about a police and fire department?
How about public hospitals?
Here is what I find so fake and phony about these dumb arguments about government dependency, all around us we are dependent on the government in incalculable ways, and people are 1000% ok with that dependency. Hell they don't even see it as dependency and don't even see it when talking about the government.
For some people the ONLY time they see government dependency is when they believe the government is helping people they hate and who they don't want the government to help.
Yes some people eat dinner at 4:30, but the time is immaterial. So why make it a point of emphasis. The school is going to pick a time to serve food and that's the time they choose.
You all are losing this argument
No, we're not. We've made a very clear case that taxpayers are paying for the same meals for free school meal kids twice, once in food stamps and then a 2nd time for their free school meals.
Since the parents aren't feeding the kids with the expensive food stamp program, it would be better to just end that whole farce and just allow the schools to provide them all their meals -- and cut the lazy do-nothing parents off.
You seem to think that each individual is getting a whooping sum of money with food stamps. Just how much does the government allocate per person for food? And how about providing some proof that they are all lazy do-nothing parents?
Regardless of how one feels about public assistance, it does seem that Informed Consent makes perfect sense about the "double dipping."
Iamme, in your post I quoted, you are assuming that all of the extra SNAP benefits (that are available because the children ate many of their meals at school) are still being used for good to feed the family. Well, they could certainly be selling the extra benefits, they could be buying more expensive food than really necessary, they may be buying more food than the family needs and becoming overweight, who knows? But Informed Consent (and others) are saying that if each child is eating 10-15 meals a week at school (or even more when food is given by the school for the child to take home for the weekend) then they do not need the same amount of SNAP as if they were providing all 21 meals a week at home. I don't understand how anyone could dispute that.
That is actually a very interesting point.
Obesity is a huge (no pun intended) problem among lower-income individuals and families. Double-dipping by receiving free meals at school and receiving food stamp benefits that are supposed to be used to provide those same meals at/from home could very well be exacerbating the problem.
Quote:
"Obesity rates increased by 10 percent for all U.S. children 10- to 17-years old between 2003 and 2007, but by 23 percent during the same time period for low-income children (Singh et al., 2010a). This national study of more than 40,000 children also found that in 2007, children from lower income households had more than two times higher odds of being obese than children from higher income households.
Rates of severe obesity were approximately 1.7 times higher among poor children and adolescents in a nationally representative sample of more than 12,000 children aged 2 to 19 years (Skelton et al., 2009)."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.