POLL: Should free lunch kids be allowed to buy from snackline at tax payer's expense?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Malnutrition is abuse as well.

of course, but afaik, it's pretty hard to detect, unless it's extreme.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81


<< Again, if they can't feed their children, they are guilty of abuse. >>



so basically, no matter what the circumstances, it's abuse?

Well, my father left when i was 4. My mom was a homemaker all of her life. Let's see, what job could she get? NONE. I was on welfare and free lunch, SO FVKING WHAT. I went to college, paid by YOU, yes YOU. SO FVKING WHAT. I got a good job now and i would be more than happy to give a little extra in taxes so a kid can get free lunch and have a few snacks. Hell, i'll even pitch in for an extra Coke or Pepsi. All you whiners need to be there before you can knock it. Sometimes things happen beyond our control. I feel sorry for you if you loose your job or even worse, you die. OH WAIT, then your spouse may be abusing your kids, since they might not be able to work all day and feed them. But if you do work and leave the kid at home to get food, you are abusing by leaving your kids un attended. It's a catch 22. Don't pre-judge until you know the entire story.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<<

<< You know, you listen to the propaganda, but you don't actually look at the facts for yourself, do you? When you cut people off, they'll fend for themselves. It may not be pretty, it may not be idyllic, but they aren't going to starve.

ok, but kids can't fend for themselves, while they may not starve, a lot of them are probably not going to eat as well as a growing child should. if there was a way to give benefits to the child and not the parents, i'd be all for it, but unfortunately it is hard to separate the two.
>>



Isn't that what the school lunch programs are all about? They give food not money The kids get the food not the parents.
>>



well first off, i support them, so you dont' need to convince me.

secondly... not really, if the state is paying for something the parents otherwise would have paid for, that means the parents are essentially getting money.
>>



Yep. If someone pays my credit card bills, or my car loan, they are still giving me money.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I thought that school lunch was a farm subsidy program. I don't think US farmers would sell as much milk as they do without school lunch. It's ridiculous how almost all meals come with milk. Seeing how kids go for soft drinks and juices now over milk, school lunch prolly keeps a lot of dairy farmers alive.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
I believe the intention is that the children still get fed regardless of what the parents do or don't do.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< Again, if they can't feed their children, they are guilty of abuse. >>



so basically, no matter what the circumstances, it's abuse?

Well, my father left when i was 4. My mom was a homemaker all of her life. Let's see, what job could she get? NONE.
>>



BS. There are plenty of entry level jobs out there



<< I was on welfare and free lunch, SO FVKING WHAT. I went to college, paid by YOU, yes YOU. SO FVKING WHAT. I got a good job now and i would be more than happy to give a little extra in taxes so a kid can get free lunch and have a few snacks. Hell, i'll even pitch in for an extra Coke or Pepsi. All you whiners need to be there before you can knock it. Sometimes things happen beyond our control. I feel sorry for you if you loose your job or even worse, you die. OH WAIT, then your spouse may be abusing your kids, since they might not be able to work all day and feed them. But if you do work and leave the kid at home to get food, you are abusing by leaving your kids un attended. It's a catch 22. Don't pre-judge until you know the entire story. >>



If you're happy giving money to support people's kids, fine. But I'm forced to do so under threat of imprisonment. I was forced into slavery to support you because your mother and father refused to.

Don't feel sorry for me or my kids. Our future is well provided for because I PLANNED AHEAD. And IF I left my wife, I sure as hell wouldn't abuse my kids by not supporting them.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0


<< As for not having children until they can afford them, I agree 100%. Don't let the left wingers hear you say that though. They'll be pissed that you're preaching morality. >>



Just in my defense, and in hopes of sledding in hell, here's what I said earlier.



<< If people cannot afford to consistently feed their children, they never should have conceived. >>

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< As for not having children until they can afford them, I agree 100%. Don't let the left wingers hear you say that though. They'll be pissed that you're preaching morality. >>



Just in my defense, and in hopes of sledding in hell, here's what I said earlier.



<< If people cannot afford to consistently feed their children, they never should have conceived. >>

>>



Why is this "sledding into hell?" I have no problem with private, voluntary charities helping these folks. In fact, I've done my fair share of volunteer work and I donate every year. What I have a problem with is manditory state programs that basically force you, through threat of jail, to pay for these people.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0


<< Why is this "sledding into hell?" I have no problem with private, voluntary charities helping these folks. What I have a problem with is manditory state programs that basically force you, through threat of jail, to pay for these people. >>



My point is that I'm usually considered left-wing, and that's one of my ideas. :)

sledding in hell = snow = cold = frozen over
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< Why is this "sledding into hell?" I have no problem with private, voluntary charities helping these folks. What I have a problem with is manditory state programs that basically force you, through threat of jail, to pay for these people. >>



My point is that I'm usually considered left-wing, and that's one of my ideas. :)

sledding in hell = snow = cold = frozen over
>>



Ahhh, I see. :)
 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,609
170
106
yes they should be able to buy snacks and i dont care or bitch about paying taxes.Ive seen my fair share of poverty, and good times as well.

We all end up in the dirt eventually, and i really dont think nickel rubbing is what life is all about. Someone wants a snack? WHo gives a good damn if they are rich poor whatever.ITS A GODDAMN SNACK!









 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
Jerboy and others-

You are taking a positon which many people would like to take. It is the whole idea behind the voucher system for schools. Unfortunately it will cause our public schools to be flushed down the toilet. Everyone deserves the right to at least a high school education even if they can't pay for it. I leave you with a quote...



<< Someday even the experts will figure out that crime isn't caused by rap music, but by a power structure of self absorbed property owners so brain dead and stupid they won't even see that if you are too greedy to pay taxes for schools and services that they aren't going to be good any more. Uneducated time-bombs are a VERY poor investment as a future work force, and if you go on teaching people that life is cheap, and leave them to rot in ghettos and jails, one day they may feel justified in coming back to rob and kill you. Duh. >>



Ryan
 

Freejack2

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2000
7,751
8
81
Jerboy, lets play... LETS MAKE A BUDGET!

Want to know what a normal slighly conservative budget is?

Family of 4 (2 adults, 2 children) Average monthly budget
$1000 Mortgage on Home
$150 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c, computer usage)
$45 Telephone
$40 Cell Phone
$40 Cable Tv
$50 High speed Internet Access
$450 Car Payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$100 Auto & homeowners insurance
$500 Groceries, eating out a couple of times a month
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$100 Clothing
$50 Credit Card
$80 Misc
--------------------------------
$2705 a month = $32460 a year

Estimating the government takes out 30% in federal, state, local, and ssi taxes a family has to make about $47,000 a year.
This is what just a normal family spends a month.

Now lets look at a lower income 2 adult, 2 child family and what they spend.
$600 2 or 3 bedroom apartment
$130 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c, computer usage)
$40 Telephone
$35 Cell Phone
$35 Cable Tv
$20 Dial up Internet Access
$200 Used car payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$80 Auto & renters insurance
$350 Groceries, eating out every couple of months
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$60 Clothing
$50 Credit Card
$50 Misc
---------------------------------------
$1750 a month = $21,000 a year

Estimating the government takes out 30% in federal, state, local, and ssi taxes a family has to make about $30,000 a year.
Note: My figures may not be correct, if you correct them, don't eat me alive please.

Based on these rough figures, if any free or reduced lunch kid has parents making less than $30,000 a year, they are not cheating anyone to do so.

Unless I miss my guess, your parents make much more than the average family if your bitching about your parents not getting you a $30,000 sports car.
If your school district is allowing parents who make more than 30k a year to get this you may have valid reason to complain, otherwise quit your griping, not everyone can get jobs that pay great.
Most jobs out there pay less than 30k a year.

As for the snack line, if I had kids I'd sacrifice something so my kids could get something from the snack line now and then.
 

AaronP

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
4,359
0
0
I don't think it costs the tax payers as much as when the NAVY accidently ordered 2 nuclear subs when they wanted one. If a kid wants to get a snack I say go for it. Of course back when I was in high school, I almost always got the regular school lunch. I was like "hey you get more food, and its better here" IMO the regular school lunch was always the best. And the bang for the buck was great.

School breakfast - $1.25
Lunch - $1.50

nowadays, at restaraunts, I get half the food for 5-10 times the cost! :(
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
I agree to a certain extent. What I think would be appropriate is something along the lines of a limit on how much a kid could spend in the "snack line". Say, $2.00 a week or something. I really have no idea what this stuff costs anymore. When I was in high school, lunch was $1.25 and $.50 would get you a huge bowl of ice cream with a topping of sorts. I agree that the snack line should be limited for the "free lunch" kids, but it should in no means be prohibited to them.

Other than that, with your elitist attitues that you blatently expressed in this thread and in numerous others, you can go fist yourself for all I care.
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0


<< Other than that, with your elitist attitues that you blatently expressed in this thread and in numerous others, you can go fist yourself for all I care. >>



Nice... don't give him ideas Vi...

Ryan
 

Zwingle

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,925
0
0


<< Now lets look at a lower income 2 adult, 2 child family and what they spend.
$600 2 or 3 bedroom apartment
$130 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c, computer usage)
$40 Telephone
$35 Cell Phone
$35 Cable Tv
$20 Dial up Internet Access
$200 Used car payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$80 Auto & renters insurance
$350 Groceries, eating out every couple of months
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$60 Clothing
$50 Credit Card
$50 Misc
>>



Realistic budget for those lower income......

$600 2 or 3 bedroom apartment
$130 Utilites (High fuel cost area, heating, a/c)
$40 Telephone - this is not a neccessity - optional....my family didn't have a phone until I was 10, but I will allow it....
NO CELL PHONE
NO Cable Tv
NO Dial up Internet Access - no computer at all
$200 Used car payments (Assumes no 2nd car or 2nd car paid for)
$80 Auto & renters insurance
$350 Groceries, eating out every couple of month (eating out shouldn't be happening at all)
$100 School lunches for kids @ $5 a day for both kids.
$60 Clothing - can be adjusted immensely.....clearance sales can easily drop this to $30-$40...my wife does it.
NO Credit Card - what the fvck is a low income family doing with a cc?
$50 Misc[/i] >>



$1570 a month.....$18840 a year.....2 parents making $6.00 a hour = $24960 a year....making this little, taxes would not be close to 30% plus they would get a healthy refund since they qualify for the EIC....why the hell are they being offered free lunches? They could easily afford more than their share of the American Pie if they were not buying beer and dope and blowing it on other stupid things. It's called brains.....use them.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<< Of all the tax dollars our government gives away to our citzens feeding programs are the most effective in serving their intended purpose.WIC, free and reduced price school lunches and breakfast help ensure that the most vulnerable and most helpless among us get at least something to eat each day, something that I'm very happy to help support! >>




I can put up with some of it. ToBeMe has a good point. It annoys me so much federal government is granting such special protection without second thoughts and people are taking an advantage of it. Me thinks if the family was struggling to make the money for basic meal, the kid wouldn't be showing up at school in $50 a pair Fubu's and JNCO's, load them self at snackline, buy from vending machine, yet demand the district to give them special assistance.

 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0

LostHiWay wrote:


<< I don't think schools should provide free or reduced lunches. First off most of the time these kids end up getting made fun of. Second, it's freaken $2.25. Anyone..even people on welfare should be able to pay this even if they have 4 kids. If they can't they're obviously spending the money on things they shouldn't be. Food for you children should come before the nice dress from the mall. >>



GirlFriday wrote:


<< why is that any of your concern Jerboy? >>



By the way, I didn't make the above statements. I think I'll make a suggestion at the forum issues. This is one thing that AT forums lacks. On a usenet, most newsgroup readers put "xxx wrote" on every quote and here you don't really know who originally wrote it unless you go all the way back in the thread.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,483
8,344
126
You guys making the monthly budgets are leaving out a VERY important number - health and dental insurance.

If you are working at a job that's minimum wage, then the chances are VERY slim that you have a full coverage health and dental program.
If a family of four has to go out on their own and pick up their own health and dental plan, the prices could easily be in the $300 a month range.
 

Zwingle

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,925
0
0
vi_edit Good point about health insurance....with the excess money, dr.s visits can be budgeted or the excess can be placed in a saving account and used for that reason.......not to mention, familes with this low of income can get insurance sybsidized by the gov't for the children.......I am not against gov't help.....when it is truly needed.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0


<< Should free lunch kids be allowed to buy from snackline? >>


I'm getting into the thread very late, but...

Of course they should be allowed. They get the free/reduced lunch because their parent(s) earn less than a certain income threshold - no real fault of the kid - but if the kid has extra cash from a part-time job, for instance (money that they have earned themselvesf from their own labor), then nobody has any right to tell them how to spend their money.