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

[yiwonder]

Aren't you the same person that complained that your parents wouldn't buy you some $30,000 sports car?!?!

YES you are.

Get over the quarter. I understand your frustration, but I don't think a quarter a day is going to kill you. Couldn't you also bring your lunch instead of "wasting" $2.25 a day on school lunch?

Edit: Your weekly rants on people less fortunate than you or saying how "these" people are stupid because they don't accomodate your every "need" aren't going to fly here. Get over it and move on. You're quite a closed minded kid.

 

[Nitemare]

I am amazed by all the bias against the reduced lunch and the free lunch kids. Quite often, lunch is the best meal of their day. I had friends who could pay for their lunch and those that required assistance.

Think about these kids having to go home and live in substandard conditions while you watch HBO, surf the net and b!tch and complain because your broadband appears a little sluggish. If they want to buy a snack because the wonderful cafeteria meal isn't enough, so friggin what??

Grow up...

 

[wyvrn]

Why are you picking on free lunch kids, don't have anything better to do?

I agree they should not be able to load up on snacks. That is wrong, they should be forced to eat the more healthy meal because 1) that is what the law is intended to do, give valuable nourishment to people who otherwise wouldn't get any at home and 2) because it is more efficient for the district while still meeting the standards of the provision. Snacks aren't valuable nourishment. Yes we should help the less fortunate, but I see your point in not using those dollars for snack foods. I think they should find a way to get those themselves because its a secondary need (snacks that is).



<< 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. >>



That is a very big assumption. I grew up in a single parent home with two kids, me and my bro. We were not poor by any stretch, however, we did have to make our fair share of sacrifices. We never had a computer to learn on when everyone else in my class did, we had to share cars, didn't get to go out or eat out very often, and we had to work jobs to pay for our entertainment like prom, and I put myself through college on my own funds. I remember in junior high where we did not have the money to pay for lunch every day, and would pack our own lunches or we did not eat. And we were considered middle class and grew up in middle class suburbs.

BTW, upper class is one of the worst abusers of drugs. Research it if you do not believe me.

 

[Yeeny]

<< 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. >>



Excuse me? Obviously you have no clue what it means to be poor. I have three kids, and my husband was laid off for a while, and we received free lunch. We live in an area where employment is few and far between, and you can't move out, when you have no money to do so. I never had a "nice dress" from the mall at that time, and to even suggest most people do that is sick. It was not my kids fault that their dad was laid off, bad stuff happens in life, and you do what you have to in order to survive. Figure it out, what you suggested. 4 kids, 2.25 a day a piece, is 45 dollars a week. How do you propose that someone who is making 200 a week on unemployment afford that, on top of housing, electric, food, water, heat, etc?

As for a kid who is poor, being able to afford an ice cream once in awhile, and maybe have one of lifes few enjoyments he can, why is that any of your concern Jerboy? Why don't you keep your eyes on your own plate, and not worry about what others eat. If you are truly so concerned about someone who is poor having a little pleasure in their life, you really need to seek some therapy. And if you are so concerned about the schools expense, bring your own lunch, and donate the 2.25 to a poor kid. Then your mind can be eased of its pain.

 

[Aves]

<<

<< 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. >>



Excuse me? Obviously you have no clue what it means to be poor. I have three kids, and my husband was laid off for a while, and we received free lunch. We live in an area where employment is few and far between, and you can't move out, when you have no money to do so. I never had a "nice dress" from the mall at that time, and to even suggest most people do that is sick. It was not my kids fault that their dad was laid off, bad stuff happens in life, and you do what you have to in order to survive. Figure it out, what you suggested. 4 kids, 2.25 a day a piece, is 45 dollars a week. How do you propose that someone who is making 200 a week on unemployment afford that, on top of housing, electric, food, water, heat, etc?

As for a kid who is poor, being able to afford an ice cream once in awhile, and maybe have one of lifes few enjoyments he can, why is that any of your concern Jerboy? Why don't you keep your eyes on your own plate, and not worry about what others eat. If you are truly so concerned about someone who is poor having a little pleasure in their life, you really need to seek some therapy. And if you are so concerned about the schools expense, bring your own lunch, and donate the 2.25 to a poor kid. Then your mind can be eased of its pain. >>


Right on!

 

[djheater]

<< As for a kid who is poor, being able to afford an ice cream once in awhile, and maybe have one of lifes few enjoyments he can, why is that any of your concern Jerboy? Why don't you keep your eyes on your own plate, and not worry about what others eat. If you are truly so concerned about someone who is poor having a little pleasure in their life, you really need to seek some therapy. And if you are so concerned about the schools expense, bring your own lunch, and donate the 2.25 to a poor kid. Then your mind can be eased of its pain. >>



We're not talking about these kids spending thier money on crack man, they're kids buying a freaking ding dong just like all the other kids I've got an idea why don't you seperate them out and make them feel persecuted by not allowing them the same rights as non-assistance kids.... you big jerk.

 

[gopunk]

i think our efforts are better spent educating people people not to have kids until they're ready to support them, both emotionally and financially.

 

[djheater]

<< i think our efforts are better spent educating people people not to have kids until they're ready to support them, both emotionally and financially. >>



Are you implying that only illegitimate or children of young parents require financial assistance? That's going to be a tough argument to support.

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< i think our efforts are better spent educating people people not to have kids until they're ready to support them, both emotionally and financially. >>



Are you implying that only illegitimate or children of young parents require financial assistance? That's going to be a tough argument to support. >>



no... i am implying that people who are not ready to support their children shouldn't have them. i was under the impression that free lunches were given on the basis of financial need...?

 

[Jzero]

<< no... i am implying that people who are not ready to support their children shouldn't have them. i was under the impression that free lunches were given on the basis of financial need...? >>



You are only in small part correct. Not everyone who is in a financial hole had children they could not support. See GirlFriday's post above for an example.

 

[notfred]

Jerboy? Whining?

It couldn't be!

 

[Yeeny]

GoPunk: I totally agree that people should not have kids before they are ready, but I mostly lean towards emotionally, cause that can do the most damage to a child, instead of being poor. But you have to remember, those programs are made to help everyone, if you fall on hard times. None of us can tell how life is going to turn out, and when you have a child, you are taking a risk that one day, you might not be able to afford it. And if that happens, these programs are here to help you get back on your feet. Alot of people use them the right way, instead of abusing them, myself and my family included. But unfortunately, the attention is lavished on the ones who abuse it, instead of being put where it belongs.

 

[ChrichtonsGirl]

<< "What do you think? "


since most kids are totally dependent on their choices made by their parents, let's make sure to make things rougher for them by labeling them and making sure everybody knows what loser families they come from !!!

I would think that someone who practices an alternative lifestyle would be strongly opposed to any attempt to
pubically label and humilate other people,particularly dependent kids and over an issue as basic as food ! I am
ashamed for you that you would even suggest such a thing :Q >>



<stands up and cheers for Jean>

I couldn't say it better. Jerboy, sounds to me like you're the one doing some discriminating now. It's just as ugly on you as it is on bigots who would attack you for your preferences.

 

[ChrichtonsGirl]

<<

<< 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. >>



Excuse me? Obviously you have no clue what it means to be poor. I have three kids, and my husband was laid off for a while, and we received free lunch. We live in an area where employment is few and far between, and you can't move out, when you have no money to do so. I never had a "nice dress" from the mall at that time, and to even suggest most people do that is sick. It was not my kids fault that their dad was laid off, bad stuff happens in life, and you do what you have to in order to survive. Figure it out, what you suggested. 4 kids, 2.25 a day a piece, is 45 dollars a week. How do you propose that someone who is making 200 a week on unemployment afford that, on top of housing, electric, food, water, heat, etc?

As for a kid who is poor, being able to afford an ice cream once in awhile, and maybe have one of lifes few enjoyments he can, why is that any of your concern Jerboy? Why don't you keep your eyes on your own plate, and not worry about what others eat. If you are truly so concerned about someone who is poor having a little pleasure in their life, you really need to seek some therapy. And if you are so concerned about the schools expense, bring your own lunch, and donate the 2.25 to a poor kid. Then your mind can be eased of its pain. >>




<gets back up again and stands cheering for Colleen>

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< no... i am implying that people who are not ready to support their children shouldn't have them. i was under the impression that free lunches were given on the basis of financial need...? >>



You are only in small part correct. Not everyone who is in a financial hole had children they could not support. See GirlFriday's post above for an example. >>



no, i am totally correct

i never said that people who are in financial holes shouldn't have had children, i am saying that people who are *currently* in financial holes should not have children until they are ready to support them. there is a difference. you can't predict the future with 100% accuracy, so expecting one to do so is unreasonable.

GoPunk: I totally agree that people should not have kids before they are ready, but I mostly lean towards emotionally, cause that can do the most damage to a child, instead of being poor. But you have to remember, those programs are made to help everyone, if you fall on hard times. None of us can tell how life is going to turn out, and when you have a child, you are taking a risk that one day, you might not be able to afford it. And if that happens, these programs are here to help you get back on your feet. Alot of people use them the right way, instead of abusing them, myself and my family included. But unfortunately, the attention is lavished on the ones who abuse it, instead of being put where it belongs.

exactly, i have NO problem with people like that getting it. however there are those who are already in hard times who have children. i would like to see an end to that. i am not in favor of abolishing this program, i am in favor of education on the topic of family planning.

 

[Jzero]

<< i am not in favor of abolishing this program, i am in favor of education on the topic of family planning. >>


An honorable endeavor. Your presentation of the idea 3 posts ago suggested (to me, at least) that you believed the only people using the program were those who are irresponsible.

 

[Zwingle]

I voted no.....but



<< Yes, they should be. Some people don't stand in very high financial status and they want snack too >>



Studies have shown and according to what I see at my daughters elementary....the poorer kids are the most overweight.....been snacking a bit too much.

My daughter brings her luch and occasiaonally buys lunch at school.....anyway, If I forget to pack a spon or fork with her luch, they charge a nickel.....A NICKEL! For a single disposable fork or spoon? Yet they give away lunches to kids......ridiculous. I also found out that the teachers also have to pay for plastic flatware.....that is just plain sad.

 

[Geekbabe]

<< I voted no.....but



<< Yes, they should be. Some people don't stand in very high financial status and they want snack too >>



Studies have shown and according to what I see at my daughters elementary....the poorer kids are the most overweight.....been snacking a bit too much. >>



actually,more like being fed cheaper foods that contain a lot of fat and carbs, instead of lean chicken and fish,fresh fruit and veggies and whole grain breads and cereals.

 

[frail]

<< I'm sorry aren't we living in America? A kid should be able to by a damn snack anytime anywhere regardless of whether or not some whiney biatch thinks his free lunch is lowering the general quality of food in the lunchroom. Geez you should be happy you're not served Borscht and goatsmilk... get over your damn self.... >>



damn straight, get off your high horse jerboy.

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< i am not in favor of abolishing this program, i am in favor of education on the topic of family planning. >>


An honorable endeavor. Your presentation of the idea 3 posts ago suggested (to me, at least) that you believed the only people using the program were those who are irresponsible. >>



my apologies...

on a side note, i was initially aghast because i had misread "honorable" as "horrible"

 

[pyonir]

Jerboy, i think you are pretty closeminded and selfish. think about it. what is a treat for you, or a hightlight of the day. maybe driving a BMW? going to a restaurant that charges $15 a plate? Buying the latest game for your PC or PS2? well how about the kids that are on reduced or free lunch? their highlight may be that donut or cookie. do you think that just because they are poor or their parents are going thru some troubles in work that they don't deserve little pleasures in life as well? get off your high horse and start to realize what life is like for people in the real world.

you say it is a prep-school? do you have to pay for it then? maybe the parents are trying to get their child a better education so they sacrifice some of their own luxuries to make that happen. ever think of that? so children back in 1941 when the war was going on and the families didn't have enough money for the essentials should not have allowed their children to use a penny and get some candy? cause that penny could have gone towards their main meal? that was the highlight of many of those childs' young lives! Ask anyone that was a child during that era, what it was like to get a piece of chocolate or candy. get in touch with reality.

:|

 

[Jzero]

<<

<<

<< i am not in favor of abolishing this program, i am in favor of education on the topic of family planning. >>


An honorable endeavor. Your presentation of the idea 3 posts ago suggested (to me, at least) that you believed the only people using the program were those who are irresponsible. >>



my apologies...

on a side note, i was initially aghast because i had misread "honorable" as "horrible" >>




Doh!
haha

 

[calbear2000]

<< I am amazed by all the bias against the reduced lunch and the free lunch kids. Quite often, lunch is the best meal of their day. I had friends who could pay for their lunch and those that required assistance.

Think about these kids having to go home and live in substandard conditions while you watch HBO, surf the net and b!tch and complain because your broadband appears a little sluggish. If they want to buy a snack because the wonderful cafeteria meal isn't enough, so friggin what??

Grow up... >>

 

[BD2003]

You know, when I was a kid, I would have killed for a snackline. It didnt even exist in my school. But thats besides the point.

Do you think youve earned your wealthiness? Do you think you deserve a snack more than anyone else?

YOU DONT!

I swear to fvcking god I cant stand little kiddies that think they have somehow earned their lifestyle while theyre still in fvcking high school! Practically every single thing you own has been bought by your parents. You own NOTHING. You have earned NOTHING.

I was the poor kid in school. I had nothing. I wore the same thing every fvcking day. And now youre trying to tell me you wouldnt have wanted me to have a fvcking cookie, because it would cost you a quarter more!?!?! A quarter you didnt even earn to begin with!

I want to smack you so hard right now. With your attitude I hope you end up getting a taste of your own medicine.


Its just plain luck that we're born into the families that we are. So I was unlucky in the wealth department. I dealt with it, while every single person I knew bitched and whined about how they couldnt afford this or that car, which 20,000 a year college to go to etc, all I wanted to do was to be able to afford to go to the movies every now and then!

Why dont you appreciate what you fvcking have, instead of bitching about what you dont!

 

[gopunk]

I was the poor kid in school. I had nothing. I wore the same thing every fvcking day. And now youre trying to tell me you wouldnt have wanted me to have a fvcking cookie, because it would cost you a quarter more!?!?! A quarter you didnt even earn to begin with!

*somebody* earned that quarter, whether it was jerboy or his parents. you are no more entitled to that quarter than he is.

i think... if the free lunch kids are still hungry, they should get more *food*, like quality food, not junk food. but that's just me.