Venting About Reduced Lunch in School Program - Page 10

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@JillyMarie wrote:
I guess the old adage - There but for the grace of God go I. - has gone by the wayside for some.

What? there but for the grace of God go I, being decitful, stealing, and abusing a system set up for those in true need?

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@Maudelynn wrote:
@sunshine45 wrote:

Your child(ren) may qualify for free or reduced price meals if your household income falls at or below the limits on this chart.
Imagine that? Those lousy parents owning homes, taking vacations AND getting subsidized lunches for their kids! All on $863 a week for a family of 4! The unmitigated gall.

Depends on where you live, but here, a family of 4 can live modestly on $863 a week, and I have done it on much much less. Many still do, without taking government handouts.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
For people who essentially object to there being any rules concerning free lunch - i.e., all children should automatically get it because otherwise, parents might not provide it, I ask this.

Would you personally be willing to provide dinner every night to neghbor children whose parents didn't feel like cooking - because otherwise they would go hungry?

If not, what is your logic for insisting the taxpayer should?
As I stated I live in one of the highest if not the highest property taxed county in NJ. I have no problem that my $$ goes to providing free lunches or breakfast. My G-d we are talking about children.
I raised my DD as a single parent I never thank G-d needed this service but I know those that did and I am happy that we in a lot of communites not only provide them during the school year but also in the summer. This is not what is wrong with the economy.
Why is it always the least among us that get dragged up and questioned first?

This original post wasn't about 'the least among us' it was about those that really don't qualify, taking anyway.

Maudelynn · ‎05-08-2015

@Mominohio wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@sunshine45 wrote:

Your child(ren) may qualify for free or reduced price meals if your household income falls at or below the limits on this chart.
Imagine that? Those lousy parents owning homes, taking vacations AND getting subsidized lunches for their kids! All on $863 a week for a family of 4! The unmitigated gall.
Depends on where you live, but here, a family of 4 can live modestly on $863 a week, and I have done it on much much less. Many still do, without taking government handouts.

More power to you if you could house, feed, clothe and insure a family of 4 on $863 weekly, which amounts to approximately $620 after taxes. You would be living very close to the edge, especially when rent takes up nearly 1/2 your monthly income.

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

Maudelynn · ‎05-08-2015

@Mominohio wrote:
@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:
@Isobel Archer wrote:
For people who essentially object to there being any rules concerning free lunch - i.e., all children should automatically get it because otherwise, parents might not provide it, I ask this.

Would you personally be willing to provide dinner every night to neghbor children whose parents didn't feel like cooking - because otherwise they would go hungry?

If not, what is your logic for insisting the taxpayer should?
As I stated I live in one of the highest if not the highest property taxed county in NJ. I have no problem that my $$ goes to providing free lunches or breakfast. My G-d we are talking about children.
I raised my DD as a single parent I never thank G-d needed this service but I know those that did and I am happy that we in a lot of communites not only provide them during the school year but also in the summer. This is not what is wrong with the economy.
Why is it always the least among us that get dragged up and questioned first?
This original post wasn't about 'the least among us' it was about those that really don't qualify, taking anyway.

The original poster has no idea if those receiving the benefit qualify. She has not confirmed that she has intimate knowledge of the financial status of those kids getting free lunch. She is assuming that the parents are gaming the system based on the fact they own a home or take a vacation.

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@RazorSharp wrote:
@eddyandme wrote:

@RazorSharp wrote:
@eddyandme wrote:
I don't believe in "free" lunches. People on Welfare get monies for groceries, etc. And, for those not being subsidized, there are food banks. They can always make sure their children have a healthy lunch. There is no shame in bringing one's lunch to school, work, whatever. Seems like the free lunch program attracts those too lazy to make a lunch for their child and/or those who think they can scam the system.
@eddyandme Then, why should the schools provide lunch? By your estimation, all the parents have the time and ability to pack a lunch for kids, right?
@RazorSharp

Right. It's called handling your responsibilities.
Yeah, and if the parents suck, let the kids go hungry, right? Nice.

Well, where does it stop? We already provide a 'free' education to all, and transportation if you aren't in walking distance of it. Now we feed your kid twice a day, and there are government funded programs that feed them in the summer too.

Free day care, free housing, free education and job training, free healthcare, food stamps (that should be used to pack lunches) assistance with utilities, free phones, free auto repair services for those that have a job (but usually they get the car fixed then sell it), and it goes on.

So where does it stop?

reiki604 · ‎03-09-2010

@Mominohio wrote:
@nonstopshopper wrote:
If it really bothers you, don't look. It's confidential for a reason and it's not your place to decide who should or shouldn't get assistance. Circumstances change all the time.
What bothers me the most is you're judging on an assumption...and we all know where that leads. I'm sure there are some people scamming the system, but you'll find that any place you look. I just chose to look for the best in people because I don't want to waste any energy worrying about something that may or may not be there.
Somebody better start "wasting energy" not only worrying about what may be there, but finding it out and stopping/regulating/fixing it.

How much longer do people really believe we can continue on this economic course?

Your absolutely right. Perhaps if the tax burden was more equitably distributed and some loopholes closed there would be more money available to let this nation achieve the principles of a first world nation.

'I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man'.......Unknown

CRAZYCATLADY · ‎12-09-2010

Nothing is free. Our taxes pay for it.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@RazorSharp wrote:
@eddyandme wrote:
@JillyMarie @RazorSharp

What I'm trying to say putting a bandaid on the problem is not going to resolve the situation. Parents should put their children first and foremost. And the lazy, selfish, whatever ones, should be educated: DSS d/n only remove children and throw them in an orphanage. They strive to make families having problems overcome the situation. And, I would never let a child, elderly person, whomever go without. Intimating that someone is harsh or uneducated when disagreeing on something is IMHO rather harsh and uneducated. First and foremost, I believe people should help people and not rely on the government - I'm not a socialist, I guess. But I believe in helping, caring for others and resolving a situation not helping it to continue or even grow.
@eddyandme You cannot cherry pick which government programs are good and bad to defend your argument, then say that people shouldn't rely on the government. I cannot understand your point of view, because you clearly cannot understand your own point of view.

Oh, but yes we must. And all aspects within each government program. If we don't, we are going to fall financially to the point where there won't be enough for what is truly necessary.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@RoughDraft wrote:

"For Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

This means, to me, private charity, not a governent that takes from the taxpayer to ineffeciently disperse to those they see fit, or those that have no problem taking what they don't truly need.