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.
Why not charge .20 for breakfast and .25 for lunch? At least they can feel like they are taking from the middle class that gets killed on ALL of these kind of things. Just like college. I have to pay out full boat in every direction and we are talking about $100,000! Of course the super poor get a ride or all kinds of help. The super rich can just write a check and find a way to write it off in some deal. They should have a cheap fee, not free.
Why not charge .20 for breakfast and .25 for lunch? At least they can feel like they are taking from the middle class that gets killed on ALL of these kind of things. Just like college. I have to pay out full boat in every direction and we are talking about $100,000! Of course the super poor get a ride or all kinds of help. The super rich can just write a check and find a way to write it off in some deal. They should have a cheap fee, not free.
I agree. But of course I'm sure you'll get replies such as "even 20 or 25 cents per day is too much to pay for the poor".
I think that the vast majority of people agree that feeding hungry children is inherently a good thing. However, what I believe some people are trying to express is that while the feeding of hungry children helps the immediate problem, it does not resolve the systemic problem of poverty.
How can we help the parents of these children climb above the poverty line? How do we address the problem of people who, out of complacency or preference, choose to subsist on government programs? How do we help people make better decisions?
I am sure that there are some parents out there who cannot afford to feed their children, yet they smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. In my opinion, that is a poor choice.
I was in line behind someone at the grocery store who was paying via food stamps, and she purchased ten twelve-packs of soda. I would consider that a poor choice.
If the schools will now be giving free lunches to all students, how much more money will be spent overall? I would guess that the cost of all the additional free meals would exceed any savings generated by the reduction of paper work in September. Could that additional money being spent be put to better use? Could that money be used to help those who are truly in-need in other areas?
While providing lunch to everyone might prevent stigma in the lunch line, I am sure kids use other cues to determine who is well-off and who is not-so-well-off. Moreover, if everything is done electronically, the free lunch kids should be anonymous.
I was fortunate, and I never had to worry about there being food on the table or a roof over my head. Throughout my elementary school career, I ate a PB&J sandwich, an apple, milk or juice in a thermos, and two or three Chips-a-hoy cookies, which was packed in a lunchbox or brown bag. At today's prices, I would estimate this lunch would cost less than $1. While I know it is a sad truth, it is hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that people can't afford a dollar a day to send their kid to school with lunch. I am totally for feeding hungry kids, but I also wish more could be done to help their parents to end the cycle of poverty.
Status:
"**** YOU IBGINNIE, NAZI"
(set 16 days ago)
2,401 posts, read 2,101,983 times
Reputation: 2321
It's worse now than it's ever been for low income/no income people. I talked with my kid's teacher at a city magnet who told me that for some of her kindergarten kids; the school lunch was the ONLY dependable meal these kids got. I don't like paying extra for things either, but things like this I have NO problem with. I didn't like paying to build sports stadiums I'll hardly ever patronize because I can't rationalize the cost of tickets but I didn't go around bitter about it.
How can we help the parents of these children climb above the poverty line? How do we address the problem of people who, out of complacency or preference, choose to subsist on government programs? How do we help people make better decisions?
I am sure that there are some parents out there who cannot afford to feed their children, yet they smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. In my opinion, that is a poor choice.
I was in line behind someone at the grocery store who was paying via food stamps, and she purchased ten twelve-packs of soda. I would consider that a poor choice.
And I doubt anyone would disagree with your statements above, as they are very reasonable. The problem is, 'helping people make better decisions' is really hard. Do we force all poor people to go to classes? Do we ban poor people from smoking, or buying soda? How do we ensure they spend their money the way we think it should be spent? It doesn't take much thinking to realize this is completely impossible. And in the meantime, while we debate solving something that cannot be solved in any reasonable time frame, kids go hungry, steal food, fight, and the cycle of poverty continues.
It's pretty well researched/documented/proven that one reliable way to get people to move out of poverty in the long term is for them to get a good education. And one way to get children a better education is to feed them. Google "link between nutrition and education" and you may find it revealing. For example:
I'm not big on middle class welfare, but investments in giving children a better education are rarely poor spending. In the scheme of things - eg how much money is spent on the military in this country - complaining about this initiative seems misguided.
And I doubt anyone would disagree with your statements above, as they are very reasonable. The problem is, 'helping people make better decisions' is really hard. Do we force all poor people to go to classes? Do we ban poor people from smoking, or buying soda? How do we ensure they spend their money the way we think it should be spent? It doesn't take much thinking to realize this is completely impossible. And in the meantime, while we debate solving something that cannot be solved in any reasonable time frame, kids go hungry, steal food, fight, and the cycle of poverty continues.
It's pretty well researched/documented/proven that one reliable way to get people to move out of poverty in the long term is for them to get a good education. And one way to get children a better education is to feed them. Google "link between nutrition and education" and you may find it revealing. For example:
I'm not big on middle class welfare, but investments in giving children a better education are rarely poor spending. In the scheme of things - eg how much money is spent on the military in this country - complaining about this initiative seems misguided.
You make good points. The question is how do you fix society? The truthful answer is that you can't.
In theory, you can place restrictions on programs or add incentives to programs to try and modify behavior. However, it becomes a slippery slope.
Just to clarify, I am not at all opposed to providing low income children with free meals. While I am not adamantly opposed to it, I do question the benefit of extending the program to all students. My main concern is that perhaps those funds could be allocated to those who need it, rather than buying lunch for someone who can easily afford it.
As many have pointed out, it isn't much money in the grand scheme of things; however, it is this kind of thinking that has bloated budgets (and deficits) to their limits at all levels of government. The cost per pupil at PPS is over $20,000. While I think that investing in children's education is paramount for a successful and decent society, based on the results produced by PPS, I have to wonder if they could spend their money more wisely.
I did the same thing -- I had a paper route from 12-14, babysat a family everyday after school from 14-16, starting working 20 hours per week during the school year at 16 at a grocery store, worked 6 days a week every summer during college, but none of that would have been enough to pay for college without my Pell grants, need based grants through my college, work study and subsidized loan programs. Oh, and because my dad was sick, my family was on food stamps for awhile when I was in high school.
I bet of you're totally honest, you didn't do it ALL yourself. The myth of the totally self made person is just that. Everyone benefits from something in a society. This is why humans formed them rather than living alone in caves. The "I got mine, f-you" attitude in this country these days is sickening. So many people are afraid that someone else is getting something more and better. We are talking about feeding children so they can concentrate and learn while in school and then work hard and claim they did everything themselves when they are your age.
I want younger generations to be smarter and better than we have been. Some of them will be giving me my meds when I'm old and in a nursing home. I want them to be able to read. Investing a couple of dollars in their nutrition sounds good to me.
Agreed. I have long said similar on the ed forum, where someone is always talking about how they worked their way through college, blah, blah, blah. If you (generic, not you personally) lived at home, someone was providing a roof over your head, and probably food as well. And so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_curtis
Why not charge .20 for breakfast and .25 for lunch? At least they can feel like they are taking from the middle class that gets killed on ALL of these kind of things. Just like college. I have to pay out full boat in every direction and we are talking about $100,000! Of course the super poor get a ride or all kinds of help. The super rich can just write a check and find a way to write it off in some deal. They should have a cheap fee, not free.
It would probably cost more to collect that money than would be collected! If it's part of the school day, so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kippy
I think that the vast majority of people agree that feeding hungry children is inherently a good thing. However, what I believe some people are trying to express is that while the feeding of hungry children helps the immediate problem, it does not resolve the systemic problem of poverty.
How can we help the parents of these children climb above the poverty line? How do we address the problem of people who, out of complacency or preference, choose to subsist on government programs? How do we help people make better decisions?
I am sure that there are some parents out there who cannot afford to feed their children, yet they smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. In my opinion, that is a poor choice.
I was in line behind someone at the grocery store who was paying via food stamps, and she purchased ten twelve-packs of soda. I would consider that a poor choice.
If the schools will now be giving free lunches to all students, how much more money will be spent overall? I would guess that the cost of all the additional free meals would exceed any savings generated by the reduction of paper work in September. Could that additional money being spent be put to better use? Could that money be used to help those who are truly in-need in other areas?
While providing lunch to everyone might prevent stigma in the lunch line, I am sure kids use other cues to determine who is well-off and who is not-so-well-off. Moreover, if everything is done electronically, the free lunch kids should be anonymous.
I was fortunate, and I never had to worry about there being food on the table or a roof over my head. Throughout my elementary school career, I ate a PB&J sandwich, an apple, milk or juice in a thermos, and two or three Chips-a-hoy cookies, which was packed in a lunchbox or brown bag. At today's prices, I would estimate this lunch would cost less than $1. While I know it is a sad truth, it is hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that people can't afford a dollar a day to send their kid to school with lunch. I am totally for feeding hungry kids, but I also wish more could be done to help their parents to end the cycle of poverty.
I think solving the immediate problem of hunger is important. Maybe the kids will learn more if they're not hungry. I have never understood people who are so interested in what someone else is buying at the grocery store. (Well, one time I did check out the cart of an Amish family out of curiosity, b/c they supposedly live this healthier lifestyle. It was similar to mine, even had a store-made cake in it!) But seriously, I'm usually busy and minding my own business at the grocery store. The way the stores where I shop are set up, you really can't see what the person in front of you has bought; the clerks just take it straight out of the cart. I'm not sure there's a much higher use for charitable contributions than food.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 08-22-2014 at 07:51 PM..
Agreed. I have long said similar on the ed forum, where someone is always talking about how they worked their way through college, blah, blah, blah. If you (generic, not you personally) someone was providing a roof over your head, and probably food as well. And so on.
It would probably cost more to collect that money than would be collected! If it's part of the school day, so be it.
I think solving the immediate problem of hunger is important. Maybe the kids will learn more if they're not hungry. I have never understood people who are so interested in what someone else is buying at the grocery store. (Well, one time I did check out the cart of an Amish family out of curiosity, b/c they supposedly live this healthier lifestyle. It was similar to mine, even had a store-made cake in it!) But seriously, I'm usually busy and minding my own business at the grocery store. The way the stores where I shop are set up, you really can't see what the person in front of you has bought; the clerks just take it straight out of the cart. I'm not sure there's a much higher use for charitable contributions than food.
Did you read my second post before jumping onto your high horse? I questioned if providing food to non-needy kids was a worthwhile endeavor and the best allocation of funds. I also asked what else could be done, in addition to feeding needy children, to help reduce the problem of poverty and hunger. I fully support free lunches for low income students.
Instead of giving of giving Ricky Schroder a free lunch, those funds could buy clothes or school supplies for low income kids. Those funds could go to job training or parenting classes for parents who might need them. They could go towards a myriad of different things desperately needed by those without means, who are generally the target demographic for charitable contributions.
In the case of my anecdote, I never would have known the woman's method of payment or taken much notice of what she was buying if it were not for the fact that she was screaming at the cashier about a problem they were having with her food stamp card. After a bit of time and lots of yelling, the problem was resolved. In an effort not to stare at the drama, I did notice the contents underneath her cart, which were not loaded onto the belt due to their weight.
I must admit, I am a fairly observant person, and while I do mind my own business, I often times notice the people around me, including their behavior, attire, and other attributes, which sometimes might include what they are carrying in their arms or pushing in their cart. I do mind my own business, but that doesn't make me blind.
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.
