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 am a conservative, but I am perfectly OK with investing in kids (aka our future generations and tax payers). They are my/our future doctors, engineers, and tax payers.
But you cannot send them to school and expect them to perform with an empty stomach.
I'm not.
It's not my responsibility to clothe, feed, and educate other peoples' kids.
Right, and most people don’t realize that it is much cheaper to pay for free breakfast/lunch for 13 years than it is to pay for someone who did poorly in school (or dropped out) for life because they had behavior problems, couldn’t concentrate, or had other issues because they were hungry. It isn’t the children’s faults that they couldn’t have food. Why are we punishing them for their parents’ incompetence?
Why are hard working taxpayers being punished with higher taxes to cover these parent's incompetence? Isn't it enough that they get food stamps to feed their families along with SNAP, etc. Why enable the parents to remain negligent?
Our government does the same thing with illegal aliens by allowing their kids to attend our schools and other incentives to come here illegally. The Democrats in congress are encouraging the lazy to remain so with their socialistic agendas also. Stop enabling them!
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.
Kids being what they are - let it be. Packed lunches are tricky if don’t use a ice pack -they got hot and bacteria can grow. But they hide them, forget the lunch boxes and actually ashamed of it. 2- a warm meal is better. Unfortunately those with a peanut butter sand maybe poor and that singles him/her out. I agree - let the taxes pay for the school lunches, they already cheat them out of so much more. And last age. PreTeens etc aren’t doing it
Why are we penalizing the rest of us (or at least the 50% who actually bear the tax burden) for the parents’ irresponsibility? The ingredients for a simple lunch each day for a week are less than a pack of cigarettes or a bottle or two of malt liquor. Let the parents make that choice.
Unfortunately, in way too many cases they have made a choice and it’s “My cigs and beer are more important than my kid eating”. When that happens, unless you are suggesting the kid go beg on the street, steal it, or sell their body, the kid has no way of feeding themselves. For years and years I bought school lunches or brought food to keep in my classroom.
In our quest to normalize unwed parenthood we have created a system that rewards having and keeping children that the mother (and/or father) is currently psychologically unsuitable to raise. Sadly, many of these failing parents would have been in a reasonable position to parent if they had just waited a few years or if they had married first.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Unfortunately, in way too many cases they have made a choice and it’s “My cigs and beer are more important than my kid eatingâ€. When that happens, unless you are suggesting the kid go beg on the street, steal it, or sell their body, the kid has no way of feeding themselves. For years and years I bought school lunches or brought food to keep in my classroom.
In our quest to normalize unwed parenthood we have created a system that rewards having and keeping children that the mother (and/or father) is currently psychologically unsuitable to raise. Sadly, many of these failing parents would have been in a reasonable position to parent if they had just waited a few years or if they had married first.
Then when it is known that a parent is not feeding their kids properly one should place a call to the authorities and have them removed from those homes then and put in foster card. It's child abuse and they are just being enabled by all all of these bleeding heart handouts at the taxpayer's expense.
Then when it is known that a parent is not feeding their kids properly one should place a call to the authorities and have them removed from those homes then and put in foster card. It's child abuse and they are just being enabled by all all of these bleeding heart handouts at the taxpayer's expense.
Who do you think pays for foster care because it ain't free? Kids placed in foster care qualify for FARM (school meals) automatically as well as SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid. That's not counting the payments made to foster parents (in Maryland it was about $1100/month/kid when I was teaching [we had several foster kids in the school is how I know]) with some parents having 4 or 5 fosters, do the math. One woman had 9 kids living with her.
Who do you think pays for foster care because it ain't free? Kids placed in foster care qualify for FARM (school meals) automatically as well as SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid. That's not counting the payments made to foster parents (in Maryland it was about $1100/month/kid when I was teaching [we had several foster kids in the school is how I know]) with some parents having 4 or 5 fosters, do the math. One woman had 9 kids living with her.
Then people need to be taught responsible breeding or penalized for not doing so. There should be a limit on the number of their kids we taxpayers have to support. What we are doing is not working but just enabling irresponsible adults to breed like there is no tomorrow because they know the taxpayer will have to care for their broods.
Kids aren't hungry and you have no proof they are. Food is plentiful and readily available in America and no one is starving. This isn't a 3rd world country so stop with the fake drama.
Children aren't going to school hungry. That's something you made up and have no proof.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
But as I said, wouldn't their parents be on food stamps if they are too poor to feed their own kids? So what excuse is there for them not eating breakfast at home and bringing a sack lunch to school? As I said, it's double dipping into our tax coffers.
It is not double dipping, because SNAP provides enough money for some meals, but not all. The S in SNAP stands for "supplemental".
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.
