U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2014, 05:20 AM
 
82,768 posts, read 39,914,355 times
Reputation: 12184

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Families on food stamps are automatically qualified for the FARM program at school. While not technically the same program they're connected. It's not considered double dipping but in addition to.
Do families with children in school get the same benefits as families with children not yet in school? If so, and kids are getting fed breakfast, lunch, and frequently also dinner at school, it's double-dipping: getting the same welfare benefit twice.

Could explain why some food stamp recipients can afford to buy steak and lobster.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2014, 02:12 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
41,675 posts, read 54,296,541 times
Reputation: 56122
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Do families with children in school get the same benefits as families with children not yet in school? If so, and kids are getting fed breakfast, lunch, and frequently also dinner at school, it's double-dipping: getting the same welfare benefit twice.

Could explain why some food stamp recipients can afford to buy steak and lobster.

It's not considered double dipping, school lunch is school lunch, EBT meals at home are EBT meals at home.

As to your second question, I guess that the food goes in the cart and the bill is paid. It would be like me having $30K in the bank and buying a new car with it. I had the money so I could "afford" it.

I think rather than "afford" you're asking why they're permitted to spend a big chunk of the benefit on a meal or two. I guess because the rules allow it.

If you think parents are going to pack a kid a lunch, no matter the income level, that just really doesn't happen much anymore.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 02:17 PM
 
82,768 posts, read 39,914,355 times
Reputation: 12184
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
It's not considered double dipping, school lunch is school lunch, EBT meals at home are EBT meals at home.
Yes, but eligible kids are getting fed free breakfast, lunch, and frequently also dinner at school while their parent/s is/are getting SNAP benefits to feed them those same meals at home. It IS double-dipping.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 02:25 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
41,675 posts, read 54,296,541 times
Reputation: 56122
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, but eligible kids are getting fed free breakfast, lunch, and frequently also dinner at school while their parent/s is/are getting SNAP benefits to feed them those same meals at home. It IS double-dipping.

Take it up with Congress and the Ag Department. Schools can only follow the rules they're given.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 02:46 PM
 
44,772 posts, read 23,339,668 times
Reputation: 27239
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowdog101 View Post
No child, regardless of his or her parents' indiscretion, handicap, laziness, foolhardiness, etc., etc., should EVER go hungry. He or she should be given the opportunity to eat a healthy, satisfying meal 3 times a day, preferably provided or purchased by his or her parents. But if his or her parents cannot or will not, then it becomes society's responsibility to provide. Anything else is just BULLSH*T.
That's it in a nutshell.

Having a hungry kid on your hands is not considered a tough ethical question, because every human being know what's the right thing to do: You feed the kid. The kid's parents may be lazy or disabled or just generally messed-up ne'er-do-wells, and it doesn't matter. Hungry kids should be fed, and that's the end of it.

It's a classical demonstration of which political bend are afraid of which type of mistake: Some are more afraid that of kids going hungry, and some are more afraid of someone, somewhere, getting away with something.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 03:00 PM
 
82,768 posts, read 39,914,355 times
Reputation: 12184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
That's it in a nutshell.

Having a hungry kid on your hands is not considered a tough ethical question, because every human being know what's the right thing to do: You feed the kid. The kid's parents may be lazy or disabled or just generally messed-up ne'er-do-wells, and it doesn't matter. Hungry kids should be fed, and that's the end of it.
I agree. But if parents are getting SNAP benefits and STILL not feeding their kids, those SNAP benefits need to be rescinded. Continue feeding the kids at school, but rescind the extra SNAP benefits the parents are receiving.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,755 posts, read 9,203,308 times
Reputation: 13157
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I agree. But if parents are getting SNAP benefits and STILL not feeding their kids, those SNAP benefits need to be rescinded. Continue feeding the kids at school, but rescind the extra SNAP benefits the parents are receiving.
Wow, you are really into micro-micro-micro economics, huh?

Make sure those families have $50 a month deducted from their food stamps because their kids are getting food at school, but turn a blind eye to wall street/bankers/and whatever it is Mitt Romney does to suck up cash and pay little to no taxes.

DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 03:39 PM
 
41,817 posts, read 48,570,821 times
Reputation: 17828
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
That's minimum nutrition standards - nothing to do with the crappy lunches shown in those photos. School lunches have always looked sad.
The school lunches at my school used to be fairly decent but they would never meet the criteria they have now. They couldn't serve them if they wanted too.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 04:25 PM
 
82,768 posts, read 39,914,355 times
Reputation: 12184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Wow, you are really into micro-micro-micro economics, huh?

Make sure those families have $50 a month deducted from their food stamps because their kids are getting food at school, but turn a blind eye to wall street/bankers/and whatever it is Mitt Romney does to suck up cash and pay little to no taxes.
1) Prove that wall street/bankers/Mitt Romney pay little to no taxes given the following IRS tax data:

The average effective federal income tax rate paid, by income group:

Top 1%: 23.5%

Top 1-5%: 17.7%

Top 5-10%: 12.8%

Top 10-25%: 9.7%

Top 25-50%: 7% (the middle class)

Bottom 50%: 3.13%

Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data
SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) Statistics

2) Why should parents continue to receive extra SNAP benefits per child when they're not feeding their kids?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Coastal Georgia
46,577 posts, read 57,980,668 times
Reputation: 84720
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Tuition at Sidwell is in the $35,000 a year range and includes lunch.

I think the number of kids in public school who qualify for no or reduced cost lunch is about 25 million.
Many schools now also provide breakfast and early dinner because for whatever reason, many parents are not providing for their own kids.
This is a pet peeve of mine. How about parents feed their own kids? If you don't like the school lunch, then pack your kid's lunch. When I went to school, there was no cafeteria. I walked home for lunch, which typically consisted of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or Spaghetti Os and milk. That is what kids ate for lunch. I don't think chicken nuggets were invented yet, but that would have been considered gourmet. No way would my mother be making a hot gourmet meal at lunchtime.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:44 PM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top