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 get the free and reduced paperwork every year. I looked at it for the first time. There is an income chart and if you make under $x, you qualify. AND if you are a migrant. No income requirements at all.
I just looked and can't find anything about "migrants" on the form
Not denying there's misuse and fraud, I saw too much over the years, but I don't think that particular statement is accurate. The reality is that immigrants fill out the paperwork without being questioned about immigration status. That's across the board in schools.
Not denying there's misuse and fraud, I saw too much over the years, but I don't think that particular statement is accurate. The reality is that immigrants fill out the paperwork without being questioned about immigration status. That's across the board in schools.
I looked at the federal site and I didn't see it so it must be local. Not sure if it's a district thing or a state thing. Tried to copy and paste from the application but it is a PDF. It says 'children who meet the definition of homeless, runaway or migrant also qualify...'
I looked at the federal site and I didn't see it so it must be local. Not sure if it's a district thing or a state thing. Tried to copy and paste from the application but it is a PDF. It says 'children who meet the definition of homeless, runaway or migrant also qualify...'
OK. Homeless have been qualified forever, as have runaways (who, let's face it, are likely not in school). Children in foster care are also automatics. The migrant piece may have been added due to the widespread "fear" in the immigrant community.
Here's the reality, like or not. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of kids who come from backgrounds so dysfunctional they don't get fed on a regular basis. Here's something else, they're not all from the poor or underclass. I taught, as I've mentioned, at a middle/upper middle class school which had its fair share of highly educated, highly paid, important job holding dysfunctional parents. Some was due to substance issues but some, honest to God, I don't know why. They'd come tooling into school in their $70K cars and their kids would be wearing rags (we were, at parental insistence, a uniform school), wouldn't have lunch money and could barely function in a school setting.
Its easy to pretend you're king the moral universe when spending someone elses money.
Okay, so if we're keeping score so closely, what about the current and past retirees who are extracting much more from social security and medicare than they ever came close to putting into the system, while the younger generations currently working, or who will be soon, are going to be getting shafted out of money they put in or will be putting in soon?
Aren't they spending the younger generations' money, and the kids in school now who will be working to supposedly only have a fraction of the money they're putting into the system returned to them?
This is only one example, but people like criticizing "welfare" programs when it seems like they are only benefitting someone else, even if that's not really an accurate reality.
If we're really keeping score this closely (bean counting...literally), maybe there's a moral argument for giving these kids filet mignon and lobster (something people on food stamps are supposedly buying at the grocery store) for lunch rather than creamed corn and chicken strips.
Some of the rules got changed.
Remember that income sheet you had to fill out for your kids to see if they qualified for free/reduced lunch ? And only those that did got the free/reduced lunch.
Well now, if a school has 40% of the students receiving some type of welfare benefit the entire school gets free lunch.
It's called "universal free lunch"
Which is ridiculous! Those who can afford to feed their own kids should! Those who can't shouldn't have kids in the first place.
Okay, so if we're keeping score so closely, what about the current and past retirees who are extracting much more from social security and medicare than they ever came close to putting into the system, while the younger generations currently working, or who will be soon, are going to be getting shafted out of money they put in or will be putting in soon?
Aren't they spending the younger generations' money, and the kids in school now who will be working to supposedly only have a fraction of the money they're putting into the system returned to them?
This is only one example, but people like criticizing "welfare" programs when it seems like they are only benefitting someone else, even if that's not really an accurate reality.
If we're really keeping score this closely (bean counting...literally), maybe there's a moral argument for giving these kids filet mignon and lobster (something people on food stamps are supposedly buying at the grocery store) for lunch rather than creamed corn and chicken strips.
Past retirees did receive more in Social Security than they put in-that would be the Greatest Generation that lived through the Great Depression, won WW II and came home to start offshoring jobs when the got control of industry.
The Baby Boom, on the other hand, will receive less than they put in, a fact known for a couple decades but ignored by you.
It’s not because of Hurricane Harvey, it’s because a large percentage of the students attending the school qualify for free and reduced lunch. It’s part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
I live in an area impacted pretty hard by Hurricane Harvey two years ago.
Our school district has once again received federal grant money to continue providing free breakfast and free lunches.
Now, I can kind of understand allowing families to apply for and receive such assistance (kind of) who have lost practically everything; however, just like last year, ALL students receive free breakfast and free lunch regardless if you had any losses or not.
When people, and schools, are offered stuff for free, it's hard to blame them for taking it. My problem is with the federal government continuing to take tax money from people in places like Arizona or Maine and using it to provide free food for two years to my kids. We CHOSE to move to a place where hurricanes are pretty much guaranteed, so it's my belief that since we CHOSE to take that risk people in other places shouldn't be on the hook for my CHOICE to take that risk.
Obviously, this isn't something that is going to be unique. I'd bet good money the federal government gives away billions upon billions of dollar via such programs.
BTW, no, my kids are not eating the free lunches, we pack lunches for them each day.
When the Feds spend trillions on mucking up Iraq and Afghanistan, and gives a trillion dollar tax cut to mostly people who don't need it ---- it's pretty darned petty to grose about helping kids get a meal that they otherwise would have difficulty getting.
When the Feds spend trillions on mucking up Iraq and Afghanistan,
Yet you have no problem electing the war monger in chief who keeps us involved in these foreign wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris
and gives a trillion dollar tax cut to mostly people who don't need it ---- it's pretty darned petty to grose about helping kids get a meal that they otherwise would have difficulty getting.
The Middle Class got a tax cut. To ignore that is typical lefty garbage. Much like the deceitful way they portray those on welfare as being impoverished.
Food is plentiful and easy to get in America.
The kids are not having a hard time eating. Look at the little pudgeballs. The tremors you feel at ~3pm aren't because of fracking. The obese little kids are waddling to their mommys cars to be driven home because they are too fat to walk home without keeling over.
As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
Despite impressions to the contrary, most of the poor do not experience under nutrition, hunger, or food shortages. Information on these topics is collected by the household food security survey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA survey shows that in 2009:
83% of those in poverty said they never went without a meal.
Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
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.
