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

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jwells777

Senior member
Feb 18, 2001
346
0
71
Although I am slightly late to the party here, there are a couple of points that I wish to address.

First, somebody far earlier made comments basically indicating that providing welfare in general was a bad thing. Things like needles and condoms and the like. Many of these types of assistance are not designed to spend your hard earned tax dollars but rather to save them. For instance, tax money provides a free condom (<$.01 most likely in bulk), and this prevents another child from drawing more money from the system. Or perhaps prevents someone from draining valuable medical resources from society because of an STD, etc.

Second, Jerboy made comments regarding how his tax dollars were supporting nearby schools. Although, I can't specifically speak about his background, I can assure you that very few people could actually support their own educational system based on the amount of tax that they pay. Therefor, if we removed this spreading of the wealth, it is quite possible that you could end up on the wrong side of the cutoff.

Third, for those who are interested in providing as little assistance to people as possible, your investment in the education of poor children is quite possibly the most bang for your buck. Many studies have shown the direct correlation between education and the ability to be a productive member of society.

Fourth, there have been several comments about how "us rich folk shouldn't be supporting poor people". The graduated tax system attempts to promote a healthy middle class which is essential to our net quality of living as a society. There are many examples in history of divided class systems where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is generally a bad thing as it does not promote devolopment of infrastructure and drive advancement in technology at nearly the pace or a society with a healthy middle class. The main problem derives from a net hoarding effect. If less than 1% of the people have all the money, but they are unable to spend it, it sits in a bank or a vault or what have you. Money sitting in a vault does not generate wealth, rather it is the exchange of money that generates wealth by causing the exchange of goods and services. A single dollar bill that changes hands 5 times has generated 5 dollars worth of wealth. An extremely poor population is not able to generate a large amount of wealth because it has very little money to trade for goods and services. This problem is additionally compounded by the fact that what little money they do have is generally spent on consumable goods that do nothing to expand the production possibilty curve of the society(i.e. investments in manufacturing or construction equipment which allows us to produce and build more efficiently). Furthermore, having this healthy middle class is good for the rich. Take Bill Gates for example. He did not get rich because there were a few thousand people around who could afford to buy Windows, rather, he was able to market a product to a huge mass of people who had enough discretionary income to purchase it. I highly recommend to anyone interested in debating the finer points of our economic policies to at least study macro and micro economics at the introductory level.

Finally, to address the argument that "if these lazy people would just get off their arss and find a job we wouldn't have a problem". It is awfully nice to live in a society with an economy that has been so great for the last 10 years that most anyone who would like to get a job can. People forget all too quickly the economic downturns. I believe that it was around the mid 80's when the last mild recession bit the economy and we had quite a rise in unemployment. Many of those who are laid off during these times are not necessarily lazy, uneducated, or unqualified to work. In fact, most of these individuals worked quite hard to find work, but there simply was none available. Of course, this can be taken to the extreme by going back to the great depression where there were tons of people who were all hard workers and qualified who simply could not find work. Talk to anyone from this era about their experiences. I don't think that you will find too many people that say, "I didn't want to support my family, and it was just so nice laying around the house that I decided not to work, by the way...would you mind handing me the crack pipe over there?". The fact that today most people who would like to work can, and have been able to do so for almost sixty years, is a tribute to the ideas and research that has been done in the field of macroeconomics and to our economic policies as a whole (Although I will certainly admit that they are not all perfect).

Sorry about how long that got....sheesh. Now I remember why I don't get involved in these debates.

P.S. One last thing, this all got started about how some kids who might not be as well off were getting a bone thrown to them. For the love of (insert your favorite deity), your financial status as a child is nothing of your own doing. Kids who have the misfortune of being born into a bad family or financial circumstance should be given as much opportunity as possible to allow them to grow into being able to support themselves. Spend a little time on the pediatrics floor of a hospital that serves a poor area and then come back and try to defend how a little child that was molested, not fed or clothed and beaten should be denied a cookie so some rich shmuck could save a fraction of a penny. We could debate the levels of qualification for these types of programs, but I certainly don't think anyone could present a very solid case for the abolishment entirely. Today, I can afford my own cookies. Would I have been able to had I been denied an education? Perhaps some raw talent would have permitted it, however, it sure would have been a lot harder.
 
Jan 18, 2001
14,465
1
0
I can see how someone could make a good arguement that lunch rooms shouldn't sell snacks to any child, but that isn't what most people are saying. This arguement would be essentially the same arguement against having Vending machines that sell sodas, candy, and junk food. However, the main argument seems to be that society shouldn't have to underwrite the free and reduced lunch program.

Let me attempt to remain calm throughout this post... :(

First off. Why should we have a Free and Reduced Lunch Program? Why the presumably "HIGH" income limit? Because malnurished children DONT LEARN!!! A person doesn't have to be starving to death before there are problems with cognitive functioning, brain development, and overall health (both psychological and physical). Don't believe me? Do a google search with "nutrition and academic performance" and read at least some of the damn research. Furthermore, a child has few options if his/her parents are unwilling or unable to provide basic nutrition. The societal problems caused by poor child development are very likely to be far more expensive than the preventive programs like the Free and Reduced Lunch Program.

Sure you could take the child away from the family and place them in foster care, but that is surely MORE expensive than buying a lunch. And in the end, would only lead to Jerboy posting about how he has to share his parents house with some poor kid. Taking a child out of the home is only justified in the most severe cases of neglect.

Second of all, the money for Free and Reduced lunch doesn't go to the child, or the parents of the child. The money goes to the SCHOOL, via the school district. This is especially important in very poor school districts which are almost always either inner city (i.e. Detroit, Chicago, Clevand, Dallas, Los Angeles, ect...) or rural where there is no middle income , suburbanite sub-divisions upon which to sustain an adequate tax-base. Schools in these districts would be hard pressed to provide any lunch of any nutritional value. By his own account, Jerboy's ISD, apparently a suburban ISD with apparently a decent tax-base is having a hard time providing a quality lunch to its children. How is an inner city school district supposed to do the same without some extrenal support.

Everybody get it? Free and Reduced Lunch is Federal money (Title I) that is designed to help alleviate the negative effects of poverty on children's ability to learn. We have this money because most policy makers understand that there is a problem in the way school districts generate revenue. To keep these poorer ISDs from completely collasping and raising generation of totally uneducated children, the federal government subsidizes these districts. Without Title I, we would be back to seperate and NOT equal public education.

If you want to take away free lunches on the basis that people shouldn't have children until they are 'financially' worthy, then you better as hell spend a TON money on Family Planning programs, Abortion Programs and Adoption Programs. [sarcasm] Ahh... but no... abortion and family counseling is morally bankrupt [/sarcasm]... oh well, i guess we can just decide not to have any social policy.

*puke* on this thread and its amazing LACK of substantiated arguement.

for more reading, see

here

and

here

There is a ton of research out there. Perhaps some of you advocating CHANGE should read it b/f you start fixing things.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0


<< BTW, I see Jerboy's point here. If they can afford the freakin snacks everyday, they could be buying their own damn food. Instead, they mooch off the taxpayers, then turn around and buy extra food. >>



School lunches are small, i need at least two to actually sustain myself and I'm far from fat (18 year old guy that's 5' 10" and only 130 lbs). A kid may need to supplement what the lunch program gives him. Yes, it would be better to get healthier food but that's what's available to him. They are not mooching, they just need more then we give out for free. This supports your point actually. It establishes a minimum that everyone should have, but if they need more they pay for it. I personally think the free lunch program should provide for that extra food (and the normal program should have more food per lunch, they skimp) but they seem to take your stance and they should pay for what the need, only the free lunch includes a guaranteed minimum.

Yes people abuse it but I lived off it for a year and I know what good it can do, I don't think you can understand until you've been there.
 

Jfur

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2001
6,044
0
0
the real question is: Should completely spoiled brats who have never done a real day's work eat at all? Perhaps they won't after mommy and daddy stop buying them food and other luxuries
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0
AmusedOne, if you think that laziness is the only thing that prevents people from getting a job, you haven't looked for a job recently, or if you have you've been extremely lucky. I looked for a job over the summer, I applied at places requiring people with computer skills of all different kinds (small computer shops, consulting firms, programming companies, etc) as this is my field of expertise. I also applied to grocery stores and 7 different Meijers in the area (like a walmart with groceries). It took me 3 months to find a job. I was lucky enough to have a support network and some friends who allowed me to stay at their farm and work for them while I was looking for a job, but not everyone is this lucky.
I agree that people should not have kids if they cannot afford them, but situations change, people are laid off, it is not always easy to find a new job, parents divorce. Today's middle class 2 parent family can be tomorrow's 1 parent poor family.

If a responsible parent falls on hard financial times and is struggling to make ends meet to pay for their kids school lunch, I will not agree that they are abusing their child. No way, not if they are doing their best.

Take a newly single woman who has been a homemaker all of her life, she has no marketable skills, and her husband leaves her and the kids, or they get divorced and he manages to weasel out of child support (it happens). Maybe she can get a low paying job as a waitress at a low class restraunt, where she can manage to make minimum wage after tips, if she can find any places that are hiring.
I say she's doing her best to support her children, and certainly doesn't deserve to have them taken away. Let her kids have their free lunch, and if she makes a few extra dollars on a good night and decides to give it to them, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to spend it on a nice snack.

Obviously not everyone on the program fits into that kind of situation, but that situation does exist. And whether you think the father should be helping to support the kids, the fact remains that he is not.
 

yoda291

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,079
0
0
A. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear I could smell Skoorb somewheres in this thread

B. Maybe you should set an example and take nothing but vitamin supplements and low carbohydrate gruel for lunch.
 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
School/Government/Whatever IMO is too open to give away free money. All these college students getting fully supported through financial aid, driving brand new cars with no job, when only one of their parents work simply because the other one doesn't want to. So hence a 1 child family w/ 1 working parent making about $35,000 will get plenty of financial aid.

While my two full time working parents with 2 college students and supported a self-living grandmother, get no financial aid simply because it's a higher income. And no, I have no freakin car at all and nor do I really "need" one as many children on financial aid don't.

Unless they truly prove they are poor, they should learn to get a job. Income statements do not provide adequate information as they are often exaggerated and pretty much false. Furthermore, theres parents that don't work in the United States and make massive money that is sent overseas, but not documented as Federal Income of course.

This is why I'm a dang Republican and say let people choose how to spend/donate or whatever they want to do with THEIR money that they EARNED. Just pisses me off to see our taxes and stuff going to people who take advantage of the system. Selfish? Greedy? Possibly, but thats the way they want to freakin live. If I was well-off I would want to support those who really need it, instead of our current system that supports a lot of those that need it, and a lot of those that don't.
 

timmyG

Senior member
Oct 12, 2000
536
0
0
Jerboy you are a whiny little bitch. I feel reeaallll bad you didnt get your BMW. Maybe if we just disallowed poor kids to go to school then the school system could save money on bus transportation, and you could use the extra money to tint the bimmer windows.
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0
Fact is, charities don't cover everything, and I am highly skeptical that they ever will.

The charities that get the funding are the ones that people are familliar with, that fight the diseases that people really know and care about, or fight for causes that people support.

The very friends that allowed me to stay with them and offered a great support network are living just above the poverty line. The mother and father are recently divorced, father slightly disturbed, verbally and mentally abusive, though he had been physically violent on two occasions. Because they lived on a farm, he was able to shelter his income and make it look like he essentially loses money every year...and so his child support payments are minimal, despite the fact that they have 5 kids at home and one in college.

Their mother got the raw end of the deal, far less than half of what their farm was actually worth (because he under valued the property, and threatened to sue for custody of the kids if she took it to court...his claim was that he was not abusive and that she had been brainwashing the kids). Mind you this isn't your typical situation, on a farm everyone shares the burden equally, including the kids...everyone made an equal investment on the farm, although she even brought in extra money by working for the census - she definitely deserved half of what the farm was actually worth.

Anyway, so here we have a single mother supporting 6 kids with virtually no financial assistance from their father. Two of these kids suffer from junior rheumatoid arthritis. One is going blind from it, and requires eye surgery every year. The other has a permanently stiff neck, has to wear a special (read: expensive) brace for his leg, and uses crutches. He also has physical therapy weekly.

They don't receive charity, but they do receive medicare/medicaid, it's the only way they can afford their medical expenses. The system is abused, but I believe it is necessary for some people. Several times a year these kids have to go see specialists in Boston (they live in Michigan), and the travel expenses are not paid for, neither is the time that she takes off of work to take her kids to these things. If you took subsidized health care away from these people, it would be a crime against humanity, IMO. These are some of the most giving people I have ever met too, despite having very little.
 

ThisIsMatt

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
11,820
1
0


<< AmusedOne: right on. But, you have to consider how many of us cannot do our daily jobs with out some of thoes things.

Kids should not be barred from the snack line if they have money. The standards should be changed for the free lunch privilege.

And why do so many of you flame jerboy for bringing up things like this?
He was not born very poor, wtf should he live or act like it?
That is where his point of view is coming from. And for that all he gets his slack from you whiners, you are as bad as him.

So you were poor, had to walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, CRY ME A RIVER.
Thoes were the "good ole days" right? And since you are all so about loving what you have, you must have LOVED every SECOND of your lives.
You NEVER EVER complained in this manner.

Please people, get off your collective high horses.
>>

Because he's a whiney brat, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to recognize that, sampson. Maybe if you paid attention to the other threads he creates on a weekly basis about how he didn't get this or didn't get that you'd realize it. Oh noooo, his parents didn't buy him a super digital camera, oh noooooo, his parents didn't buy him a new $30k+ car, oh noooo, his parents don't like that he got bad grades, etc etc. Jerboy has the audacity to complain about his school system for causing HIS poor grades...BULLS@!t. This is just another pathetic attempt for him to make excuses. He doesn't make the money he uses to buy stuff with, so he really has no room to talk. As far as reality cares, he's a grade A welfare recipiant taking money from his parents.
 

Amused

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


<<

<< AmusedOne: right on. But, you have to consider how many of us cannot do our daily jobs with out some of thoes things.

Kids should not be barred from the snack line if they have money. The standards should be changed for the free lunch privilege.

And why do so many of you flame jerboy for bringing up things like this?
He was not born very poor, wtf should he live or act like it?
That is where his point of view is coming from. And for that all he gets his slack from you whiners, you are as bad as him.

So you were poor, had to walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, CRY ME A RIVER.
Thoes were the "good ole days" right? And since you are all so about loving what you have, you must have LOVED every SECOND of your lives.
You NEVER EVER complained in this manner.

Please people, get off your collective high horses.
>>

Because he's a whiney brat, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to recognize that, sampson. Maybe if you paid attention to the other threads he creates on a weekly basis about how he didn't get this or didn't get that you'd realize it. Oh noooo, his parents didn't buy him a super digital camera, oh noooooo, his parents didn't buy him a new $30k+ car, oh noooo, his parents don't like that he got bad grades, etc etc. Jerboy has the audacity to complain about his school system for causing HIS poor grades...BULLS@!t. This is just another pathetic attempt for him to make excuses. He doesn't make the money he uses to buy stuff with, so he really has no room to talk. As far as reality cares, he's a grade A welfare recipiant taking money from his parents.
>>



His past threads don't negate the point of this thread, i.e., kids that get free lunches have enough money to go buy junk food on a daily basis. And the point that tax dollars are siphoned off from communities that work, to communities that simply sponge off the rest of us.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Here's what I think...the reason those kids are on the dole is cuz they're poor. They need that extra in the form of free lunch or free money. If they were just given free money, a portion of it would go to random crap and a portion would go to lunch.

By giving them free lunch, you insure they get a whole meal and they just shift some of the money they would have spent on food to the other stuff...
 

Amused

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


<< AmusedOne, if you think that laziness is the only thing that prevents people from getting a job, you haven't looked for a job recently, or if you have you've been extremely lucky. I looked for a job over the summer, I applied at places requiring people with computer skills of all different kinds (small computer shops, consulting firms, programming companies, etc) as this is my field of expertise. I also applied to grocery stores and 7 different Meijers in the area (like a walmart with groceries). It took me 3 months to find a job. I was lucky enough to have a support network and some friends who allowed me to stay at their farm and work for them while I was looking for a job, but not everyone is this lucky. >>



My success has NOTHING to do with luck. I started my own business, and worked my ass off to secure my future. I had no benefit, other than growing up in a two parent family that was torn apart by my father's death when I was 18. I had to secure my own college funds, and make my own way. No silver spoon here, and no luck. Support? HA! My family was 2000 miles away. I did it all on my own. If I can, anyone can.



<< I agree that people should not have kids if they cannot afford them, but situations change, people are laid off, it is not always easy to find a new job, parents divorce. Today's middle class 2 parent family can be tomorrow's 1 parent poor family. >>



If a responsible parent falls on hard financial times and is struggling to make ends meet to pay for their kids school lunch, I will not agree that they are abusing their child. No way, not if they are doing their best.

Take a newly single woman who has been a homemaker all of her life, she has no marketable skills, and her husband leaves her and the kids, or they get divorced and he manages to weasel out of child support (it happens). Maybe she can get a low paying job as a waitress at a low class restraunt, where she can manage to make minimum wage after tips, if she can find any places that are hiring.
I say she's doing her best to support her children, and certainly doesn't deserve to have them taken away. Let her kids have their free lunch, and if she makes a few extra dollars on a good night and decides to give it to them, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to spend it on a nice snack.

Obviously not everyone on the program fits into that kind of situation, but that situation does exist. And whether you think the father should be helping to support the kids, the fact remains that he is not.[/i] >>



If you don't have an emergency fund to support your family for at least 6 months in case you're laid off, that's your own fault. If it leads to not being able to feed your children, that's abuse through neglect. If a family breaks up, it's still BOTH parent's responsibility to care for the children. If a parent dies, it's the surviving parent's responsibility to care for their children, and this should have been done by securing life insurance BEFORE hand. Your failure to plan ahead does NOT become my responsibility to support you.

No matter how many excuses you come up with, I will NOT consent to other's being ENTITLED to the fruits of my labor, i.e., slavery.
 

Amused

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


<< Fact is, charities don't cover everything, and I am highly skeptical that they ever will.

The charities that get the funding are the ones that people are familliar with, that fight the diseases that people really know and care about, or fight for causes that people support.

The very friends that allowed me to stay with them and offered a great support network are living just above the poverty line. The mother and father are recently divorced, father slightly disturbed, verbally and mentally abusive, though he had been physically violent on two occasions. Because they lived on a farm, he was able to shelter his income and make it look like he essentially loses money every year...and so his child support payments are minimal, despite the fact that they have 5 kids at home and one in college.

Their mother got the raw end of the deal, far less than half of what their farm was actually worth (because he under valued the property, and threatened to sue for custody of the kids if she took it to court...his claim was that he was not abusive and that she had been brainwashing the kids). Mind you this isn't your typical situation, on a farm everyone shares the burden equally, including the kids...everyone made an equal investment on the farm, although she even brought in extra money by working for the census - she definitely deserved half of what the farm was actually worth.

Anyway, so here we have a single mother supporting 6 kids with virtually no financial assistance from their father. Two of these kids suffer from junior rheumatoid arthritis. One is going blind from it, and requires eye surgery every year. The other has a permanently stiff neck, has to wear a special (read: expensive) brace for his leg, and uses crutches. He also has physical therapy weekly.

They don't receive charity, but they do receive medicare/medicaid, it's the only way they can afford their medical expenses. The system is abused, but I believe it is necessary for some people. Several times a year these kids have to go see specialists in Boston (they live in Michigan), and the travel expenses are not paid for, neither is the time that she takes off of work to take her kids to these things. If you took subsidized health care away from these people, it would be a crime against humanity, IMO. These are some of the most giving people I have ever met too, despite having very little.
>>



The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
 

yoda291

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,079
0
0


<<

<<

<< AmusedOne: right on. But, you have to consider how many of us cannot do our daily jobs with out some of thoes things.

Kids should not be barred from the snack line if they have money. The standards should be changed for the free lunch privilege.

And why do so many of you flame jerboy for bringing up things like this?
He was not born very poor, wtf should he live or act like it?
That is where his point of view is coming from. And for that all he gets his slack from you whiners, you are as bad as him.

So you were poor, had to walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, CRY ME A RIVER.
Thoes were the "good ole days" right? And since you are all so about loving what you have, you must have LOVED every SECOND of your lives.
You NEVER EVER complained in this manner.

Please people, get off your collective high horses.
>>

Because he's a whiney brat, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to recognize that, sampson. Maybe if you paid attention to the other threads he creates on a weekly basis about how he didn't get this or didn't get that you'd realize it. Oh noooo, his parents didn't buy him a super digital camera, oh noooooo, his parents didn't buy him a new $30k+ car, oh noooo, his parents don't like that he got bad grades, etc etc. Jerboy has the audacity to complain about his school system for causing HIS poor grades...BULLS@!t. This is just another pathetic attempt for him to make excuses. He doesn't make the money he uses to buy stuff with, so he really has no room to talk. As far as reality cares, he's a grade A welfare recipiant taking money from his parents.
>>



His past threads don't negate the point of this thread, i.e., kids that get free lunches have enough money to go buy junk food on a daily basis. And the point that tax dollars are siphoned off from communities that work, to communities that simply sponge off the rest of us.
>>



And therein lies the problem of this whole situation. We live in a society that will give you all you need for no reason other than the fact that you desire it enough. We have grown to cater to the needs of everyone and are so scared of offending john somebody in littletown, nowhere that we don't do anything about it. On the inverse tho, because of this, we've dug ourselves in a bit of a rut because these policies aren't established without reason. There are a good many legitimate clustering of peoples who truly do need and are more than deserving of this aid. But evaluating everyone on a case by case basis is too slow and ineffective, so we are stuck using blanket terms to base who receives aid. We cannot mend this system without damning the very people we're trying to aid, so as a result, we end up biting the bullet and eating the costs. It's a lot like a criminal in a crowd. If there was one innocent man in a lot of 100 criminals, we'd let them all go for fear of persecuting the innocent. In the end, however, we all have something to do with this current state of affairs. There is always something that someone hates and this country gives everyone the right and power to fix it provided he/she wants it enough and damn to the consequences. The flip side to this is, if we take away this ability to change that which we object to, where does it end? What's to stop rampant segregation from spreading and oppression of ideas? The trick is balancing how much power the individual has. While I agree that we all have certain rights, there HAS to be checks in place on them, but more often than not, American people will fight any means of hindering their ability to act and speak, regardless of intent.
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0


<< My success has NOTHING to do with luck. I started my own business, and worked my ass off to secure my future. I had no benefit, other than growing up in a two parent family that was torn apart by my father's death when I was 18. I had to secure my own college funds, and make my own way. No silver spoon here, and no luck. Support? HA! My family was 2000 miles away. I did it all on my own. If I can, anyone can. >>



It costs money to make money, my friend. If your cash supply is $0, how do you start a business? Not everyone has business sense either, something essential to being successfully self employed.



<< If you don't have an emergency fund to support your family for at least 6 months in case you're laid off, that's your own fault. If it leads to not being able to feed your children, that's abuse through neglect. If a family breaks up, it's still BOTH parent's responsibility to care for the children. If a parent dies, it's the surviving parent's responsibility to care for their children, and this should have been done by securing life insurance BEFORE hand. Your failure to plan ahead does NOT become my responsibility to support you. >>



A family at the poverty level does not have the means to put aside 6 months worth of funds, they can barely make ends meet as it is.
In the divorce case that I gave you, the emergency funds would have been stashed away in the divorce, or cut in half. And even if you have all of them, 6 months worth of emergency funds is not going to be enough if you have to go buy a new house and support 6 kids. It is not the neglect of one parent if the other is a complete asshole, and there has to be a safety net there for those times. You won't convince me that newly divorced mom is responsible for their new poverty levels, and if you're willing to just turn away and let them suffer, you're an asshole too.



<< No matter how many excuses you come up with, I will NOT consent to other's being ENTITLED to the fruits of my labor, i.e., slavery. >>



You have not experienced true slavery. Taxes are part of our American system, and if you do not like them, then maybe you should become a professional bum; they're not subjected to taxes or any such "slavery" as you call it.
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0


<< The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
>>



If you actually read my post you would find that they are doing their very best to provide for themselves. They are not living on welfare, their mother works to support all of the kids and is putting one through college. She busts her ass for them and does everything she can, but their medical problems are EXTREMELY expensive and also debilitating, there is no way that a single working parent could afford to pay for them.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
The sad part about the free lunch/reduced lunch is, there is no so thing as a free/reduced lunch in the real world. This only reinforces that govt is there to take care of all. If a free lunch kid buy something from the snackbar, it should be deducted from his free lunch benefit. If I was on free lunch and 50 cents in my pocket, I would rather help pay my way rather letting somelse pick up the tab.

A school lunch for $2.25. Anyone care to guess how many sandwich sack lunch you can make with that? I would wager you could get dangeriously close to having a sack lunch every day of the week on that. I know i packed my lunch 95% of the time when i was in school. And then had my fair share of cornbread and red beans for dinner as well.

Then I went to work part time and payed for 100% of all my college education working a minimum wage job. What do I get for my sacrafices(and did I make alot of them)? I get screwed by the govt for not being a leech on the system. It is time to turn off the entitlments and let people live on their own.
 

Amused

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


<<

<< The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
>>



If you actually read my post you would find that they are doing their very best to provide for themselves. They are not living on welfare, their mother works to support all of the kids and is putting one through college. She busts her ass for them and does everything she can, but their medical problems are EXTREMELY expensive and also debilitating, there is no way that a single working parent could afford to pay for them.
>>



That's funny. Two of my brothers have been single fathers, and neither has ever relied on any state or federal assistence. It CAN be done.
 

Amused

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


<<

<< My success has NOTHING to do with luck. I started my own business, and worked my ass off to secure my future. I had no benefit, other than growing up in a two parent family that was torn apart by my father's death when I was 18. I had to secure my own college funds, and make my own way. No silver spoon here, and no luck. Support? HA! My family was 2000 miles away. I did it all on my own. If I can, anyone can. >>



It costs money to make money, my friend. If your cash supply is $0, how do you start a business? Not everyone has business sense either, something essential to being successfully self employed.
>>



You wanna know how I did it? I WORKED FOR IT. I didn't start with ANY capital when I left my parents house. Stop making excuses.



<< If you don't have an emergency fund to support your family for at least 6 months in case you're laid off, that's your own fault. If it leads to not being able to feed your children, that's abuse through neglect. If a family breaks up, it's still BOTH parent's responsibility to care for the children. If a parent dies, it's the surviving parent's responsibility to care for their children, and this should have been done by securing life insurance BEFORE hand. Your failure to plan ahead does NOT become my responsibility to support you. >>





<< A family at the poverty level does not have the means to put aside 6 months worth of funds, they can barely make ends meet as it is.
In the divorce case that I gave you, the emergency funds would have been stashed away in the divorce, or cut in half. And even if you have all of them, 6 months worth of emergency funds is not going to be enough if you have to go buy a new house and support 6 kids. It is not the neglect of one parent if the other is a complete asshole, and there has to be a safety net there for those times. You won't convince me that newly divorced mom is responsible for their new poverty levels, and if you're willing to just turn away and let them suffer, you're an asshole too.
>>



Again, their failure to plan ahead and provide for their children is not my fault, nor will I agree to being forced to pay for their bad planning and lack of responsibility either. Calling me names wont change that. If I can provide for me and mine, they can do the same.



<< No matter how many excuses you come up with, I will NOT consent to other's being ENTITLED to the fruits of my labor, i.e., slavery. >>



You have not experienced true slavery. Taxes are part of our American system, and if you do not like them, then maybe you should become a professional bum; they're not subjected to taxes or any such "slavery" as you call it.[/i] >>



There are two issues here. Paying taxes to support an army, a police force, a fire department, or a public works project is one thing. We all benefit from these things equally, and no individual person sees my money as their entitlement. Paying taxes to support others who are now told they are ENTITLED to my hard earned money IS slavery.

And no, I'm not the bum here. That would be those who see my hard earned money as their entitlement.
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0


<<

<<

<< The only crime against humanity here is making those who actually provide for themselves salves to those who don't. Manditory taxes used to pay the way for those who for any other reason than disability cannot or will not fend for themselves is slavery. I'm being forced to give up MY money to care for them against my will.

This is why charities are the only answer. Any manditory solution is servitude.
>>



If you actually read my post you would find that they are doing their very best to provide for themselves. They are not living on welfare, their mother works to support all of the kids and is putting one through college. She busts her ass for them and does everything she can, but their medical problems are EXTREMELY expensive and also debilitating, there is no way that a single working parent could afford to pay for them.
>>



That's funny. Two of my brothers have been single fathers, and neither has ever relied on any state or federal assistence. It CAN be done.
>>



Yes, obviously it's possible to be a single parent without any sort of federal assistance.
Do they also have 6 kids who have medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars, as in the example I gave you?
 

MrCodeDude

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
13,674
1
76
I'm late on this discussion but addressing what the topic asks, I think that the poor kids should be able to buy from the snack line. Seriously dude, put yourself in their shoes. If you have little to no money and were basically to either eat what the school provided or nothing at all. But then, every few days you have enough money for a snack. Usually the snacks are actually edible, rather than the mushy stuff the school provides, and so you want to try something new. But then, you can't because you're getting the free lunch food the school provides.

Let the kids buy a snack and enjoy themselves for a few minutes. I feel sorry for the kids who usually pay for something in dimes and nickels, sometimes if they look pathetic and aren't an ass, I usually help them out and give them $.50 or something. But these are just kids who can't make their own money. Yeah, a normal kid who doesn't get the free lunches mows lawns or washes cars every weekend, but more than likely, they don't have a lawnmower or something that we would feel normal to have.

As for me, in middleschool, I brought my own lunch because the snack food prices were too expensive ($18 for a medium pizza from Domino's, $2.25 for a small slice). I brought soda (usually a 24 oz. bottle or 2 cans) and Cheeze It's or other forms of munchies :D I went like a year eating those things and drinking soda, never got tired of them.. Now in High School, we don't have a provided lunch, only snack lines :) Those are even worse, $2.75 for a smaller slice of pizza from a noname company..
-- mrcodedude