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 don't think there are enough families to take in these kids, willing families. Even if they get paid by the state, as foster parents, not sure that's "healthier" than their own parents, however poor parenting they provide. Some of these foster homes are less than desirable, too.
You have a good point there. Its a very sad situation.
IDK the answer. I know what I'd like to do but Im pretty sure it is illegal an maybe a little immoral.
and if, for whatever reason, a local school system or even the state decides to spend their money that way - that's great.
If I was confusing, my apologies. My kids didn't get free lunch, but they did have an account where they could buy lunch, enter a PIN, and it charged to their account. And we were responsible for having a + balance in there....
which is the next inanity the Ilhans bring up - "punishing kids for negative lunch accounts". In my school system, the account could go negative for 2 reasons: your kid bought too much ice cream/chips (not included in the lunch price) or your lunch that day made the account negative. and so, from that point on, they get a more basic meal and water only until the account is current/surplus.
Kids on free lunch basically CANNOT get a negative balance because, well life sucks sometimes and no, you can't get ice cream at all on your free account.
Is it?
Money could be better spent elsewhere. School buildings that are in need of repair, actual education, additional busses, etc.
Mine normally brought his lunch but sometimes depending on what they had he would take the free lunch. In HS he has an account which I electronically transfer funds to when it is low. There is no chips of ice cream for anyone to purchase on their lunch account. He plays sports so the athletes are given the free food after practices and away games. One coach actually forced the food on them saying they could not leave practice until they ate it and he monitored the trash can.
How any dozens can you take in? I assume you don't need any financial help in caring for these children.
The likelihood is that most children would end up in a group home situation which is far, far more costly.
Foster care payments are not insignificant either and they still eligible for free school lunch.
I wish there were hundreds of thousands of good, safe homes that would happily take in children that are already in the CPS system. Unfortunately that is not an option in this country.
As I posted up thread I took in two, two not two dozen.
Point taken that there are not enough foster or adoptive homes.
I know dozens of families that foster and adopt and its sad that there are more bad homes than good ones.
I do not know that those children were actually going hungry though. I'm not against free lunch for those in need, I'm against the idea that all those children would actually go hungry if not for those free lunches. Go hungry. And if parents are so bad they let their kids actually go hungry. Not feed them. Then those parents need to be investigated and the children removed.
I also know children are taken by the state for way less than going hungry. Like just being poor, or living in a dirty house, or parents in jail, being left alone, etc. Im talking about habitual hunger when there are food stamps and charities with weekly and monthly food give a ways.
There is something wrong in this country when parents that are already on welfare still have to send their kids to have breakfast and lunch at school.
I used to know a family like this and the parents always had money for cigarettes, booze, takeout but money was always tight when it came to sending the kids to school with a lunch.
It comes down to people that are not responsible in life, their finances and they make poor choices in planning for the future which includes having kids.
There is an ever growing segment in out society that is happy to have the Government take care of them as if they are owed. This will be our great downfall.
There is something wrong if a kid has a smartphone in their hand instead of a bagged lunch.
Why is nobody asking 'who are these horrible parents?'
Can we get some sterilization with that happy meal?
Or is this big gubment lies?
In many cases the moms do not care for their kids. They are left alone all day to fend for themselves. This is far more common in the poor communities than people think. The mothers literally treat school like daycare and feel the government should take of them. Period.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 24 days ago)
27,637 posts, read 16,120,970 times
Reputation: 19048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Where have you been for the past 20 years? You are just now realizing the extent of poverty in our country and its effect on our children?
No suprise here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertwrench
In many cases the moms do not care for their kids. They are left alone all day to fend for themselves. This is far more common in the poor communities than people think. The mothers literally treat school like daycare and feel the government should take of them. Period.
Yea, may as well have soviet style housing across from playground where mom gets her fix.
We don't even readily know what "food welfare" (WIC, SNAP, whatever) benefits are provided.
Just at the Fed level, you can get $450/mo for a family of 4. That's not much -
$1.25/person/3 meals a day.
If in school, those kids will get 2 meals/day
Where I am, we have "Backpack Buddies" which sends a kid home each weekend with more than enough for them to eat (usually 2-3 people).
That's just trying to understand the ACTUAL programs that benefit those eligible.
That's not the problem.
The problem is the Ilhan Omar's of the country/world that - rather than determining the need - would rather institute a one-size-fits-all-and-the-government-makes-you-participate "solution".
In America, we're at ~1/3 children who get free and reduced lunch. So they want a program to apply to ALL children, with the only plausible explanation they don't want the 1/3 to be stigmatized. They want to effectively spend 3x what's needed for this.
Now, I'm sure there are some ***hole parents who teach their kids to look down their nose at the "poor kids". They've got to be a VERY small %. My kids have spent a combined 23 years in public school, in high-income schools (with low-income kids assigned) and never is there any stigma. All the kids know is some go through the line and have a card (and ALL kids have a card/PIN #).
Interesting.
My hometown is one of the 20 wealthiest communities in California, and almost all of the residences are SFRs. You pay the freight of living within the boundaries, or you don’t attend the schools. The parents would never put up with out of area/low income kids being assigned. There is also a pecking order with the kids that is affected by a number of things that have waxed and waned over time.....clothes, cars, vacation homes, travel, physical appearance, occupations of parents and where they attended college and graduate schools, multi-generational wealth, etc. in addition to the constants that are always there...academics and athletics.
Horrible, starving kids in the US........and as a kicker, many of these victims live in food-deserts.
Quote:
In 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that 23.5 million people in the U.S. live in "food deserts", meaning that they live more than one mile from a supermarket in urban or suburban areas and more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural areas.
now, the way they do this by census tract. I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's "if a majority of census tract, the whole tract gets counted". I know a census tract next to me is listed, but there's a big Food Lion in it. I also know my address qualifies as a food desert since that Food Lion is 1.1 miles from me and another is 1.2 miles.
So, the number would be less than 24MM. And frankly, a 1 mile limit is silly except for the non-mobile. Your average 79 year old takes less than 30 minutes/mile. And other than ice cream, every other refrigerated/frozen good will do just fine for 30 minutes.
So why no judgement or comment on where dad is or what he is doing.
Having a uterus used to come with extra responsibility to make sure that impregnating party will stick around and able to procure food if nothing else. Nowadays women frequently split tasks of impregnating and providing for between different men. Obviously this reproductive strategy works on average, men collectively lost their mind, but some less attractive women are left behind since no mule provider man with sufficient funds is standing by to rescue her and her kids from more desirable parasitic male(s).
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.
