Pittsburgh Public Schools Providing Free Lunch to ALL Students (Denver: student loans, school districts)

[gg]

Glad I don't live in the city. I am more of a pay your own way kind of person and don't agree with the massive handouts (bandaids). Work hard, get more pride and make your own way. As much as I would like to live in Point Breeze someday, I think I will keep out of the city limits. There is already a big wage tax, how are these lunches going to be paid for down the road? Just more taking from the middle class and creating more low self pride residents. People do realize that working and paying your way creates some self pride. Seems we have given up.

[charisb]

I wondered how many posts it would be before this became negative. Sadly, it was much quicker than I anticipated.
If everyone cannot get behind reducing hunger in children, we are truly lost.

[stburr91]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Pittsburgh schools have always had a large percentage of impoverished students. This program wasn't started because the poor residents increased. It started because funding was recently made available to provide these lunches. This could bring middle class families to Pittsburgh. Middle class with children do have tight budgets. Lunch is $2.30 to $3.00. If you have four kids, that's as high as $240/month just for children's lunches.

I just can't see this making any difference to middle class families. They avoid the city schools because of the poor education offered, and to keep their children away from the kind of kids that go to city schools (harsh I know, but it's true).

As someone who doesn't have children, I know I wouldn't want to have to pay to subsidize feeding children of families that can afford to pay for lunches.

Originally Posted by charisb

I wondered how many posts it would be before this became negative. Sadly, it was much quicker than I anticipated.
If everyone cannot get behind reducing hunger in children, we are truly lost.

This isn't reducing hunger in children, this is yet another taxpayer funded subsidy for people with children.

If people can't afford to feed their own children, then they shouldn't have children. If people can't get behind that idea, then that is the sign we are truely lost.

[Der Schwabe]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

I don't think any student should get financial aid. I paid for my own education.

A self-made saint among men.

Originally Posted by charisb

I wondered how many posts it would be before this became negative. Sadly, it was much quicker than I anticipated.
If everyone cannot get behind reducing hunger in children, we are truly lost.

This is the truth. Don't you understand that these children just don't have enough self-pride?

[ferraris]

In Pennsylvania, compensation to the districts will come from both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Pennsylvania Department of Education

Living in the city or not, you're paying for this.

[charisb]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I just can't see this making any difference to middle class families. They avoid the city schools because of the poor education offered, and to keep their children away from the kind of kids that go to city schools (harsh I know, but it's true).

As someone who doesn't have children, I know I wouldn't want to have to pay to subsidize feeding children of families that can afford to pay for lunches.



This isn't reducing hunger in children, this is yet another taxpayer funded subsidy for people with children.

If people can't afford to feed their own children, then they shouldn't have children. If people can't get behind that idea, then that is the sign we are truely lost.

So we should punish the children because we think their parents should not have had them? Is that your stance here?

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I just can't see this making any difference to middle class families. They avoid the city schools because of the poor education offered, and to keep their children away from the kind of kids that go to city schools (harsh I know, but it's true).

As someone who doesn't have children, I know I wouldn't want to have to pay to subsidize feeding children of families that can afford to pay for lunches.



This isn't reducing hunger in children, this is yet another taxpayer funded subsidy for people with children.

It is actually reducing hunger in children. Children that may have went without lunch before, now have lunch.

No lunch = hunger.
Lunch = reduced hunger.


Also, there are plenty of middle class families that send thier children to PPS. I would say a large percentage of my neighborhood, which is largely middle class, sends thier children to public school, at least through the 8th grade.

Also, if you are the kind of parent that actively pursues keeping your children away from children of other socio-economic backgrounds....shame on you.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by stburr91

I just can't see this making any difference to middle class families. They avoid the city schools because of the poor education offered, and to keep their children away from the kind of kids that go to city schools (harsh I know, but it's true).

As someone who doesn't have children, I know I wouldn't want to have to pay to subsidize feeding children of families that can afford to pay for lunches.



This isn't reducing hunger in children, this is yet another taxpayer funded subsidy for people with children.

If people can't afford to feed their own children, then they shouldn't have children. If people can't get behind that idea, then that is the sign we are truely lost.

What about those who could easily afford to feed their children, and then say lost a job, became disabled, or lost a spouse? Life happens.

If people can't get behind the idea of empathy for thier fellow man, then that is a sign we are truly lost.

[Bong477]

I'm not advocating for getting rid of the longstanding policy of providing tax funded lunch (a far more accurate term than free lunch) to poor children, but I don't see a reason to expand the program to kids who have parents that can afford to pay for lunch.

[eschaton]

I have no issue with free/reduced school lunches. That said, I generally prefer universal benefits that everyone gets regardless of income to needs tested ones, for practical reasons (without means testing, you don't need bureaucracy, just give people stuff), political reasons (universal programs like Social Security are incredibly popular, TANF not so much), and moral reasons (IMHO it's basic fairness that everyone be given access to the same benefits in society).

If you have issue with kids not being provided with free meals at school as part of a public education, I don't know what to say. I mean, why not just go the way of African countries then, and make school "free," but make kids pay for their own textbooks? Or why just not have public education at all. If your parents can't afford tuition for Kindergarten, it's not our problem it's theirs. Go and get a job somewhere with those nimble little fingers. Maybe once child labor is legal again they'll find gainful employment.