I don't mind paying taxes so that all children can have a decent hot nutritious school lunch

[jpak]

every school day.

There I said it.

[AlCzervik]

1. seconded.

[Mrs. Overall]

2. Agree.

[villager]

3. What the fuck is wrong with your parenting skills!!?

;-)

Oh wait, it's like the line from Michael Ventura: "They're *all* your children."

[Fire1]

71. Totally agree.

[Fire1]

72. Sorry, I thought my post was aimed at the bottom of the thread.

[sufrommich]

4. I'm with ya. And I don't care whether their parents can or

can't pack lunch for them. A kid with no lunch is a kid with no lunch,who cares why?

[TwilightGardener]

5. Oh Lordy, please no more Scarlet Sandwich/Sandwich of Shame threads.

This is a little overblown.

[jpak]

8. Say cheese!

:hi:

[TwilightGardener]

9. As God is my witness, I WILL NEVER EAT A CHEESE SANDWICH AGAIN!!

(Scarlett O'Hara)

[leftstreet]

Oh I like that. 'Scarlet Sandwich'

Clever!

[jpak]

13. I think it's "cheezy"

:evilgrin:

[leftstreet]

26. No, this is 'cheezy'

[TwilightGardener]

30. Ow, my chest hurts now.

[Donnachaidh]

6. what? You mean you don't want to stand the kids in the corner and feed them baloney with a slingshot

How UN-AMERICAN of you! :sarcasm:

[MrCoffee]

11. I was going to agree, but I really want to shoot baloney at kids with a slingshot

So I support your plan.

[Donnachaidh]

25. Let's just make sure they have a full tummie first. With a hot meal.

And then the slingshot party can be fun for everyone. :bounce:

[jpak]

29. I'm sure there are scads of kids that would volunteer for that

:D

[Donnachaidh]

55. baloney wrapped around a tater tot

I've actually had food fights with my kid and his friends -- kids love that stuff :evilgrin:

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. That's only for UGLY kids anyway.

At least that's what my dad used to say before he shouted "INCOMING!" at me.

Balogna hurts. Leaves welts too.

[tekisui]

7. Agreed. If we become so callous and greedy that we judge children

before we feed them, if we feed them at all, we are finished as a society.

[fed_up_mother]

10. I prefer to only pay taxes for those kids who need it.

It makes way more sense for my neighbors and me to pay for our own kids' lunches, and for us to know that should we ever be in need, the help will be there.

I want strong social programs like single payer healthcare and preschool, but - there, I'll say it - I'm not in favor of a nanny state.

Or am I misunderstanding you? Do you mean no one "ever" paying for school lunches?

[Donnachaidh]

21. this is the sort of nitpicky nonsense that the pukes ran with so successfully

"Yeah, I'll pay, but ONLY for those blah blah blah...."

How the hell does a school lunch program blow into a *nanny state*? This is fearmongering ala Newt the puke.

[jpak]

24. School lunches = nanny state?

ugh....

[fed_up_mother]

34. I asked whether she meant that our taxes pay for all school lunches all the time

In other words, I was referring to parents "never" having to pay for school lunches.

I'm against that. Why don't we just raise pay enough taxes so that we can board our kids Monday through Friday?

[Donnachaidh]

43. channel rush much?

"Why don't we just raise pay enough taxes so that we can board our kids Monday through Friday?" :puke:

[jpak]

52. If their parents don't pay property taxes should they be taught by "cheezy" teachers

and learn from "cheezy" books too?

They're deadbeat parent kids.

They don't deserve anything well-to-do kids get.

Right?

[fed_up_mother]

64. Quite the opposite

Parents who can AFFORD to pay for their kids' lunch should do so, so we have more funds available to help those chidren who are truly hungry and deprived!

[CreekDog]

74. facepalm! they would be paying them THROUGH taxes

which is how the school got there in the 1st place. :banghead:

[fed_up_mother]

75. And why do we have to turn that function over that to the government

Why don't we pay enough taxes to feed everyone breakfast, too.

Ummm....no, thanks.

I happen to be of the believe that we pay taxes for those things that the government can do BETTER than we can like fire protection, police, schools, single payer healthcare, preschool, elder care, affordable housing for the poor, etc, but I happen to believe that parenting is still best done by parents whenever possible , and that includes feeding our own kids.

[CreekDog]

76. because just about everyone is working their asses off

and schools really could provide a better lunch, costing less and providing more nutrition than we can send them with.

feed the kid, figure out the bill later.

[fed_up_mother]

77. Then line 'em up for breakfast

And you'd just as soon plan on dinner, as well. Why not? After all, we could do it "costing less and providing more nutrition."

Just think of what we could turn over to the government with that attitude!

[CreekDog]

79. i have no issue with that

and some schools do just that.

government is whatever we agree to do together through our sovereign power.

we can do this if we choose.

[fed_up_mother]

47. If we go to a system where NO one pays for their kids' lunch.

Yeah, I think that would qualify as nanny state.

How about we use our money for other things like preschool and universal healthcare, instead? I don't need to pay more taxes for the government to feed MY kids.

[EFerrari]

48. "Nanny state" is a right wing frame -- the same one that tries to demonize

universal healthcare and preschool.

[fed_up_mother]

53. Well, if we raise taxes to pay for middle and upper class kids to eat "free" all the time

I would definitely say the right wing has a point about the nanny state.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I'd rather have better teacher pay, single payer universal healthcare, more available preschool, etc. That would improve society a lot more than being a nanny to my kids.

[EFerrari]

60. Yeah, those better teachers would have what impact on unfed kids?

[fed_up_mother]

62. What unfed kids?

I'm saying that folks like me who can afford to pay for their own kids' lunch should do so. That's all.

[EFerrari]

67. Perfectly clear. n/t

[fed_up_mother]

68. Folks who can pay, folks who can pay, folks who can pay, folks who can pay

What part of that don't you understand?

These kids are not and should not be underfed. It's much better to spend our resources on the NEEDY.

Geesh

[CreekDog]

73. the kids don't pay for all the teaching they get either

what's the difference? :shrug:

[Evoman]

91. Loop holes and falling through the cracks.

Thats what you get with policies like your suggesting. There will always be kids who aren't necessarily low income, but whose parents don't spend on lunch (alcholic, drugs, who knows why). Or who forget their lunch. Or who get their lunch money stolen or lost.

With an across the board policy, you can make sure less kids fall by the wayside, and you probably do it for almost as cheap as this selective bullshit.

And please cut it out with the right wing meme bullshit about The Nanny State.

[DrDan]

12. yes - I agree - and to improve schools overall - better pay for teachers,

get 'em out of the portables, extracurricular activities.

No better investment in my opinion.

BUT - you will never convince the greedy, greedy, greedy repubs of that. I live in Florida and am disgusted every time I hear a pig-retiree complain of having to pay taxes for the schools while he/she has no school-age children. It is unbridled greed. They have no problem funding wars - but our schools? That is another issue.

[marketcrazy1]

18. lets just

make a cheese sandwich, a carton of milk and a piece of fresh fruit the standard lunch for ALL kids! end of problem!!!

[LanternWaste]

44. Let's just call Ketchup a vegetable, too...

Let's just call Ketchup a vegetable, too...

[DrDan]

45. a heck-of-a-lot better than what they are carrying from home

[jpak]

27. a gentle reminder - they don't fund wars either

n/t

[DrDan]

41. yeah - you are correct - but they sure do love them

probably more so considering the next generation needs to pay for them

[ogneopasno]

14. Too bad the vast majority of them aren't terribly nutritious.

[DesertRat]

84. They are nutritious in my school district

With all due respect, do you have data to back up your statement? The salad bar that is stocked with fresh fruits and vegetables is a popular place in our school cafeteria. I know that it's the only source of fruit and vegs that most of my students eat.

And I'm in a state that certainly doesn't put children first.

[MISSDem]

15. Neither do I. But I do wonder how folks who make more than

I do qualify for the free lunch program. And I know that I make enough that should prevent any kids that I might have from qualifying for free meals.

[noiretextatique]

16. i agree

no cheese sandwiches to shame poor children.

[Fresh_Start]

17. me too, and add breakfast for the kids who missed it

at home

[maxsolomon]

19. we already do pay those taxes

and in many cases we pay for breakfast too. am i to understand that you'd like to raise property taxes to pay for ALL kids or just the low-income ones whose parents don't fill out the free-lunch forms?

PS a cheese sandwich, fruit & milk is a good lunch - maybe every kid should get that and then there's no shame.

[MISSDem]

23. I agree. A cheese sandwich, fruit and milk

would be much better that the junk that they provide like chicken fingers and pizza.

[jpak]

51. Why stop at cheese sammies? Poor kids should get substandard books and teachers too

After all, their deadbeat parents rent and don't pay property taxes - right?

:sarcasm:

[maxsolomon]

65. yeah, your sarcasm is inscrutable

not sure if you agree or disagree with me. i want cheese sandwiches for all.

[Ms. Toad]

95. there are not federal funds available to specifically pay

for the books and teachers. There ARE federal funds available to pay for lunches. The local taxpayers should not have to pay twice (through both federal and local taxes) for the same program, and the only way to only pay for it only once (through federal taxes) is to get the parents who are entitled to the federal money to fill out the paperwork. The school cannot get the available tax money without the parents' cooperation.

By the way, taxpayers include "deadbeat parents {who} rent" - who do you think provides the money to the property owner to send on to the local tax coffers.

For this district, implementing this policy has already brought in between $390,600 and $462,600 just for the rest of this year. (Based on this year's subsidy and the number of additional children already identified as eligible for free or reduced price lunches). Since that amount exceeds the debt owed, implementing this policy also seems to mean allowing those "deadbeat parents" to keep the money that it appears some of them had - at least occasionally - been paying to the school when they did not need to.

[pnwmom]

20. Agreed. n/t

[MadHound]

22. What gets me is that we've been feeding gets low cost/no cost lunches in school

For years and decades, since before I was born, yet now, NOW it all the sudden becomes an issue. Geez people, it used to be that we as a country were proud of how we could help out the poor and needy, and even looked for ways to do more. Now it's all about me me me, mine, mine mine. Sheesh people, get a grip. Free lunches for school kids takes up, at most, a buck of your tax dollars each and every year. Oh, and for that buck, you not only help kid's education, but you help out farmers too.

Some folks need to get a grip (not the OP:thumbsup:)

[The Unknown Derelict]

28. Agreed & Rec'd (n/t)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. I don't either

But I do wish that the schools would also honor those kids with special dietary needs and not give them a hard time. We've had that problem around here--my boss is a doctor who has several patients who are grade schoolers who have dietary-related disorders, like Celiac Disease. It is so hard to explain to schools that yes, it will make a difference if Johnny Doe eats "just one little slice of bread".

I realize this makes it harder on the schools, but if the goal of the lunches is to have a healthy student who is able to learn, they need to abide by doctor's orders. After all, time and money have been spent to do lab tests to confirm the diagnosis and Doc doesn't put kids on restrictive diets unless there is a real need.

[flvegan]

32. If we had never invaded Iraq, all children could be eating lobster and caviar at school.

[MrCoffee]

37. We invaded Iraq?

When did that happen?

[flvegan]

39. Champion my ass, Trebek.

[leftstreet]

33. K&R

[Still Sensible]

35. Absofuckinglutely! n/t

[Lex]

36. I don't even have kids, but I totally agree. I'm betting most developed countries do.

I don't know, but my guess is that they do.

[tblue37]

38. DITTO! DITTO! DITTO!

Some things are simply worth paying for. This is one of them.

[madokie]

40. Yep.

I don't mind paying any of my taxes and love it when I see some of it going to a good cause like feeding or housing someone.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. filed under no shit

[FloridaJudy]

46. Absolutely.

And Art..and Music..and Science..and field trips.

I also don't mind my taxes going to fund health care for everyone. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend for no-bid contracts to criminals like Halliburton and Blackwater.

[moc]

49. You already do. It's called the national school lunch program.

Look it up.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/

[phantom power]

50. Word.

:thumbsup:

[bluesmail]

54. I don't mind paying higher taxes. As long as people's needs are met. eom

[Lost in CT]

56. Neither do I but I do have a problem when the child's parent lives in a McMansion

Drives a new car but they can't be bothered to feed their own children.

[Thothmes]

70. I do have a problem when the child's parent spends

their discretionary income on drugs. take drugs but they cant be bothered to feed their own children. So the answer is to let their kids go down the toilet. Adults with children make poor decisions all the time. So do we let their kids pay for their parents stupidity? I would think not.

[Mariana]

99. I don't like it either

when they can't be bothered to feed their kids, I think people like that SUCK, but it still comes down to it's the KID that suffers for his or her parents' neglect.

[KonaKane]

57. Nor do I.

That's a keystone reason for taxation to begin with. It's not about the one, it's about how we wll pitch in so none of us have to go without. As far as school lunch goes, I'd far rather be paying for that than for another column of humvees going into an Iraqi town.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. can I add "I don't mind paying taxes for kids to have free healthcare

and dental care

[KittyWampus]

59. The kids already do. What you really mean- all kids should automatically get free lunch

without having to sign up.

In which case, cool kids would just start bringing lunch and shun those eating school food.

You know that's true.

The problem is that bullying and taunting is allowed.

[fed_up_mother]

63. Bingo.

[Chemical Bill]

61. Oh no, I want my taxes to pay for mass killings in far off places.

Well, maybe that plus services for the ultra rich so that they can get tax breaks.

Bill

PS, do I need this?: :sarcasm:

[burning rain]

66. I'm with you.

[Cleita]

69. From your computer to Obama's

:thumbsup:

[quakerboy]

78. a-yup

[mwooldri]

80. Add me to that list.

Also: if a school does BREAKFAST, make that free to all students too.

AND: Give the students enough time to eat the food and enough break/lunch/recess time.

[WillyT]

81. Me Too !!!

:kick:

[DesertRat]

82. Thank you from a teacher in a Title 1 school

Our students are served a nutritious breakfast and lunch. I had a little guy who was home for two days this week with a fever and cough. His mom told me that he cried when he had to stay home because he missed the food...

[DFW]

83. Nor do I

[LWolf]

Thank you,

on behalf of all of my students.

Not that I think school lunches are as nutritious as they should be.

Still, a school lunch is the only meal that one of my students had one day last week. She's homeless. She stays somewhere different every night, rarely with her mother, who is a homeless addict.

She loves basketball. Last week, someone dropped her off at 7am. She hung out in the gym until school started at 9am, had her school lunch, and stayed to play the last round of basketball games for the season.

She collapsed into the 2nd game. Fainted. One of our parents, a paramedic, was there and helped to bring her around. It turns out that school lunch was all she had to eat that day. All she'd had to eat every day, all week long.

She didn't tell anyone, because she hates for people to feel sorry for her.

Her story is dramatic. We have more homeless students, and students whose families are on the brink of financial disaster, this year than ever before.

Thank you for supporting their opportunity to get at least one meal a day, while they are with us at school.

As for my basketball player, have no fear. We'll make sure she eats more than once a day. We are stocking up, and our principal will call her out of the room morning and afternoon to make sure she eats.

[Iggo]

85. Feed....the....kids.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Fuck!

[Edweird]

86. I agree. The "not with *MY* money" posters make me sick.

For that matter, I was under the impression that we ALREADY paid for it with our taxes, and that the whole 'cheese sandwich' issue is one of shame and punitive in nature.

[Kitty Herder]

88. Absolutely. What kind of attitude is that for progressives?

I'm glad to pay for school lunch with my taxes, even though I have no children. As a child, I benefited from reduced price school lunch, subsidized by tax dollars, and I'm grateful for it. And if parents got behind in their lunch payments, they were simply billed later; the kids ate anyway and the other kids didn't know about it. Every child in this nation deserves a nutritious lunch without shame.

[readmoreoften]

94. Well, we wanted to be a "big tent" party. Don't be surprised when we get up with fleas...

The idea that we should pander to these sorts leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Ms. Toad]

93. You pay for the federal lunch program

with your taxes. The local problem here is two-fold.

First, those who qualify for free/reduced price lunches have not (for whatever reason) filled out the paperwork which requires (basically) name, members in your household, and income. (There are very few informational requirements, and the local school district is forbidden from delaying providing access to the free lunch program to students if they do not provide information beyond what the federal government requires - for example, the student doesn't even have to have an address to fill out the form and become eligible for the program.) Your federal tax dollars have paid to feed these kids, but the money is not getting to the school district because the parents have not filled out the paperwork, despite announcing since September that the (local) free ride was coming to an end, despite daily phone calls to parents who haven't been paying for the lunches, despite the application for free/reduced price being sent to every child in the fall, and despite weekly notes home to remind parents. The means that even though federal money is there to be had, local schools have been taking money out the local funds intended to be used to pay for teachers, books, heat, lights, etc. for all children to provide free lunch for people who haven't filled out the paperwork required to shift the money from the federal government to the local schools.

Second, there are a number of parents who can afford lunches who just haven't bothered to send in money with their kids (or their kids have been pocketing it) knowing that they would still be fed anyway. So, again, even though some parents can afford to pay for their children's lunches, local schools have been taking money out the funds intended to be used to pay for teachers, books, heat, lights, etc. for all children to provide free lunch for people who are taking advantage of a free ride.

I don't think the motivation is shame or punishment - it is simply that all of the school's previous efforts to get the parents to fill out the forms have failed, at least in part because there have not been any consequences to not filling out the form. There are now consequences, of which the parents were warned several months in advance - with daily and weekly reminders since then, and it still took the reality of implementing the consequences before the school was able to identify an additional 2000 children eligible for the federal program. The subsidy is $2.57 for free lunches and $2.17 for reduced price lunches. That means between $390,600 and $462,600 in new money brought into the school system just for the rest of this year because the school district finally chose to implement some consequences for not filling out the forms. The reality is, there are very few consequences the school district can implement which do not impact the children. The school district does not have the ability to impose these consequences directly on the parents (aside from sending bills, which have been being ignored).

[Edweird]

96. How can withholding prepared hot meals and substituting a specially prepared cold sandwich

be ANYTHING other than shaming and punitive in nature? They are paying TWICE to punish the children for the sins of their parents. Once for the bulk prepared food and twice for the 'punishment' meal.

There has to be a better way. If it were any other type of debt, this would be wildly illegal. If your children were treated this way because you failed to pay a parking ticket or were late on your mortgage or credit card bills, you could sue like crazy and would win. Why is this different?

I am (with certain exceptions) opposed to 'collective punishment'.

[Ms. Toad]

97. Then propose a way to get the parents

to apply for the free/reduced price meals. Federal money is available to pay for the meals, but the school cannot receive it without the parents' cooperation. The school has no direct control over the parents - their only means of gaining parent cooperation is through the children. The school has tried to get parents to apply, and until they stopped giving away free hot meals the parents did not (for whatever reason) apply. Since they stopped giving away free hot meals, 2000 additional students have qualified for the free meals bringing in hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to the school district for the remainder of the meal.

As to your examples, what do you think happens if your parents stop paying the mortgage? The home eventually gets taken away. The children do not get to live there for free just because it was the parents didn't pay their bills.

Same for parking tickets - ultimately the car will be impounded. The children do not get to keep access to the car because they were not the ones paying the bill.

Besides which, this is not about debt repayment, it is avoiding creating new debt. If the parents go into a grocery store and can't pay for the food, the kids don't get the food for free just because it is the parents (not the kids) that can't pay the bill - and the grocery store doesn't provide low cost, nutritious meals to the child to tide them over.

It is not punishment, collective or otherwise. If is being fiscally responsible. There is money available that can only be accessed via the parents. Propose a way to get the money from the parents that doesn't impact the kids, if giving them a free-but-different lunch bothers you. Seems to me the school district has made significant efforts that have been unsuccessful - and it is not fair to impose collective punishment (to use your phrase) on the entire student body in the form of fewer teachers, pay to play sports, etc. in order to provide free meals to children whose parents either can afford but chose not to pay - or to children whose parents who cannot afford pay but who also haven't responded to numerous attempts to get them to fill out the necessary and very minimal paperwork.

[Edweird]

98. From where I sit, 'your child is shamed and fed crap until you give us what we want'

is the moral equivalent of 'if you want to see your child unharmed again, give us what we want'.
Sure, doing that got the parents to do what they should have already done. But, that doesn't make it RIGHT. Any more than 'I've got your kid, so drop X amount of dollars in small unmarked bills at the park water fountain at midnight' is the right way to obtain an unsecured cash loan.

Using kids to get to their parents is reprehensible no matter what the motivation.

What makes this particularly disgusting is that in BOTH scenarios, the motivation is MONEY.

[Ms. Toad]

100. Then suggest another option to get the parents.

fill out the forms. Looks to me like the school tried pretty hard before it adopted this plan.

The money belongs to everyone in the local school district. The school has a responsibility to all of its students to use that money wisely, which includes not spending local money when there is federal money available. The motivation is not money, per se, it is using the money available to the school district to serve the most students with what is available - which includes not spending local money for a program that is federally funded.

So, again, feel free to propose a different way to convince the parents to fill out the forms. The school has been actively trying since the school year began. And making sure your children have nutritious food to eat, even when you haven't filled out the paperwork or paid for the meals, is hardly the equivalent of kidnapping a child.

[Edweird]

101. ok, here are some suggestions.....

Federally fund school lunches for all public school students. Period. (Don't tell me there isn't money for it. If there is money for 2 bullshit wars and giveaways to the least deserving of us all - bankers - then we HAVE the money to feed our kids.) Consider enrollment in public school as proof of need.

Cross reference participants in other public aid programs. If your parent or guardian is on unemployment, food stamps, section 8, whatever.. then you are automatically enrolled. Provide public schools with the info.

Make the free lunch program enrollment paperwork a mandatory part of the school enrollment packet. No 'give it to us when you can'. No lunch program paperwork (including an opt-out for those that choose) means no enrollment. The kids are considered truant and arrest the parents.

Shame the parents. Print the names and addresses of deadbeat parents in the local newspapers (like they do with 'johns').

Dun the parents with collections efforts. Call them night and day till they comply.



And yes, to me, shaming and punishing the kids to manipulate the parents is the moral equivalent to other types of extortion. You may see it differently, that is your right, but it is just as much my right to see it the way I do.

[Ms. Toad]

102. That's a start,

now go work to implement them (most of which require changes in federal law and state law), instead of spending all of this time to complain about a school that has worked for a semester to try to get parents to fill out the form without success and still provides all children with nutritious lunches, regardless of whether they pay or not.

[Orrex]

89. Fuck that

Kids should be subjected to perpetual shame and public ridicule simply because circumstances have prevented their families from earning six figures.

[Fireweed247]

90. If only they WERE nutritious....

check this out:

"More importantly, the study shows that private food service is associated with a reduction of 1 percent to 3 percent in scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP tests for grades 3-9), after controlling for affluence, school resources and student traits. This is especially true for students in grades 3-5 and with the English, reading and writing tests."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5155409



BTW EVERYONE wishes the government would provide more for the schools but they just aren't doing it. Schools are suffering, asking kids to bring in kleenex, glue, tape. The school and the cheese sandwich situation is about schools trying to recoup money from parents who CAN pay. No progressive DUers are suggesting doing away with the free lunch program, people are just overreacting.

[readmoreoften]

92. Oh Noes!!! Next come the gulags!!!!

Noes!!1 Not hot lunches!!!

[bluestateguy]

103. NO! I want tax cuts!! Waaaaaah!!! Waaaaah!!!!!

:cry:

I'm going to have to dip into Dylan and Brtitney's trust funds to pay for the country club dues this year!!! :grr:

:sarcasm: (for all you idiots who are humor challenged)