If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Everlasting GOPstoppers)   Hey Utards, this is how you do it. "Houston man pays delinquent lunch accounts for 60 elementary school kids"   (theeverlastinggopstoppers.com) divider line 346
    More: Hero, Pepto Bismol, high-deductible health plan, Sudafed, KPRC, runny nose  
•       •       •

10302 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:49 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



346 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-06 01:09:16 PM
We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.
 
2014-02-06 01:51:04 PM
a large group of kids were getting "reduced lunches," of cold cheese sandwiches because of negative balances on their accounts.

WHAT THE FARK IS WRONG WITH YOU?????
 
2014-02-06 01:52:16 PM
Hero or not, the money should always be there for schools, for whatever purpose, the Pentagon be damned.
 
2014-02-06 02:13:14 PM

bluenovaman: a socialist


And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.
 
2014-02-06 02:22:50 PM

kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.


Doesn't that mean that your lack of support for the Democrats mean that a party even farther from your position will do better?
 
2014-02-06 02:30:38 PM

kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.


My friends call me one all the time (along with dirty hippie among other amusing labels), I wouldn't go so far as to agree with them on that, but I'm not ashamed of the label.  I'm happy to support my fellow working class Americans against the tyranny of the GOP.
 
2014-02-06 02:31:55 PM
There is also a petition to make taking and throwing lunches away on children illegal.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/illegalize-throwing-away-s tu dent-lunches-due-debt/MSZdvBZ4
 
2014-02-06 02:49:12 PM
So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.
 
2014-02-06 02:50:46 PM
60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.
 
2014-02-06 02:52:26 PM
Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.
 
2014-02-06 02:54:07 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?
 
2014-02-06 02:54:22 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


So vote republican.

And BTW, you're still a piece of shiat.
 
2014-02-06 02:54:46 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


And it turns out those parents didn't have to pay because the school was still feeding their kids.  What's the incentive for them to?  The nutritional horror of cheese sandwiches?   Come to think of it, where can I get mine?
 
2014-02-06 02:55:06 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


www.nonlintec.com
 
2014-02-06 02:55:31 PM

bluenovaman: We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.


Just had a similar conversation with a co-worker.  She was showing off all the things I-phones, I-pads etc can do (I don't even try to keep up with this stuff--don't need to).

It occurred to me--Damn, we can do all this amazing--truly AMAZING--things, build such fantastic stuffs...but we can't seem to make sure people have food.  WTF.

Priorities--yeah we haz 'em.
 
2014-02-06 02:55:33 PM
Subby, please. Utah is consistently surveyed as the most religious state in the country. You really think people like that feel any responsibility to help others? Don't be naïve.
 
2014-02-06 02:55:34 PM

rkiller1: The nutritional horror of cheese sandwiches?   Come to think of it, where can I get mine?


Get an only clothes iron from a garage sale for a quarter, charge kids a nickel to grill their sandwiches, profit.
 
2014-02-06 02:56:25 PM
I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?
 
2014-02-06 02:57:10 PM
If people are really interested in joining a socialist party be prepared for what you are getting involved with (I am a socialist).  Socialists are not democrats and they are not liberals.  Socialism is a revolutionary movement.  You will likely not be successful with getting socialist candidates elected, you will read a lot of Marx and Lenin and you will be asked to be involved with many demonstrations.
 
2014-02-06 02:58:03 PM

tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?


Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.
 
2014-02-06 02:58:15 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


images1.sw-cdn.net
 
2014-02-06 02:59:06 PM

KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.


Starving the kids is obviously the only solution.
 
2014-02-06 02:59:42 PM
BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones
 
2014-02-06 02:59:45 PM
Thanks FARK for making me cry ...
 
2014-02-06 02:59:58 PM
I've been kind of wondering why they couldn't do an account inquiry using SQL. All you'd have to do is select the balances, with student IDs, and where clause out any positive balances.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:18 PM
whose parents couldn't afford the 40 cents a day

Farking seriously? You can probably find this laying on the street. How farking stupid are these people?
 
2014-02-06 03:00:24 PM

rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.


The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?
 
2014-02-06 03:00:24 PM

HotWingConspiracy: KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.

Starving the kids is obviously the only solution.


This, and further, we don't even know the situation of the parents.  People are making so many farking leaps it's farked up.  Maybe a lot of you assholes here like to see kids go hungry.
 
2014-02-06 03:00:44 PM
maybe if it weren't for the burden of administrative costs a little bit of the money pumped into our schools could go to feeding the students and more to our teachers!

we feed our soldiers, why not feed our future soldiers?
 
2014-02-06 03:00:46 PM

HotWingConspiracy: KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.

Starving the kids is obviously the only solution.


You know how I can tell you DNRTFA?
 
2014-02-06 03:01:33 PM

HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?


I said YOU.
Reading is hard.
 
2014-02-06 03:02:31 PM

rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.
Reading is hard.


What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.
 
2014-02-06 03:02:35 PM
this is all so crazy to me. IDK how their school systems can't afford the bill. I mean, I don't have kids but doesn't your taxes pay for lunches at schools? Or maybe just tell aramark or whoever is supplying the food that they have to support these kids too to get the contract.
 
2014-02-06 03:02:50 PM

kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.


Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.
 
2014-02-06 03:03:19 PM

HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.
Reading is hard.

What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.


And we're done here.
Have a nice day and an even nicer lunch!
Peace
 
2014-02-06 03:03:25 PM
Bravo dude.
 
2014-02-06 03:03:32 PM
What do they do for the poor snowflake with no money who is lactose intolerant and has a gluten sensitivity?
 
2014-02-06 03:03:55 PM

Dirtybird971: this is all so crazy to me. IDK how their school systems can't afford the bill. I mean, I don't have kids but doesn't your taxes pay for lunches at schools? Or maybe just tell aramark or whoever is supplying the food that they have to support these kids too to get the contract.


You know how I can tell you DNRTFA?
 
2014-02-06 03:03:58 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.

Somerville, MA has recently decided to provide free, nutritious breakfast to every student in public school, regardless of income, and reduce the cost of lunch to $2.75 per meal, and has this policy for students who haven't paid:
 All students who are not eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch or have not submitted a lunch application are required to pay for lunch if they choose to get a lunch from the cafeteria. Students are allowed to debit up to ($25.00) and still receive lunch. Students that have reached this threshold of owing $25.00 will not be allowed to receive additional lunches until they submit payment. However they will be able to receive cereal, fruit, juice and milk anytime they do not have money. Students in grades K through 2 will be allowed to receive lunch regardless of the amount of money owed. All students will be provided with nutritious food each day and no student will be denied food.

You know, as a tax payer in Somerville, I'm a perfectly ok with this.
 
2014-02-06 03:04:23 PM
Oh, for f***'s sake. Yes, the decision to follow policy rather than think about how their actions would look was ridiculous. But the histrionics that have followed have lost all sense of perspective, and calling this guy a "hero" for ostentatiously paying the bills is beyond idiotic.
 
2014-02-06 03:04:41 PM

tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?


Something IS being done about it--the kids get a cheese sammich and fruit.
 
2014-02-06 03:04:59 PM
SubBass49:

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Can I assume that the parents got multiple warnings (written, phone calls, in person) and simply ignored all of them? Because if that's the case, then yeah...you don't have much choice left. But if they haven't received those warnings...I'd probably start there.
 
2014-02-06 03:05:04 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Attach it like child support payments or at least go after them like libraries do for overdue books?

/not being snarky
 
2014-02-06 03:05:35 PM

rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.
Reading is hard.

What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.

And we're done here.
Have a nice day and an even nicer lunch!
Peace


Wow I'm shocked that you're full of shiat.
 
2014-02-06 03:06:06 PM

rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.



Yeah, this thread took a weird turn right out of the gate.

/ my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.
 
2014-02-06 03:07:07 PM
Feed them Sochi Dogs

/JK guy is a Real American Hero
 
2014-02-06 03:07:08 PM

limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.


Something tells me you don't actually know what socialism is.
 
2014-02-06 03:07:22 PM

TomD9938: / my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.


Oh. Well than all dad's must be like yours.

A kid cannot learn if he's hungry, and a kid that doesn't learn will never be any benefit to society.
 
2014-02-06 03:07:28 PM
Wait a second, when their parents don't pay they were still getting cheese sandwiches and pb&j?

I brought my bag lunch to school every day for 13 years and what did I have? cheese sandwiches and pb&j (that my parents paid for)
 
2014-02-06 03:07:33 PM
SubBass49:

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

Forced sterilization and removal of the kids from the parents, and then send the parents into the desert to dig ditches.

I'm kidding about one of the three options.
 
2014-02-06 03:08:10 PM

jedikinkoid: Oh, for f***'s sake. Yes, the decision to follow policy rather than think about how their actions would look was ridiculous. But the histrionics that have followed have lost all sense of perspective, and calling this guy a "hero" for ostentatiously paying the bills is beyond idiotic.


Well, get Drew to make a "Damn nice fellow" tag and we can use that next time. Ok?
 
2014-02-06 03:08:14 PM

what_now: SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.

Somerville, MA has recently decided to provide free, nutritious breakfast to every student in public school, regardless of income, and reduce the cost of lunch to $2.75 per meal, and has this policy for students who haven't paid:
 All students who are not eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch or have not submitted a lunch application are required to pay for lunch if they choose to get a lunch from the cafeteria. Students are allowed to debit up to ($25.00) and still receive lunch. Students that have reached this threshold of owing $25.00 will not be allowed to receive additional lunches until they submit payment. However they will be able to receive cereal, fruit, juice and milk anytime they do not have money. Students in grades K through 2 will be allowed to receive lunch regardless of the amount of money owed. All students will be provided with nutritious food each day and no student will be denied food.

You know, as a tax payer in Somerville, I'm a perfectly ok with this.


Then the question becomes how many people out there are like you?  Where I live, until this school year, budgets were being cut left & right.  It was hard as hell to get the voters to pass a tax increase to just keep our heads above water.
Are you representative of the voting public, or more left-leaning than they are?
What will happen when an increasing percentage of budget goes to feeding the children of people more than capable of doing it on their own, and schools lose more & more teachers, programs, supplies, etc.?

Again, I'm left-leaning in general, but I also see the inadequate funding in person every day and it pisses me off to no end that there are people that COULD pay their way and choose not to.
 
2014-02-06 03:08:35 PM

limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.


I am no socialist, but capitalism seems to be circling the bowl for the vast majority.


/not me
 
2014-02-06 03:08:38 PM

limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.


Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.
 
2014-02-06 03:08:48 PM
So the parents can't affor $8 bucks a month? I woder if they have smart phones.
 
2014-02-06 03:08:59 PM
Holy sh*t! How did a feel-good article on feeding poor kids lunches turn into a "f**k you - me first - hate the poor" thread?
Some of y'all have to go to the gun-range and fire off some rounds of hostility or sumpin'.
 
2014-02-06 03:10:06 PM
utah is like a top 5 welfare state from the federal goverment..behind like KY and LA.. its like the derpy your policy the more you need hand outs
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 03:10:21 PM

SubBass49: - What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


how about something that DOESN'T leave the kid hungry?
 
2014-02-06 03:10:22 PM
Thanks for the dramatic video re-enactment Click2Houston, I was having difficulty visualizing what a man taking out his wallet and paying for something looks like.
 
2014-02-06 03:10:25 PM

limboslam: So the parents can't affor $8 bucks a month? I woder if they have smart phones.


Why do you woder that?
 
2014-02-06 03:10:28 PM

I Browse: SubBass49:

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Can I assume that the parents got multiple warnings (written, phone calls, in person) and simply ignored all of them? Because if that's the case, then yeah...you don't have much choice left. But if they haven't received those warnings...I'd probably start there.


Assuming this happened.  Most school districts have auto-dialer programs that can contact a grouping of parents based on criteria they select.


fanbladesaresharp: Attach it like child support payments or at least go after them like libraries do for overdue books?

/not being snarky


I really like that idea, but then the district has to fork over money to go to court or pay collection agencies.  Districts are still out money.
 
2014-02-06 03:10:49 PM

rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.


It's about priorities fool, some of us want a better world for all of our children and couldn't give a shiat about killing brown people half way across the world.
 
2014-02-06 03:11:07 PM
Will he do it next month? And after that? What about all the other kids in need every day?

/not likely to do it again

//what seems like a nice gesture fails to actually help
 
2014-02-06 03:11:09 PM

limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.


I don't know, Norway seems to be doing pretty well.
 
2014-02-06 03:11:28 PM
I wonder how many of those kids yearn to get the hell out of that state.  Stay in school kiddos.
 
2014-02-06 03:11:31 PM

SubBass49: Are you representative of the voting public, or more left-leaning than they are?


In Somerville? I'm pretty representative. There are people who will biatch about this, but mainly because the menu is also in Spanish, Hmong, and Creole. Not a lot of Mass residents will admit to being opposed to feeding children.


/Somerville is very proud of it's healthy lunch program



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722405/
 
2014-02-06 03:11:47 PM

limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.


Yea, our roads suck.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 03:12:18 PM

tbhouston: utah is like a top 5 welfare state from the federal goverment..behind like KY and LA.. its like the derpy your policy the more you need hand outs


Another interesting tidbit is that there is a concept (I think it's called "starving the beast") in the fundamentalist Mormon church that states they should have as many kids as possible so they can get as much money from the government as possible.  I wish I had a good link about that... that was from a documentary I saw at some point.
 
2014-02-06 03:12:20 PM

oldfarthenry: Some of y'all have to go to the gun-range and fire off some rounds of hostility or sumpin'.


I'm pretty sure most of their moms were downrange when someone was shooting of an M-16, and they're all the babies of the left-over sperm on the barrel after their carefully inbred fathers finished jacking off on their extra large magazines.
 
2014-02-06 03:12:44 PM

d23: SubBass49: - What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

how about something that DOESN'T leave the kid hungry?


Such as?  Deadbeats will screw the schools over for as long as they can unless there are teeth to the policy and they know they're gonna get nailed for it...and even then some will still try to test it for themselves.

Wage-garnishment?
Jail?

Remember, these are not POOR people who cannot afford to feed their kids, they're people that don't give a shiat about feeding their kids.
 
2014-02-06 03:12:45 PM

abhorrent1: whose parents couldn't afford the 40 cents a day

Farking seriously? You can probably find this laying on the street. How farking stupid are these people?


I've seldom seen a more appropriate screen name.
 
2014-02-06 03:13:00 PM

what_now: TomD9938: / my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.

Oh. Well than all dad's must be like yours.

A kid cannot learn if he's hungry, and a kid that doesn't learn will never be any benefit to society.



As subbass49 pointed out, these are families who can afford the school lunches (otherwise they'd be getting the free / reduced rate) and just don't bother to pay.

You defend that?
 
2014-02-06 03:13:34 PM
What's a utard? Is that a ute?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 03:13:44 PM

Isitoveryet: maybe if it weren't for the burden of administrative costs a little bit of the money pumped into our schools could go to feeding the students and more to our teachers!

we feed our soldiers, why not feed our future soldiers?


We don't always feed our former soldiers, though.
 
2014-02-06 03:14:14 PM

oldfarthenry: Holy sh*t! How did a feel-good article on feeding poor kids lunches turn into a "f**k you - me first - hate the poor" thread?
Some of y'all have to go to the gun-range and fire off some rounds of hostility or sumpin'.


Got ugly real quick, didn't it?
 
2014-02-06 03:14:41 PM
That is the way it's done.  Good on you, guy.
 
2014-02-06 03:14:43 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what a utard is..
 
2014-02-06 03:14:49 PM

HotWingConspiracy: KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.

Starving the kids is obviously the only solution.


They're still getting fed.  Oh, the horror of a cheese sandwich!
 
2014-02-06 03:14:49 PM

rkiller1

Dirtybird971: this is all so crazy to me. IDK how their school systems can't afford the bill. I mean, I don't have kids but doesn't your taxes pay for lunches at schools? Or maybe just tell aramark or whoever is supplying the food that they have to support these kids too to get the contract.


You know how I can tell you DNRTFA?


do you know how I know you are wrong? what I was saying is that I THOUGHT lunches were part of the deal with the taxes we pay.
 
2014-02-06 03:14:55 PM

TomD9938: what_now: TomD9938: / my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.

Oh. Well than all dad's must be like yours.

A kid cannot learn if he's hungry, and a kid that doesn't learn will never be any benefit to society.


As subbass49 pointed out, these are families who can afford the school lunches (otherwise they'd be getting the free / reduced rate) and just don't bother to pay.

You defend that?


yeah my first thought when i saw this thread was that guy's a sucker.
 
2014-02-06 03:15:08 PM

SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones


Neither of my boys (ages 19 and 12) has a cellphone. They don't need them. My oldest, a senior in high school, has maybe 3 friends that he talks to at home and he does that on Xbox or Skype. My youngest uses my phone. When I was a kid, we had *one* phone line in the house and I managed to survive - I didn't even *gasp* have a phone in my room until after I graduated high school.

A couple months ago, I called the high school to let them know my husband was going to pick up my son. The boy is absentminded so I asked the girl on the other end (a student aid at the office) if she could get a message to him. "Can't you just text him?" she asked. When I said that he didn't have a cell, she said, "Are you serious??? He really doesn't have a cell?" Nevermind the fact that students aren't supposed to be using their damn phones during class anyway.

Yeah, I'm old. So what. The onion on my belt is all the company I need.
 
2014-02-06 03:15:16 PM

what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.


Welfare states do not equal socialism.  They still have "free markets".  Mixed economies do not equal socialism either.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 03:15:34 PM

SubBass49: d23: SubBass49: - What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

how about something that DOESN'T leave the kid hungry?

Such as?  Deadbeats will screw the schools over for as long as they can unless there are teeth to the policy and they know they're gonna get nailed for it...and even then some will still try to test it for themselves.

Wage-garnishment?
Jail?

Remember, these are not POOR people who cannot afford to feed their kids, they're people that don't give a shiat about feeding their kids.


I don't pretend to have all answers, but you seem just peachy keen about making sure the kids suffer just because they happened to be born to a dumbass.
 
2014-02-06 03:16:00 PM

TomD9938: As subbass49 pointed out, these are families who can afford the school lunches (otherwise they'd be getting the free / reduced rate) and just don't bother to pay.

You defend that?


Perhaps categorize the lack of parental responsibility as a misdemeanor child-neglect charge?  Allowing for wage garnishment in the amount owed?  These are just ideas.  Meanwhile continue to feed the children while you proceed with legal options against the parents?
 
2014-02-06 03:16:01 PM

bluenovaman: rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.

It's about priorities fool, some of us want a better world for all of our children and couldn't give a shiat about killing brown people half way across the world.


You're a funny, funny guy. You amooze me.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-06 03:16:37 PM

FarkedOver: what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.

Welfare states do not equal socialism.  They still have "free markets".  Mixed economies do not equal socialism either.


uh-oh.  Don't say that in Utah.  That'll be a beatin'.
 
2014-02-06 03:16:45 PM

KidneyStone: HotWingConspiracy: KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.

Starving the kids is obviously the only solution.

They're still getting fed.  Oh, the horror of a cheese sandwich!


Honestly that's still a farking joke. White bread and american cheese is just something to prevent your stomach from eating itself.
 
2014-02-06 03:17:18 PM

TomD9938: what_now: TomD9938: / my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.

Oh. Well than all dad's must be like yours.

A kid cannot learn if he's hungry, and a kid that doesn't learn will never be any benefit to society.


As subbass49 pointed out, these are families who can afford the school lunches (otherwise they'd be getting the free / reduced rate) and just don't bother to pay.

You defend that?


YES!!

I want my tax dollars to feed hungry children. I can't think of a BETTER use of my tax dollars, than to feed hungry children.


If I have to pay more in taxes because someone is gaming the system, but the result is that we don't have hungry children, I am ok with paying higher taxes.


My God, the USS Gerald Ford is scheduled to cost around $35,000,000,000. That's a waste. A farking turkey sandwich is not.
 
2014-02-06 03:17:19 PM

d23: I don't pretend to have all answers, but you seem just peachy keen about making sure the kids suffer just because they happened to be born to a dumbass.


Your lack of reading comprehension may not be your fault...
 
2014-02-06 03:17:39 PM

urbangirl: oldfarthenry: Holy sh*t! How did a feel-good article on feeding poor kids lunches turn into a "f**k you - me first - hate the poor" thread?
Some of y'all have to go to the gun-range and fire off some rounds of hostility or sumpin'.

Got ugly real quick, didn't it?


I'm afraid half the peeps in this thread are going to jack-boot it down to the salvation army and start kicking po' folk in the jimmies.
I thought I accidentally logged on to a Free Republic forum.
 
2014-02-06 03:17:53 PM
If it's a "hero" who pays for children who aren't getting food to get food, it sure is a shame there isn't some organized way for us all to do that. Some overarching system that could handle such a big responsibility.
 
2014-02-06 03:18:28 PM

d23: Isitoveryet: maybe if it weren't for the burden of administrative costs a little bit of the money pumped into our schools could go to feeding the students and more to our teachers!

we feed our soldiers, why not feed our future soldiers?

We don't always feed our former soldiers, though.



unfortunately :(
kinda gives some insight as to what your country really expects from you & how it appreciates your sacrifices.

/it sickens me
 
2014-02-06 03:19:00 PM
Lunch period is over now...I hear the seagulls circling as we speak.  Time to go earn my money that I support my family of four on...barely.

/will check back later today and see how much shiat hits the fan in here...
 
2014-02-06 03:19:09 PM

what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.


What if I don't like raw turnips and vodka? And graft, you can't forget about the graft.

/ socialism is a good idea; who wouldn't want a chicken in every pot, school for every child, work for everyone, nobody scraping to get by. It's just that humanity can't seem to get the hang of everybody being equal and happy; some people will always feel that they are more equal than others. And that is why pure socialism is doomed to fail.
 
2014-02-06 03:19:48 PM

SubBass49: Lunch period is over now...I hear the seagulls circling as we speak.  Time to go earn my money that I support my family of four on...barely.

/will check back later today and see how much shiat hits the fan in here...


You're the real hero.
 
2014-02-06 03:20:57 PM
There's so many people that think they know what socialism is but really have no idea what it is.  Fantastic!
 
2014-02-06 03:21:13 PM
what_now [TotalFark]

Smartest
Funniest
2014-02-06 03:17:18 PM
TomD9938: what_now: TomD9938: / my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.

Oh. Well than all dad's must be like yours.

A kid cannot learn if he's hungry, and a kid that doesn't learn will never be any benefit to society.


As subbass49 pointed out, these are families who can afford the school lunches (otherwise they'd be getting the free / reduced rate) and just don't bother to pay.

You defend that?


YES!!

I want my tax dollars to feed hungry children. I can't think of a BETTER use of my tax dollars, than to feed hungry children.


If I have to pay more in taxes because someone is gaming the system, but the result is that we don't have hungry children, I am ok with paying higher taxes.

My God, the USS Gerald Ford is scheduled to cost around $35,000,000,000. That's a waste. A farking turkey sandwich is not.


not to mention all the other military equip that goes from factory floor to "graveyard" storage. It is a farking disgrace that our leaders don't address this.
 
2014-02-06 03:21:57 PM
According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!
 
2014-02-06 03:22:35 PM

kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.


What's wrong with being a socialist. Well, apart from me not wanting to work for you or anyone else who doesn't want to work, me wanting to keep what I've earned, not give it to you or the government, I'd say about a million other things...
 
2014-02-06 03:22:38 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority of folks who wouldn't mind seeing their property taxes go up in order to ensure that school children get quality lunches served to them daily. I don't really get how that's controversial, other than folks on the right would rather live as a collection of competing self interests who only provide for their own and not their neighbor, while I would like to live in a fully functional and cooperative society... But well educated and healthy children is an inredibly important part of any successful community.
 
2014-02-06 03:22:39 PM

Dirtybird971: not to mention all the other military equip that goes from factory floor to "graveyard" storage. It is a farking disgrace that our leaders don't address this.


biatching about kids gaming the school lunch system and ignoring military waste is like quitting your $100,000 job to spend your days picking up returnable bottles in the street.
 
2014-02-06 03:22:41 PM

what_now: TomD9938: / my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.

Oh. Well than all dad's must be like yours.

A kid cannot learn if he's hungry, and a kid that doesn't learn will never be any benefit to society.


Houses in the Utah neighborhood where that happened start at 400k for 2000 sq feet (smaller homes in that area)  that twice the state average.  lots of millions dollar homes there too.  Those kids are the children of professors and lawyers and surgeons and job creators. They will be just fine.

 I hope all those parents are embarrassed as hell that they didn't pay  little Jayen's bill.  I feel no outrage when shiat like this happens to rich people.
 
2014-02-06 03:23:03 PM
Very nice .
 
2014-02-06 03:23:45 PM
FTFA: "about 40 young kids at Uintah Elementary School "

So the old kids were OK?
 
2014-02-06 03:24:01 PM

dpzum1: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

What's wrong with being a socialist. Well, apart from me not wanting to work for you or anyone else who doesn't want to work, me wanting to keep what I've earned, not give it to you or the government, I'd say about a million other things...


Hahaha, what the fark. You wish to live in a magical fantasy land where you're the king.
 
2014-02-06 03:24:10 PM

SubBass49: TomD9938: As subbass49 pointed out, these are families who can afford the school lunches (otherwise they'd be getting the free / reduced rate) and just don't bother to pay.

You defend that?

Perhaps categorize the lack of parental responsibility as a misdemeanor child-neglect charge?  Allowing for wage garnishment in the amount owed?  These are just ideas.  Meanwhile continue to feed the children while you proceed with legal options against the parents?



Possibly a lien on their property or require payment to renew a drivers license.

/ obviously the kid has to eat
 
2014-02-06 03:24:49 PM

dpzum1: me wanting to keep what I've earned, not give it to you or the government,


Oh this bullshiat.

You know how you've never been attacked by Vikings? Why do you think that is?
 
2014-02-06 03:24:55 PM

bluenovaman: rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.

It's about priorities fool, some of us want a better world for all of our children and couldn't give a shiat about killing brown people half way across the world.


What?  The "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" logic didn't work for you, either?

/Hey, it DID shorten terrorist commuting time
 
2014-02-06 03:25:19 PM

rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.


What's even more interesting is how you get a delinquent account while receiving these free lunches you speak of.
 
2014-02-06 03:25:28 PM

d23: SubBass49: - What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

how about something that DOESN'T leave the kid hungry?


Or just settle for "don't put food in front of hungry kids and then take it away from them."  Christ.
 
2014-02-06 03:25:30 PM

HotWingConspiracy: limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Something tells me you don't actually know what socialism is.


Put everything into one big pile and then dole it out...From those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Karl Marx, a really successful chap.
 
2014-02-06 03:25:47 PM

durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!


I don't know where this $.40 comes from, my kid's lunch costs $3.50 a day, x  180 is $630 a year.  Not what my budget calls chump change but somehow I've managed over the years.
 
2014-02-06 03:26:19 PM

digitalrain: SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones

Neither of my boys (ages 19 and 12) has a cellphone. They don't need them. My oldest, a senior in high school, has maybe 3 friends that he talks to at home and he does that on Xbox or Skype. My youngest uses my phone. When I was a kid, we had *one* phone line in the house and I managed to survive - I didn't even *gasp* have a phone in my room until after I graduated high school.

A couple months ago, I called the high school to let them know my husband was going to pick up my son. The boy is absentminded so I asked the girl on the other end (a student aid at the office) if she could get a message to him. "Can't you just text him?" she asked. When I said that he didn't have a cell, she said, "Are you serious??? He really doesn't have a cell?" Nevermind the fact that students aren't supposed to be using their damn phones during class anyway.

Yeah, I'm old. So what. The onion on my belt is all the company I need.


My daughter in middle school has one. It is worth it due to the convenience to me.She could get along fine without it but what is the benefit of not getting on for your kids? Then again it sounds like your kids aren't as social or involved in other activities outside of school/house so maybe there wouldn't be much benefit in that case.
 
2014-02-06 03:27:49 PM

bluenovaman: durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!

I don't know where this $.40 comes from, my kid's lunch costs $3.50 a day, x  180 is $630 a year.  Not what my budget calls chump change but somehow I've managed over the years.


It's the reduced lunch fare. And if you see what schools serve, $.40 is a rip off.
 
2014-02-06 03:28:04 PM
Someone in Texas not being a shiatty person? Good for you.
 
2014-02-06 03:28:16 PM

HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: HotWingConspiracy: rkiller1: tricycleracer: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

Yup, and nothing will ever change this.  So do you want to just look the other way and do nothing about it?

Since you asked: yes, I will.  And if you think we should behave otherwise, then please set and example for us unenlightened folk and send money to help pay for those sixty "starving" kids.  Print the receipt and I'll match your donation.

The guy in the article just did that, so when are you cutting the check? Or is his example somehow invalid?

I said YOU.
Reading is hard.

What difference does it make who sets the example? Pony up, money bags.


I think the point was for you to put your money where your mouth was before acting all self righteous. Just sayin', I don't see anyone here crowing about going out and feeding kids. If the kids were on free lunches there wouldnt be any balance. If they were on reduced cost lunches, which 40 cents a day would be, they already know how the system works and could get moved to a free lunch schedule pretty quickly if their situation had changed. Hence they already know how the system works and have either chosen not to pay for their child's lunch or forgot to. either way the kids were getting a sandwich for lunch and i quite often eat a grilled cheese for lunch because it quick, cheep, and yummy.
Not saying there aren't issues but to go full retard over this one either side is well retarded.
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 03:28:18 PM

Dirtybird971: this is all so crazy to me. IDK how their school systems can't afford the bill. I mean, I don't have kids but doesn't your taxes pay for lunches at schools? Or maybe just tell aramark or whoever is supplying the food that they have to support these kids too to get the contract.


I've been to schools that paid for lunches and schools that didn't. Personally, I think schools should pay for hot lunches for all students and breakfast for poor kids (at the very least).
 
2014-02-06 03:28:27 PM

Sticky Hands: I hope all those parents are embarrassed as hell that they didn't pay little Jayen's bill.


Citation needed, not that the kids were all named Jayen but those parents who did not pay were in fact rich.  If it turns out that they were living in a one-room apartment above someone's garage barely scraping by, would that get you outraged?  Or is just living an in an above-average zip code (your definition of "rich") enough to quell your anger?
 
2014-02-06 03:30:27 PM

bluenovaman: There is also a petition to make taking and throwing lunches away on children illegal.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/illegalize-throwing-away-s tu dent-lunches-due-debt/MSZdvBZ4


Signed & Shared.

Thank you
 
2014-02-06 03:31:26 PM

dpzum1: HotWingConspiracy: limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Something tells me you don't actually know what socialism is.

Put everything into one big pile and then dole it out...From those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Karl Marx, a really successful chap.


I'm just glad you're living in a tax free capitalist society.
 
2014-02-06 03:32:34 PM

Netrngr: I think the point was for you to put your money where your mouth was before acting all self righteous.


Oh. Perhaps you can tell me what difference it makes who sets the example? The example has been set.
 
2014-02-06 03:32:37 PM

dpzum1: Put everything into one big pile and then dole it out...From those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Karl Marx, a really successful chap.


You've never really read much Marx, have you?
 
2014-02-06 03:33:24 PM

wambu: Will he do it next month? And after that? What about all the other kids in need every day?

/not likely to do it again

//what seems like a nice gesture fails to actually help


Kids who eat better, do better in school. Education fights poverty. Keeping kids fed gives them a better education, and helps them get out of poverty. Sounds like it helps to me.

Or do you believe that by not feeding these kids, the parents will learn a valuable lesson that will lead to sweeping lifestyle changes and they'll get all boot strappy?

Some parents can't afford to pay for things and some parents choose not to. Punishing the parents that can't, because some parents don't isn't a way to run a civilized nation.
 
2014-02-06 03:33:26 PM

what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry



Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.
 
2014-02-06 03:33:38 PM
If you keep giving these kids food, it just teaches them to expect hand-outs. The only way to keep this from happening is to make sure they starve to death. Stupid libs.
 
2014-02-06 03:33:39 PM
My conservative friends like to use the phrase "personal responsibility" quite a lot lately. Clearly, these children are not personally responsible, and no amount of charity will make them so. If they don't want cold cheese sandwiches, then they need to get themselves an education in any number of applied, vocational disciplines.
 
2014-02-06 03:33:47 PM

what_now: dpzum1: me wanting to keep what I've earned, not give it to you or the government,

Oh this bullshiat.

You know how you've never been attacked by Vikings? Why do you think that is?


Mainly because Vikings use oaken galleys and we have cruise missiles?

Also, it's a long sail from Norway to the US.

Also Vikings, as a raiding force, haven't existed for 800-500 ish years.

Also, the discovery of steel greatly inhibited the ability of the Vikings armed with iron in the whole plundering thing.
 
2014-02-06 03:34:19 PM
Too bad these are illegal.  If they were legal, the kids would not have to each free cheese sandwiches.
www.atlantaintownpaper.com
 
2014-02-06 03:34:19 PM

TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.


How old are you?
 
2014-02-06 03:34:56 PM

limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.


Yeah, three richest countries in the world, Norway, Sweden and Finland, are Democratic Socialist states. So, you're right. Which I really funny.
 
2014-02-06 03:35:03 PM

SubBass49: Then the question becomes how many people out there are like you? Where I live, until this school year, budgets were being cut left & right. It was hard as hell to get the voters to pass a tax increase to just keep our heads above water.
Are you representative of the voting public, or more left-leaning than they are?
What will happen when an increasing percentage of budget goes to feeding the children of people more than capable of doing it on their own, and schools lose more & more teachers, programs, supplies, etc.?


I don't even have kids and I'm okay with my taxes being used to pay for school lunches for all students. And I'm even okay with paying more taxes to make sure that schools get the funding they need for all programs. But I'm not a selfish asshole. I also think that schools should be funded by a central pot that doesn't leave schools in poor areas high an dry because local property taxes are in the toilet.

But I am of the strongly held position that educated children are less likely to become criminals or religious lunatics.
 
2014-02-06 03:35:39 PM
So what is reasonable to expect the parents are responsible for?

Hot lunch?
Clothes?
Shoes?
School Supplies?
Getting the child to school?

Where do you want to draw the line between what is the parents' responsability and society's?
 
2014-02-06 03:35:39 PM

HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?



AIP
 
2014-02-06 03:36:39 PM

what_now: You know how you've never been attacked by Vikings? Why do you think that is?


He doesn't use Capitol One Venture card?
=Smidge=
 
2014-02-06 03:36:42 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP


So not in elementary school?
 
2014-02-06 03:38:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP

So not in elementary school?



I suppose you're one of those "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" people.
 
2014-02-06 03:38:46 PM

Ed Grubermann: I don't even have kids and I'm okay with my taxes being used to pay for school lunches for all students. And I'm even okay with paying more taxes to make sure that schools get the funding they need for all programs. But I'm not a selfish asshole.


I AM a selfish asshole, and I too, believe in funding our schools. My reasoning is that it's worth the money to not have a bunch of uneducated retards running around. Stupid people are funny for a short while...then they get annoying.
 
2014-02-06 03:39:18 PM

dpzum1: Put everything into one big pile and then dole it out...From those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Karl Marx, a really successful chap.


It's so damn easy to discount Marx when you don't have the patience (or brain power) to get through the first paragraph of Capital.  It's much more easy to take capitalism on faith and just BELIEVE that the invisible hand of the free market will make things all better!
 
2014-02-06 03:39:22 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP

The difference between a 43yr old being able to go hungry for a while and a 12yr old is night and day. Maybe they should just chew on your old boot straps?
 
2014-02-06 03:40:24 PM

rkiller1: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

And it turns out those parents didn't have to pay because the school was still feeding their kids.  What's the incentive for them to?  The nutritional horror of cheese sandwiches?   Come to think of it, where can I get mine?


This is why our country is circling the drain.

It's full of idiots who think this way.

Those same idiots refuse to believe that we are circling the drain.
 
2014-02-06 03:40:38 PM
what_now [TotalFark]

Smartest
Funniest
2014-02-06 03:22:39 PM
Dirtybird971: not to mention all the other military equip that goes from factory floor to "graveyard" storage. It is a farking disgrace that our leaders don't address this.


biatching about kids gaming the school lunch system and ignoring military waste is like quitting your $100,000 job to spend your days picking up returnable bottles in the street.


oh! It's the kids gaming the system. Not our politicians and officials.

Is that what's it's like? Please, go on simile master.
 
2014-02-06 03:40:41 PM

bluenovaman: durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!

I don't know where this $.40 comes from, my kid's lunch costs $3.50 a day, x  180 is $630 a year.  Not what my budget calls chump change but somehow I've managed over the years.


It was in TFA.  All the kids were on reduced lunch plans.
And, as far as the quality of said lunch...  I can't speak for all schools everywhere.  But I volunteered in the cafeteria more than a handful of times at my kid's schools.  They always had a very well rounded lunch.  Fruit, meat, drink, and snack...  Same as any other kid would pay $3.50 for.


Someone else mentioned not minding a raise in taxes to provide lunches.
That seems like a great idea.  But the problem is (and it's a BIG problem), that the tax money is already there.  It's just being terribly mismanaged.  If they were to raise our taxes on the presumption that it would be to pay for lunches, there is literally no guarantee whatsoever that that is where the money would go.
It would probably end up lining the pockets of yet more useless, overpaid administrators.
 
2014-02-06 03:40:44 PM

kimwim: And, what's wrong with being a socialist?


Nothing. Being a socialist means you realize that all services from health care to utilities should be in public hands and be readily available to whomever needs them. By means of both direct and representative democracy.

It wouldn't be that much different from our lives right now except that corporations and other forms of big business would not have the power they have now, and the people would be taking a more direct role in government and community. Something to think about the next time some curmudgeonly traditionalist tries talking shiat the next time you mention it.
 
2014-02-06 03:41:14 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I AM a selfish asshole, and I too, believe in funding our schools. My reasoning is that it's worth the money to not have a bunch of uneducated retards running around. Stupid people are funny for a short while...then they get annoying.


This thread has certainly proven that statement.
 
2014-02-06 03:41:20 PM

Ed Grubermann: And I'm even okay with paying more taxes to make sure that schools get the funding they need for all programs.


Then as an example to us all, you surely volunteer at the local school or at least give them money unconditionally, right?  I mean, if I see you do it, then I promise to follow suit.
 
2014-02-06 03:41:21 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP

So not in elementary school?


I suppose you're one of those "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" people.


Well it is designed to break your fast for the night. Most humans require food, young ones more so.

They're growing and don't possess the coping mechanisms you can take for granted now.
 
2014-02-06 03:43:20 PM

SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones


So, your free food sucks and no one will eat it except for scavenging birds?
 
2014-02-06 03:43:50 PM

bluenovaman: There is also a petition to make taking and throwing lunches away on children illegal.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/illegalize-throwing-away-s tu dent-lunches-due-debt/MSZdvBZ4


Signed.  But seriously  "The 3rd colour in finger, purple, green and blue is? "  for the challenge question.  Why is color spelled the way it is in the UK and not the US?
 
2014-02-06 03:43:58 PM

what_now: YES!!I want my tax dollars to feed hungry children. I can't think of a BETTER use of my tax dollars, than to feed hungry children.If I have to pay more in taxes because someone is gaming the system, but the result is that we don't have hungry children, I am ok with paying higher taxes.My God, the USS Gerald Ford is scheduled to cost around $35,000,000,000. That's a waste. A farking turkey sandwich is not.


AND...Favorited.
 
2014-02-06 03:45:28 PM

HotWingConspiracy: limboslam: So the parents can't affor $8 bucks a month? I woder if they have smart phones.

Why do you woder that?


Because then we can JUDGE THEM FREELY! As you know, if you need any sort of assistance at all from the government you have to live in rags on the street so we can be sure to look down at you as we pass by.
 
2014-02-06 03:45:52 PM

what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Since we as a society or school system cannot guarantee that children are being fed dinner at night we are now going to make it illegal for schools to issue homework.  It is unfair to the poor downtrodden soles whose parents fail to or can't feed them and its the only way that we can break the cycle of poverty.  Only by bringing everyone to the same level will we ever truly be enlightened.

/ I'm okay with schools giving everyone lunch without payment.
// It's not free, someone is paying for it.
 
2014-02-06 03:46:43 PM

INeedAName: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP
The difference between a 43yr old being able to go hungry for a while and a 12yr old is night and day. Maybe they should just chew on your old boot straps?



A kid's at school 7 hours a day.

Even if he's only fed on either side of that seven hours, he's fine.

BTW, you all are defending parents with money (probably ebil repuglicans at that) who are flipping the bird at the public school system by not forking over the $10.00 wk, even after they've been warned repeatedly.
 
2014-02-06 03:47:23 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Don't come in here acting all rational while people are complaining about the jobs that pay for kid's lunches. You just make sure you talk bad about republicans.
 
2014-02-06 03:47:59 PM
 A few years a go I saw a news story about a failing middle school,  in some urban hell hole.  All minority,  all poor.  Riddled with all the problems that go with poor urban middle schools.   Then the started a program of providing healthy breakfast and lunch and even dinner free to all students. Big emphasis on healthy.   They soon saw a significant drop in the problems that go with poor urban middle schools.  Enough to more than pay for the free food progam.   With the bonus of the kids actualy begining to learn.  Stuff like math and english.  Hanging around after school, waiting for a free dinner, killing time by studying.   Not out on the street learning how to steal cars.

Some people may call that socialism.  But it could be capitalism, making a smallish investment in return for a bigger payoff.
 
2014-02-06 03:48:12 PM

whidbey: kimwim: And, what's wrong with being a socialist?

Nothing. Being a socialist means you realize that all services from health care to utilities should be in public hands and be readily available to whomever needs them. By means of both direct and representative democracy.

It wouldn't be that much different from our lives right now except that corporations and other forms of big business would not have the power they have now, and the people would be taking a more direct role in government and community. Something to think about the next time some curmudgeonly traditionalist tries talking shiat the next time you mention it.


Seriously? Socialism is a good idea, a great idea; but, humans are selfish. Pure socialism is doomed to fail because people are selfish. Plus, I don't like raw turnips, vodka and graft.

/ plus, socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies.
 
2014-02-06 03:49:18 PM

TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.


Right! And we're definitely sure that when each and every one of these kids goes home they have a well balanced dinner and breakfast the next day.  Everyone lives in a beautiful home with a dog and two parents and there's no such thing as hunger or poverty.  God bless America.  Oh, but here's your American cheese and wonder bread.  LIVE ON IT.
 
2014-02-06 03:49:23 PM

kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.


I'm glad to know that there are no hungry kids in China. It must be a real paradise there. Perhaps you can go there and live there and enjoy the people's free lunches while you ride the people's bus to your new job building smart phones.
 
2014-02-06 03:49:34 PM

iheartscotch: Mainly because Vikings use oaken galleys and we have cruise missiles?


Yes. That is the point. *WE* have cruise missiles. That dude doesn't have cruise missiles, WE have cruise missiles. Dirty, socialist cruise missiles.
 
2014-02-06 03:49:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Well it is designed to break your fast for the night. Most humans require food, young ones more so.

They're growing and don't possess the coping mechanisms you can take for granted now.



I'm coming out in favor of parent/s feeding their kids a breakfast.
 
2014-02-06 03:49:41 PM

TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money


Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.
 
2014-02-06 03:49:46 PM

bluenovaman: We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.


Democrats have a strange habit of voting for that stuff too.
 
2014-02-06 03:50:17 PM

iheartscotch: Seriously? Socialism is a good idea, a great idea; but, humans are selfish. Pure socialism is doomed to fail because people are selfish. Plus, I don't like raw turnips, vodka and graft.

/ plus, soviet-style socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies. (except every single socialist struggle has left the country it happened in better off than it was before.)


There.  That seems more accurate now.
 
2014-02-06 03:50:44 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: utard


LOL.  Subby must be from Wyoming.  That is the only place where I have heard the term "Utards."  In case you guys are serious about not getting the reference, it's a derogatory reference to the residents of Utah.  It's like those of us in the great State of Kansas referring to the bastard land to our east as "Misery"  or the "Show Me... How to Drive" State.
 
2014-02-06 03:51:15 PM

TomD9938: I suppose you're one of those "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" people.


You mean...one of those people who understands how nutrition works?
 
2014-02-06 03:51:37 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: Well it is designed to break your fast for the night. Most humans require food, young ones more so.

They're growing and don't possess the coping mechanisms you can take for granted now.


I'm coming out in favor of parent/s feeding their kids a breakfast.


See? It's impossible for you. You feel the kids are a good object to make a point and enforce your notions of responsibility.
 
2014-02-06 03:51:41 PM
Wasn't the problem in the original article that the notices didn't get out on time, the school gave the kids the lunches and then threw them away, and then gave the kids the cheese sandwich lunch?

I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, but that is powerful stupid. Disregard the notices, but giving a kid a lunch and taking it away is cruel especially since the food is already paid for. And then you waste more money by giving them the alternative lunch? Awesome job!
 
2014-02-06 03:51:45 PM

rkiller1: Too bad these are illegal.  If they were legal, the kids would not have to each free cheese sandwiches.
[www.atlantaintownpaper.com image 413x375]


When i was a kid that's exactly what I used.  Sammich and some dessert thing like a Twinkie or Ding Dong.
 
2014-02-06 03:51:59 PM

TomD9938: INeedAName: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP
The difference between a 43yr old being able to go hungry for a while and a 12yr old is night and day. Maybe they should just chew on your old boot straps?


A kid's at school 7 hours a day.

Even if he's only fed on either side of that seven hours, he's fine.

BTW, you all are defending parents with money (probably ebil repuglicans at that) who are flipping the bird at the public school system by not forking over the $10.00 wk, even after they've been warned repeatedly.


I don't care who the parents are, kids don't deserve to go hungry.
 
2014-02-06 03:53:34 PM
I'm surprised he was allowed to do this. So if it's allowed, will more people step up and do this in other locations? Doubt it.
 
2014-02-06 03:53:34 PM

iheartscotch: / plus, socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies.


wut

humans are selfish.

So they are. Somehow we still created a society that's addressing these issues. It's time to take it to the next level.
 
2014-02-06 03:53:52 PM

TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.


Yeah, it's almost like you're trying to push your anecdote as data. It's also like you don't recognize that children are growing, and if they don't get the nutrition they need, it's going to cause them health problems later on down the road.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate your post a 10, as in, eat 10 bowls of dicks. I'm sure that'll make you less hungry.
 
2014-02-06 03:54:49 PM

TomD9938: INeedAName: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP
The difference between a 43yr old being able to go hungry for a while and a 12yr old is night and day. Maybe they should just chew on your old boot straps?


A kid's at school 7 hours a day.

Even if he's only fed on either side of that seven hours, he's fine.

BTW, you all are defending parents with money (probably ebil repuglicans at that) who are flipping the bird at the public school system by not forking over the $10.00 wk, even after they've been warned repeatedly.


I saw no proof anywhere in that article that every single child affected by this was from "parents with money"  "When he inquired about it to school officials, he learned that there was quite a large group of kids whose parents couldn't afford the 40 cents a day - about 60 in total."   Forty cents a day is not what normal lunch costs.  40 cents a day is a reduced lunch cost.  That means they qualify for a reduced lunch.  That means they are struggling financially.

But put it all farking aside.  Even if they weren't.  Let's say the parents are flush and are just dicks, neglecting their kids.  If they're unwilling to pay for school lunch, I doubt they care much otherwise.  And yes, I've forgotten my daughter's lunch money once or twice, and that's not what's going on here.
 
2014-02-06 03:55:18 PM

kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.


1.bp.blogspot.comSocialism didn't work in Russia, Socialism didn't work in Europe, and Socialism won't work in America.
 
2014-02-06 03:56:00 PM

KidneyStone: rkiller1: Too bad these are illegal.  If they were legal, the kids would not have to each free cheese sandwiches.
[www.atlantaintownpaper.com image 413x375]

When i was a kid that's exactly what I used.  Sammich and some dessert thing like a Twinkie or Ding Dong.


Same here, but that seems out of vogue today because the responsibility has apparently shifted from the parents to the school, which dam well better feed all kids (and cheese sandwiches is apparently not food) or risk the outrage of Internet tough guys.
 
2014-02-06 03:56:32 PM
damphool

Whatchoo Talkinbout: utard


LOL. Subby must be from Wyoming. That is the only place where I have heard the term "Utards." In case you guys are serious about not getting the reference, it's a derogatory reference to the residents of Utah. It's like those of us in the great State of Kansas referring to the bastard land to our east as "Misery" or the "Show Me... How to Drive" State.


Those of us from civilization call all those states "fly over" states.

/jk
 
2014-02-06 03:57:09 PM

Death Whisper: Socialism didn't work in Russia, Socialism didn't work in Europe, and Socialism won't work in America.


haha no

also, learn what kind of government was actually in Russia. Hint: it wasn't socialism
 
2014-02-06 03:57:27 PM

what_now: iheartscotch: Mainly because Vikings use oaken galleys and we have cruise missiles?

Yes. That is the point. *WE* have cruise missiles. That dude doesn't have cruise missiles, WE have cruise missiles. Dirty, socialist cruise missiles.


But, but, but, BUT; we've painted them all Red, White and Blue. And these colors don't run!

/ I realize we have some socialist aspects of the government, common defense and such.
 
2014-02-06 03:57:30 PM
And what's wrong with cheese sammies? Kids these days, buncha ingrates.

www.bonappetit.com
 
2014-02-06 03:58:02 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


And of course the companies who sell them "cable and 40s and smokes" use their profits to buy publicity via ad agencies.  Anyone else think it would be in their best interest to sponsor school lunches with some of their profits instead, and wring some good publicity from that "community investment"?
 
2014-02-06 03:59:50 PM
And in other  news, the school scours trash bin for food they took away so they can serve those kids.
 
2014-02-06 03:59:53 PM

FarkedOver: iheartscotch: Seriously? Socialism is a good idea, a great idea; but, humans are selfish. Pure socialism is doomed to fail because people are selfish. Plus, I don't like raw turnips, vodka and graft.

/ plus, soviet-style socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies. (except every single socialist struggle has left the country it happened in better off than it was before.)

There.  That seems more accurate now.


*cough cough* China, Cuba and North Korea *cough cough*

/ yes, I know, they're communist; but, they are cut from the same cloth
 
2014-02-06 04:00:37 PM

rkiller1: KidneyStone: rkiller1: Too bad these are illegal.  If they were legal, the kids would not have to each free cheese sandwiches.
[www.atlantaintownpaper.com image 413x375]

When i was a kid that's exactly what I used.  Sammich and some dessert thing like a Twinkie or Ding Dong.

Same here, but that seems out of vogue today because the responsibility has apparently shifted from the parents to the school, which dam well better feed all kids (and cheese sandwiches is apparently not food) or risk the outrage of Internet tough guys.


Hungry kids are also unfashionable these days.

But maybe lay down some more "put your money where your mouth is" proclamations while complaining about internet tough guys. It's working for you.
 
2014-02-06 04:01:18 PM
ITT:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-06 04:02:06 PM

Dirtybird971: damphool

Whatchoo Talkinbout: utard


LOL. Subby must be from Wyoming. That is the only place where I have heard the term "Utards." In case you guys are serious about not getting the reference, it's a derogatory reference to the residents of Utah. It's like those of us in the great State of Kansas referring to the bastard land to our east as "Misery" or the "Show Me... How to Drive" State.

Those of us from civilization call all those states "fly over" states.

/jk


Joplin Mo. resident here; "You be trollin'...  I be goin' for the hook!" lol
 
2014-02-06 04:02:20 PM

HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money


Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.
 
2014-02-06 04:02:51 PM

rkiller1: Sticky Hands: I hope all those parents are embarrassed as hell that they didn't pay little Jayen's bill.

Citation needed, not that the kids were all named Jayen but those parents who did not pay were in fact rich.  If it turns out that they were living in a one-room apartment above someone's garage barely scraping by, would that get you outraged?  Or is just living an in an above-average zip code (your definition of "rich") enough to quell your anger?


The school is located at 1300th South and 1500th East in salt lake city. The link is to Zillow, if you choose areal view the school is in the center of the screen.  It's near the University and a private college and right smack in the middle of one of the most expensive areas in the city  I know several families that live there. I know their approximate salaries, and I know that I personally would struggle to buy there, and I'm very much upper middle class.

I also know this school district very well. I've sent my kids to school in this district, they are VERY aggressive about giving out free lunch.  If they were living in a one room apartment barely scraping by they would be getting free lunch.
 
2014-02-06 04:02:53 PM
This thread makes me fear for our children's future. If people can get off their soapbox and listen to the teachers here, you all wouldn't sound like idiots.
 
2014-02-06 04:04:05 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.


Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?
 
2014-02-06 04:05:34 PM

HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?


He's actually arguing for state confiscation of wages.  I bet he calls him self a "small-government conservative", too.
 
2014-02-06 04:05:42 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.


How much do you think it costs to process a wage garnishment? How much time do you think it takes? At what point do you think that process is cost effective?

Because if you think it's cost effective to process wage garnishment for a $30 school lunch bill, I don't know what to tell you....
 
2014-02-06 04:06:12 PM
Since a lot of you are complaining about voters refusing to allow higher taxes to pay for things like school lunches, I'll tell you my perspective and reasoning behind voting against the last tax increase (which passed, along with every one before it).  What seems to happen more often than not when we raise taxes to pay for a specific program, that tax money isn't used to supplement or used in conjunction with existing funds, it replaces those funds.  For example, about a decade ago my city decided to raise business taxes for the schools.  It was widely advertised as "for the kids" and people who spoke out against it were called every name you can imagine.  The tax passed and the city made good on their promise to use every dime of that tax money on the schools.  The problem is, for every dime they spent from the tax money, they reduced the money coming from another source by the same amount.  The net result was the schools didn't see ANY extra money but everyone's taxes increased.  This is not an isolated incident either.

If there were tax referendums that would guarantee all the money raised from the increase would go to the schools AND the money already going into the schools wouldn't be reduced, I think you'd find very few people who would object to the tax increase to feed kids.  The problem is, so many people understand that the tax increase won't ultimately do what it was planned and in 5 years...the kids will still be hungry and the city'll be back, begging for another tax increase.
 
2014-02-06 04:06:26 PM
I have much respect for the individual mentioned in the article who zeroed out these children's negative balance lunch accounts.

That said, I can only imagine how, if I walked into the local school and wanted some information about the children's lunch accounts, I'd be treated like some kind of pedo pervert and would be told how that information is confidential. Access would be denied and I'd bet the local law enforcement would be notified about my inquiry asap. I'd probably be interrogated as I was exiting the building.

I would also not feel comfortable sending an anonymous money order payable to the school district, even if I noted on the M.O. to use the funds for payment of deficient lunch accounts.
 
2014-02-06 04:06:32 PM
Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.
 
2014-02-06 04:06:43 PM

iheartscotch: *cough cough* China, Cuba and North Korea *cough cough*

/ yes, I know, they're communist; but, they are cut from the same cloth


China's issue is bringing the "National Bourgeoisie" into the fold.  Should never have done that, literally anyone can be a member of the party whether they believe in communism or not.

Cuba is way better off than it was under Batista.  Education is free.  Even university.  They have some of the finest doctors in the world.  They also have great universal healthcare.  Most of the issues in Cuba are directly tied to their retarded neighbor to the north that has been pitching a biatch fit since 1959.  The USA

North Korea has long since abandoned socialism.  They subscribe to Juche.

They are not communist countries.  Communism is a classless STATELESS society.   They are/were socialist countries lead by communist parties.  The end goal of socialism is communism.  Always has been always will be.  As a socialist, I want to get through the socialist phase as quickly as possible.
 
2014-02-06 04:07:03 PM
If only there was a communal organization dedicated to the betterment of it's members via redistribution of needed funds like in this situation, alas, we can only rely on the kindness of very few that help very few.

/ur all morons
 
2014-02-06 04:08:10 PM
Hey the whole thread about "Socialism", "1%" and so forth has been lots of fun, but how about some love for "Kenny Thompson, a mentor and tutor at Valley Oaks Elementary School"?
Let me just throw a big attaboy out there!

As a mentor he is certainly setting the right example for the kids.
 
2014-02-06 04:08:37 PM

whidbey: iheartscotch: / plus, socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies.

wut

humans are selfish.

So they are. Somehow we still created a society that's addressing these issues. It's time to take it to the next level.


What that means is:

Somebody has to run your perfect government. Unless you've got a robot, that is. That person will likely favor their family and friends. Then, it's raw turnips and vodka for the rest of us.

If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.
 
2014-02-06 04:09:04 PM
Is the United States a third world country?
 
2014-02-06 04:09:19 PM

tricycleracer: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?

He's actually arguing for state confiscation of wages.  I bet he calls him self a "small-government conservative", too.


Punishing people is more important in order to satisfy his notions of responsibility. Kids, adults, doesn't matter. Someone needs to suffer here.
 
2014-02-06 04:09:51 PM
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-02-06 04:09:52 PM

iheartscotch: I've been kind of wondering why they couldn't do an account inquiry using SQL. All you'd have to do is select the balances, with student IDs, and where clause out any positive balances.


Ha ha, you actually think proprietary databases designed for the educational-administration market will let you program in the back-end with SQL.

/NTTAWTT
 
2014-02-06 04:09:56 PM

error 303: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

How much do you think it costs to process a wage garnishment? How much time do you think it takes? At what point do you think that process is cost effective?

Because if you think it's cost effective to process wage garnishment for a $30 school lunch bill, I don't know what to tell you....


Cost doesn't matter to people like this.  It's like losing money on drug tests for welfare recipients.  As long as ONE person gets caught, they feel that the system is worth it.
 
2014-02-06 04:10:04 PM

iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.


Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."
 
2014-02-06 04:10:39 PM

ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.


You may find the answer here
 
2014-02-06 04:11:35 PM
www.fluffinbrooklyn.com
 
2014-02-06 04:12:49 PM

iheartscotch: whidbey: iheartscotch: / plus, socialism creates an oligarchy worse than the bourgeoisie it vilifies.

wut

humans are selfish.

So they are. Somehow we still created a society that's addressing these issues. It's time to take it to the next level.

What that means is:

Somebody has to run your perfect government. Unless you've got a robot, that is. That person will likely favor their family and friends. Then, it's raw turnips and vodka for the rest of us.

If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.


You might stick with it, but I think you're going to find the rest of us are sick of it, and are going to start demanding public ownership of services. A lot sooner than you think.
 
2014-02-06 04:12:53 PM

jaybeezey: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

I'm glad to know that there are no hungry kids in China. It must be a real paradise there. Perhaps you can go there and live there and enjoy the people's free lunches while you ride the people's bus to your new job building smart phones.


Hey look everybody, another idiot that doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism. Look at him and laugh. Maybe if he had free school lunches when he was a kid he wouldn't be too hungry to pay attention when this was taught in school
 
2014-02-06 04:13:46 PM

FarkedOver: iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.

Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."


Hunger? Is there a hunger problem anymore?
 
2014-02-06 04:13:48 PM
Well done, sir.
 
2014-02-06 04:14:32 PM

TomD9938: INeedAName: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: what_now: A kid cannot learn if he's hungry


Why do we take this oft-repeated line as some sort of gospel?

I happen to work better and am more alert on an empty stomach than I am after eating a large meal.

So long as nutrients are had at some point of the day, it's all good.

How old are you?


AIP
The difference between a 43yr old being able to go hungry for a while and a 12yr old is night and day. Maybe they should just chew on your old boot straps?


A kid's at school 7 hours a day.

Even if he's only fed on either side of that seven hours, he's fine.

BTW, you all are defending parents with money (probably ebil repuglicans at that) who are flipping the bird at the public school system by not forking over the $10.00 wk, even after they've been warned repeatedly.


Okay, so before he wakes up, he's been asleep for (conservative guess) 7 hours. Kid probably ate 2-3 hours before sleeping. Now we have 10 hours before kid arrives to school. 7 more hours before leaving school, which now gives said kid's stomach a nice 17 hour break from food. In your world, 'he's fine', right?

Not every kid gets fed breakfast, might only have one meal a day - regardless of the parental role, no kid should have to go any significant amount of time without food, ever.

Why don't you eat once a day and report back on how fine you feel?
 
2014-02-06 04:14:40 PM
Also.
What would Jesus do?
He sure as hell wouldn't let children to hungry because you think their parents are lazy.
 
2014-02-06 04:15:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?


"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.
 
2014-02-06 04:15:35 PM
thepoliticalforums.com
 
2014-02-06 04:15:40 PM

ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.


It shouldn't have to be free. I don't have children but I have no issue with paying a little more taxes so the kids in my community can have hot lunches.
The assholes in Utah who threw that food away instead of just letting the kids eat what was on their trays are serious low-lifes who need savage beatings.
 
2014-02-06 04:15:41 PM

Raktastic: This thread makes me fear for our children's future. If people can get off their soapbox and listen to the teachers here, you all wouldn't sound like idiots.


Their future was threatened the moment we stopped questioning politicians and allowed them free reign.
 
2014-02-06 04:16:08 PM

ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.


Because, by God, we had to trudge to school with our lunches and our dads would rather literally cut their own heads off than let us have a lunch paid for by the state god damn it!  If you give kids free healthy, warm breakfasts and lunches with a variety of foods, protein and fresh produce, they'll most definitely decide to drop out of school and go on welfare and get everything for free! Study it out!  It's the parents responsibility and if they drop the ball on that responsibility, why then, the kids should definitely pay the price!
 
2014-02-06 04:16:57 PM

DECMATH: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

And of course the companies who sell them "cable and 40s and smokes" use their profits to buy publicity via ad agencies.  Anyone else think it would be in their best interest to sponsor school lunches with some of their profits instead, and wring some good publicity from that "community investment"?


Up-thread SubBase49 said the school serves 2000 free meals a day, yet the kids have cell phones and Beats headphones.

Imagine Dr. Dre doing an ad about how a portion of the profits from every sale of Beats goes to help an underprivledged kid get a nutritious breakfast.  Picture a kid receiving said breakfast while wearing Beats.
 
2014-02-06 04:16:57 PM

rkiller1: FarkedOver: iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.

Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."

Hunger? Is there a hunger problem anymore?


Yes. Just because there are fatasses out there doesn't mean that there aren't still people starving.
 
2014-02-06 04:17:16 PM

SilentStrider: Also.
What would Jesus do?
He sure as hell wouldn't let children to hungry because you think their parents are lazy.


And neither did the school district.
 
2014-02-06 04:19:35 PM

tricycleracer: He's actually arguing for state confiscation of wages.  I bet he calls him self a "small-government conservative", too.



You can address me directly, you know.  And I am arguing for confiscation by the state in this case.

You should also understand that small-government doesn't equal no government.

Whoever taught you otherwise was blowing smoke up your ass.
 
2014-02-06 04:20:38 PM

rkiller1: FarkedOver: iheartscotch: If you can overcome the whole selfishness thing; I'll start sowing red flags with stars, hammers and sickles. Until then, I'll stick with the current version of capitalism.

Translated: "I like my stature in life.  I know the planet is capable of feeding everyone, but if some people have to go hungry in order for me to have a quality life, fark 'em."

Hunger? Is there a hunger problem anymore?


Yes, yes it is.  At this point I'm confident you're just being a contrary a-hole, but I'll beat my head against the wall anyway.
 
2014-02-06 04:21:03 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Just because they do not qualify for the free or reduced lunch program does not mean they can afford to pay for school lunches.

Here, if you have 2 kids, you will be paying $5/day (2.50 x 2) which is $35/week. That adds up.
 
2014-02-06 04:21:11 PM

fappomatic: Raktastic: This thread makes me fear for our children's future. If people can get off their soapbox and listen to the teachers here, you all wouldn't sound like idiots.

Their future was threatened the moment we stopped questioning politicians and allowed them free reign.


hurr wut
 
2014-02-06 04:21:44 PM

rkiller1: SilentStrider: Also.
What would Jesus do?
He sure as hell wouldn't let children to hungry because you think their parents are lazy.

And neither did the school district.


No, they just threw away food that taxpayers already paid for and then gave the kids different food.
 
2014-02-06 04:22:44 PM

bluenovaman: There is also a petition to make taking and throwing lunches away on children illegal.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/illegalize-throwing-away-s tu dent-lunches-due-debt/MSZdvBZ4


Done and re-posted.
 
2014-02-06 04:24:14 PM

The_Hound: Why don't you eat once a day and report back on how fine you feel?


By "either side", I meant both sides of the school day, not just one.

/ should have typed that instead
// might be a regional thing (language-wise)
 
2014-02-06 04:24:32 PM

bluenovaman: We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.


We also don't give everyone a Cadillac.
We've been to the Moon, but don't give everyone a spacesuit.
We spend money on the military but don't give children their own gun.
 
2014-02-06 04:25:43 PM

what_now: SubBass49:

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.


The appropriately twisted punishment would be to reduce the parent's income to the level where the kids are getting the free hot lunches.  No matter how much the parent's make, they should be reduced to that amount.  Or one dollar above that amount so they can't qualify for other subsidies.  If they want their kids to live the poor lifestyle, they should also.  Oh, and the confiscated earnings go to upgrading the quality of food for all the kids in the free lunch program (and not appropriated for some sort of general fund).  Only way out of the punishment is hari kari, or the kids graduate high school (GED doesn't count).  If the kids never graduate, then the parents never get to earn more money.
 
2014-02-06 04:26:56 PM
Why don't they just teach the f*ckin' kids how to fish?
 
2014-02-06 04:27:25 PM

durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!


I though the just paid off the negative balances.  So he put them all at $0.  So the kids will go to school tomorrow and still have no money in their accounts to get lunch?
 
2014-02-06 04:27:28 PM

Dadburns: Dirtybird971: damphool

Whatchoo Talkinbout: utard


LOL. Subby must be from Wyoming. That is the only place where I have heard the term "Utards." In case you guys are serious about not getting the reference, it's a derogatory reference to the residents of Utah. It's like those of us in the great State of Kansas referring to the bastard land to our east as "Misery" or the "Show Me... How to Drive" State.

Those of us from civilization call all those states "fly over" states.

/jk

Joplin Mo. resident here; "You be trollin'...  I be goin' for the hook!" lol


DirtyBird971: Definitely better to fly over than drive through (I-70 from Salina, Ks to Denver, Co is like being trapped in a 7 hour animated gif of farm land).  Besides, we gotta keeps all you foreigners offs our land!
Dadburns: Hehe, ya caught me trollin there.  I love Missouri... Every time I go I feel so much less depressed about living in Kansas. =)
 
2014-02-06 04:28:07 PM
img.fark.net

Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.
 
2014-02-06 04:29:07 PM

AugieDoggyDaddy: DECMATH: Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.

And of course the companies who sell them "cable and 40s and smokes" use their profits to buy publicity via ad agencies.  Anyone else think it would be in their best interest to sponsor school lunches with some of their profits instead, and wring some good publicity from that "community investment"?

Up-thread SubBase49 said the school serves 2000 free meals a day, yet the kids have cell phones and Beats headphones.

Imagine Dr. Dre doing an ad about how a portion of the profits from every sale of Beats goes to help an underprivledged kid get a nutritious breakfast.  Picture a kid receiving said breakfast while wearing Beats.


You got to love people like him. If someone says that the school serves free lunch to underprivileged that means to them that every kid in the school is poor, and therefor if he see's one kid with something expensive, then that means that all of those poor kids receiving free lunch are gaming the system because there could be noway possible that the kid with the cellphone isn't one of the poor kids.
 
2014-02-06 04:29:55 PM

TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?

"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.


Wait, you trust the DMV to competently do something?  Why do I feel that this runs contrary to your normal views of government agencies?
 
2014-02-06 04:29:56 PM
media.tumblr.com
Hey u-tards!
 
2014-02-06 04:31:31 PM

KidneyStone: Nice gesture, but now the parents will just wait until someone else pays off the account.


Yeah, the parents won't learn anything!  Starve their kids some more until the parents learn!  That seams totally reasonable.
 
2014-02-06 04:32:15 PM

SubBass49: Lunch period is over now...I hear the seagulls circling as we speak.  Time to go earn my money that I support my family of four on...barely.

/will check back later today and see how much shiat hits the fan in here...


Do you work on a garbage scow?
 
2014-02-06 04:32:33 PM
The horror of a cheese sandwich! When my son was in elementary school, that's what he TOOK from home for his lunch. He wouldn't eat anything from the cafeteria and hated lunch meat or even PB&J. I suppose I was abusing him by sending food he would actually eat. Bad mom.
 
2014-02-06 04:32:41 PM

tricycleracer: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?

"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.

Wait, you trust the DMV to competently do something?  Why do I feel that this runs contrary to your normal views of government agencies?



You are a one trick pony.
 
2014-02-06 04:34:10 PM

what_now: a large group of kids were getting "reduced lunches," of cold cheese sandwiches because of negative balances on their accounts.

WHAT THE FARK IS WRONG WITH YOU?????


Man, my family wasn't even poor and that was basically what I got in my sack lunches and from the cafeteria line.  Bread, cheese, and maybe whatever vegetable was lying around.

I'm kind of curious what the standard school lunches are like if this is the reduced version.  For all the grousing there must have been some pretty significant improvements made since I was a kid.

Alicious: Just because they do not qualify for the free or reduced lunch program does not mean they can afford to pay for school lunches.

Here, if you have 2 kids, you will be paying $5/day (2.50 x 2) which is $35/week. That adds up.


Um... how is that not pretty much a sunk cost anyhow?  Do you just... not farking feed your kids when they aren't in school or something?  Because that's kind of what you're sounding like there.

For reference, to not qualify for reduced lunches in the 48 contiguous states with a household size of 3 you have to be making upwards of 37k$/year (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-032913 .p df).  I don't think asking you to sink about 1500$ of that a year into  feeding your farking children is entirely unreasonable as legal financial obligations go.
 
2014-02-06 04:34:12 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


Give the kid lunch, create a tab, and call in a social worker. But even if that's not an acceptable solution, making the kids go hungry isn't. We're a civilized nation. If we don't feed our children (and yes--they are all ours), then we don't have the right to call ourselves that.
 
2014-02-06 04:34:48 PM
You Americans.
My daughter goes to a public school here in socialist-paradise-where-everything-ca n-kill-you-land and even she doesn't get free school lunches. I make them for her.
Maybe if 50 million Americans weren't permanently entrenched below the poverty line then they could provide for their farking kids? Pay your slaves a decent wage FFS it's good for the economy.
 
2014-02-06 04:38:19 PM

durbnpoisn: According to my math...  $.40 per day for 180 days is $72.  Multiply that by 60 kids, you get $4,320.

It's not like this guy put up some chmp change.  That's a LOT of money!!

Good for him!!


According to my logic, you did not read the article.  Or have a comprehension problem.
 
2014-02-06 04:38:25 PM

limboslam: So the parents can't affor $8 bucks a month? I woder if they have smart phones.


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 04:43:55 PM
submitter your blog sucked
 
2014-02-06 04:44:17 PM

whidbey: You might stick with it, but I think you're going to find the rest of us are sick of it, and are going to start demanding public ownership of services. A lot sooner than you think.

we want to take your stuff by force.

Corrected. Good luck on that.
 
2014-02-06 04:44:22 PM

Jim_Callahan: Man, my family wasn't even poor and that was basically what I got in my sack lunches and from the cafeteria line.  Bread, cheese, and maybe whatever vegetable was lying around.

I'm kind of curious what the standard school lunches are like if this is the reduced version.  For all the grousing there must have been some pretty significant improvements made since I was a kid.


And how long has it been since you were a kid?
 
2014-02-06 04:44:41 PM

Jim_Callahan: I'm kind of curious what the standard school lunches are like if this is the reduced version.  For all the grousing there must have been some pretty significant improvements made since I was a kid.


Dude, unless you're like in your 60s or something, school lunches have been hot, cafeteria-style, and more like a meal for least 40 years or more. Not sure if serious.
 
2014-02-06 04:46:55 PM

INeedAName: wambu: Will he do it next month? And after that? What about all the other kids in need every day?

/not likely to do it again

//what seems like a nice gesture fails to actually help

Kids who eat better, do better in school. Education fights poverty. Keeping kids fed gives them a better education, and helps them get out of poverty. Sounds like it helps to me.


Agreed. Well-fed kids do better in school. No dispute there.

Or do you believe that by not feeding these kids, the parents will learn a valuable lesson that will lead to sweeping lifestyle changes and they'll get all boot strappy?


That may be what is happening in your head, but it's not close to what I said or even implied.

Some parents can't afford to pay for things and some parents choose not to. Punishing the parents that can't, because some parents don't isn't a way to run a civilized nation.

Way to go far astray, Sparky.

My point was that the wrong person was paying, his resources were not adequate to address the problem and would not ever solve the problem. He's good for some feel-good headlines and makes it easy for some people to smugly assume that "things are being done for the children" while the problem continues unabated. Well, maybe "fixed" for the briefest of moments, but not in any substantive manner. In that sense, he might have done more harm than good for these children.
 
2014-02-06 04:49:18 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


BUT EVIL GOP AND DERP!!!!!
 
2014-02-06 04:52:06 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


I don't know. Gee.  If only we had some system in place in this country that allowed us to collect on debts.  Hmmm..

I inadvertently bounced a check to my kids school once to pay for a lost book.  I didn't even get a coutesy "hey, this bounced, can you make good on it?"  Nope, STRAIGHT to a farking collection agency. Send the parents to collection. Sue their asses. Whatever. You don't punish and single the kids out.
 
2014-02-06 04:53:54 PM
My wife's a kindergarten teacher and half of her kids are running negative cafeteria balances--not at ALL because the families are poor (the school pulls from some very affluent areas) but because the parents are forgetful, lazy assholes who are too busy to send in a check.

I wonder how many of these 60 can't buy lunch because mom and or dad have no money, and how many have parents that don't bother looking at school notes or checking their kids' school website.
 
2014-02-06 04:54:05 PM

Alicious: SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

Just because they do not qualify for the free or reduced lunch program does not mean they can afford to pay for school lunches.

Here, if you have 2 kids, you will be paying $5/day (2.50 x 2) which is $35/week. That adds up.


Ugh. Math is hard. $25/week
 
2014-02-06 04:55:03 PM
No one should ever be forced to pay for food, water, shelter, or clothing. These things should be freely available to all human beings, and denying a person any of these basic human rights should be punishable by summary execution
 
2014-02-06 04:56:25 PM

bluenovaman: There is also a petition to make taking and throwing lunches away on children illegal.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/illegalize-throwing-away-s tu dent-lunches-due-debt/MSZdvBZ4


Signed!
 
2014-02-06 04:57:08 PM

Shryke: whidbey: You might stick with it, but I think you're going to find the rest of us are sick of it, and are going to start demanding public ownership of services. A lot sooner than you think. we want to take your stuff by force.

Corrected. Good luck on that.


Good luck trying to comprehend what real democracy is. Until you do, I hope your taxes go up. A lot.
 
2014-02-06 04:57:11 PM
good deal, they are already learning how to work the system...they will be on the government teat forever.
 
2014-02-06 05:00:04 PM

SubBass49: d23: SubBass49: - What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

how about something that DOESN'T leave the kid hungry?

Such as?  Deadbeats will screw the schools over for as long as they can unless there are teeth to the policy and they know they're gonna get nailed for it...and even then some will still try to test it for themselves.

Wage-garnishment?
Jail?

Remember, these are not POOR people who cannot afford to feed their kids, they're people that don't give a shiat about feeding their kids.


Most of what I've seen is well off people, who are more interested in gaming the system for their kids lunch. They love their kids, but if the law says the school hast to feed 'em....
 
2014-02-06 05:00:12 PM
Insisting that these parents drive to the elotes stand at Fiesta in anything other than a black Navigator with rims is appalling.
 
2014-02-06 05:00:22 PM

oldfarthenry: Sin_City_Superhero: I AM a selfish asshole, and I too, believe in funding our schools. My reasoning is that it's worth the money to not have a bunch of uneducated retards running around. Stupid people are funny for a short while...then they get annoying.

This thread has certainly proven that statement.


amen, brother...amen.
 
2014-02-06 05:01:07 PM

Pip and Chip: The horror of a cheese sandwich! When my son was in elementary school, that's what he TOOK from home for his lunch. He wouldn't eat anything from the cafeteria and hated lunch meat or even PB&J. I suppose I was abusing him by sending food he would actually eat. Bad mom.


I think a lot of elementary schools ban sack lunches brought from home.  Because of allergies, reasons, and it's not like it was when we were young.
/made my own damn lunch
//hated hot lunch
///also what's the rage about Italian dunkers?  It's cheese bread with meat sauce?
 
2014-02-06 05:01:10 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


Sounds Republican...
 
2014-02-06 05:01:29 PM
$465!?!?!  Damn, that's more than I make in a hour!
 
2014-02-06 05:05:05 PM
I thought Economics was a 12th grade requirement.
 
2014-02-06 05:06:02 PM
Jim_Callahan:

Um... how is that not pretty much a sunk cost anyhow?  Do you just... not farking feed your kids when they aren't in school or something?  Because that's kind of what you're sounding like there.

For reference, to not qualify for reduced lunches in the 48 contiguous states with a household size of 3 you have to be making upwards of 37k$/year (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-032913 .p df).  I don't think asking you to sink about 1500$ of that a year into  feeding your farking children is entirely unreasonable as legal financial obligations go.


Wow! A whole $37,000/yr for a family of 3! Talk about living the life of Riley there!

A family of three does not always consist of 2 adults and a child. $37,000/yr is comfortable in some regions and barely able to afford much of anything in others.

Are you also aware that a family can make $37,001/yr and not qualify for the reduced/or free lunch program?

Perhaps you are fortunate to live in an area where they don't have a backpack program for kids. The backpack program is where a child is sent home over the weekend with a backpack containing items that can be used for meals (cereal, shelf stable milk, fruit cups, microwaveable individual meals, granola bars, etc.) because the parents cannot, for whatever reason, provide food for their children.

In the summer, the USDA sponsors a program that feeds anyone 18 and under breakfast and lunch, no questions asked. You just show up to the designated sites and you are fed.
 
2014-02-06 05:06:18 PM

Lost Thought 00: No one should ever be forced to pay for food, water, shelter, or clothing. These things should be freely available to all human beings, and denying a person any of these basic human rights should be punishable by summary execution


SOMEONE had to be forced to pay for these things. Let me repeat that: SOMEONE ALWAYS HAS TO PAY. There is no fairly lala-land with unicorns that spills food/water/shelter/clothing etc.
 
2014-02-06 05:06:52 PM
I've never understood why American schools have a breakfast and lunch program.

Even in socialist Canada, the vast majority of schools don't have such a program. Kids bring their own lunch and eat breakfast before school.
 
2014-02-06 05:08:17 PM
So I guess this thread's over.

School lunches are fine, but only as long as some charitable out-of-state private sector philanthropist pays for it and writes it off his taxes.

Done. When do we impeach Obama?
 
2014-02-06 05:09:41 PM

Lost Thought 00: No one should ever be forced to pay for food, water, shelter, or clothing. These things should be freely available to all human beings, and denying a person any of these basic human rights should be punishable by summary execution


Oh, and that SOMEONE should be:

1) YOURSELF (or in this case the PARENTS)

if they can't then

2) Family or friends
3) Local Community or charity
4)Government
 
2014-02-06 05:14:48 PM
I will produce a reality television show where a 7 foot tall, coked up Fiestada-themed Randy Savage-esque debt collector kicks down doors, shakes down moms and dads for delinquent lunch money.
 
2014-02-06 05:15:42 PM

Rev.K: I've never understood why American schools have a breakfast and lunch program.

Even in socialist Canada, the vast majority of schools don't have such a program. Kids bring their own lunch and eat breakfast before school.


You don't have nearly as many children living in poverty.
 
2014-02-06 05:16:54 PM

iheartscotch: what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.

What if I don't like raw turnips and vodka? And graft, you can't forget about the graft.

/ socialism is a good idea; who wouldn't want a chicken in every pot, school for every child, work for everyone, nobody scraping to get by. It's just that humanity can't seem to get the hang of everybody being equal and happy; some people will always feel that they are more equal than others. And that is why pure socialism is doomed to fail.


No, the reason pure socialism is doomed to fail is because if everyone is guaranteed not to have to struggle to get by, then most people are going to stop working hard, and when enough people do that, suddenly the economy is not strong enough to support everyone.
The problem is not that humans hate other people, the problem is that most humans are lazy and will do the least work possible to meet their minimum comfort level.
 
2014-02-06 05:17:10 PM

kimwim: limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

I don't know, Norway seems to be doing pretty well.


Canada also has some socialist policies that have served us well. Back in 1966 the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, pushed though the Medical Care Act that implemented Medicare. (Medicare was the brainchild of Tommy Douglas, premier of Saskatchewan from 1944-1961.) The North American medical establishment and the Conservative party (Tories) strongly opposed it and suggested that foreign doctors would be imported to make the plan work and spoke at length about the serious harm to the industry's ability to serve the public if the Act were implemented. Any Canadian who critiques another country's history of racism should be reminded of the racist imagery used by the medical community and the Conservative party at this point in Canada's not so distant past. Fortunately the day was won by the collective effort of the two political parties and Canada has enjoyed universal health care since then. The system is by no means perfect, but it works.

Here's a baffling statistic:  In 2003, the Government in Canada spent $2,998 USD per capita on healthcare as compared to $5,711 USD per capita in the United States, while almost every Canadian citizen is fully covered. How is this even possible? Is there some form of medical corporate welfare going on down there? At least with your military spending you're getting guns, tanks, boats, planes and other cool things; what were you getting back in 2003 for $5,711 per capita if you didn't have free health care?
 
2014-02-06 05:17:18 PM
How about "Pay your farking bill you god damned leaches. If you can't afford to feed them, keep your god damned pants on, the last thing this world needs is more of you."
 
2014-02-06 05:17:47 PM

what_now: You don't have nearly as many children living in poverty.


Perhaps not.
 
2014-02-06 05:18:25 PM
bluenovaman

We are the richest country in the world. We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children

Obama hasn't fixed that yet?

Feed your own g.d. kid.
 
2014-02-06 05:18:37 PM

OnlyM3: How about "Pay your farking bill you god damned leaches. If you can't afford to feed them, keep your god damned pants on, the last thing this world needs is more of you."


You should go door to door, delivering this message personally.

You certainly seem enthusiastic about it.
 
2014-02-06 05:19:57 PM

d23: Isitoveryet: maybe if it weren't for the burden of administrative costs a little bit of the money pumped into our schools could go to feeding the students and more to our teachers!

we feed our soldiers, why not feed our future soldiers?

We don't always feed our former soldiers, though.


Same reason people scream about outlawing abortion, but then don't want to pay for kids' welfare. They don't care about the living, only wars and birth.
 
2014-02-06 05:20:18 PM

Rev.K: I've never understood why American schools have a breakfast and lunch program.

Even in socialist Canada, the vast majority of schools don't have such a program. Kids bring their own lunch and eat breakfast before school.


Because poor.  I don't understand how you can not understand.
 
2014-02-06 05:21:04 PM

Itstoearly: iheartscotch: what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.

What if I don't like raw turnips and vodka? And graft, you can't forget about the graft.

/ socialism is a good idea; who wouldn't want a chicken in every pot, school for every child, work for everyone, nobody scraping to get by. It's just that humanity can't seem to get the hang of everybody being equal and happy; some people will always feel that they are more equal than others. And that is why pure socialism is doomed to fail.

No, the reason pure socialism is doomed to fail is because if everyone is guaranteed not to have to struggle to get by, then most people are going to stop working hard, and when enough people do that, suddenly the economy is not strong enough to support everyone.
The problem is not that humans hate other people, the problem is that most humans are lazy and will do the least work possible to meet their minimum comfort level.


Tell that to Whidbey. He thinks everyone on the right is evil and wants children to die in the gutter.
 
2014-02-06 05:22:02 PM

Death Whisper: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x300]Socialism didn't work in Russia, Socialism didn't work in Europe, and Socialism won't work in America.


It's also not very Christian either. Jesus/God didn't want us to be kind to each other and do all that loving each other shiat. He wanted us to build bombs and guns and planes and to use them on brown people who don't speak American. He wanted us to go home and rape our wives after praying to him in church. He wants children who's lunch accounts run dry to starve because not having money is un-Christian. Jesus/God wants us all to be rich no matter what it takes to get there.

/am I doing it right?
 
2014-02-06 05:22:15 PM
This thread can go to hell.
 
2014-02-06 05:22:15 PM

rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.


The kids in Utah had taken away, thrown in the garbage, and were given milk and an orange. Because it's more efficient and small governmenty to waste the food they already had, then give them different food because of principals.

It's as logical as complaining about freeloading drug abusers taking taxpayer money, then making taxpayers foot the bill for drug tests which end up costing more than we were wasting giving to the drug abusers. Any group that wants to waste more taxpayer money to increase government regulation, that then calls themselves "fiscally conservative" and "small government" is full of shiat.

I'm sure every single parent is out wasting their money on 40's and smokes too, which is why they don't have money in their kids lunch fund. That statement is a great example of fairness and balance. I bet you're well educated and not a bigot at all.
 
2014-02-06 05:25:03 PM

quansem: This thread can go to hell.


All this justification to return to a 19th century social mindset.

The truth is ugly, isn't it?
 
2014-02-06 05:25:19 PM

FarkedOver: dpzum1: Put everything into one big pile and then dole it out...From those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Karl Marx, a really successful chap.

You've never really read much Marx, have you?


Conservatives like that have never really had much use for "facts" or "reality" or "research", not when they've got a really good gut feeling to go with...
 
2014-02-06 05:27:36 PM

Pitabred: FarkedOver: dpzum1: Put everything into one big pile and then dole it out...From those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
Karl Marx, a really successful chap.

You've never really read much Marx, have you?

Conservatives like that have never really had much use for "facts" or "reality" or "research", not when they've got a really good gut feeling to go with...


Like Marxism=Stalinism=Best Koreaism
 
2014-02-06 05:30:49 PM

trappedspirit: Because poor.  I don't understand how you can not understand.


It's just for poor kids?

I thought it was for all kids.

Perhaps I was wrong.
 
2014-02-06 05:33:40 PM

what_now: dpzum1: me wanting to keep what I've earned, not give it to you or the government,

Oh this bullshiat.

You know how you've never been attacked by Vikings? Why do you think that is?


Because he's not on any of these teams?

prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com
 
2014-02-06 05:34:53 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.

The kids in Utah had taken away, thrown in the garbage, and were given milk and an orange. Because it's more efficient and small governmenty to waste the food they already had, then give them different food because of principals.

It's as logical as complaining about freeloading drug abusers taking taxpayer money, then making taxpayers foot the bill for drug tests which end up costing more than we were wasting giving to the drug abusers. Any group that wants to waste more taxpayer money to increase government regulation, that then calls themselves "fiscally conservative" and "small government" is full of shiat.

I'm sure every single parent is out wasting their money on 40's and smokes too, which is why they don't have money in their kids lunch fund. That statement is a great example of fairness and balance. I bet you're well educated and not a bigot at all.


I'm not sure you quoted the right posting, but that's okay.  You sound angry and such venting may help you along.
Peace.
 
2014-02-06 05:39:27 PM

rkiller1: ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.

You may find the answer here


For real?  You think that if kids get a 'free lunch' at school, it's passed on to them in other sneeky ways, like charging them more for beer?
 
2014-02-06 05:40:12 PM

OnlyM3: How about "Pay your farking bill you god damned leaches. If you can't afford to feed them, keep your god damned pants on, the last thing this world needs is more of you."


I've been here for a long time and pretty much every post I've seen of yours has you nailed as an arsehole.  Your "team" has done everything to make sure poor people don't have access to birth control then biatches when the poor has kids and can't feed them.  I sincerely hope you DIAF as long as your M3 doesn't go down with you.  I don't want to see such a fine piece of machinery die with it's loser owner.
 
2014-02-06 05:40:15 PM

Lost Thought 00: No one should ever be forced to pay for food, water, shelter, or clothing. These things should be freely available to all human beings, and denying a person any of these basic human rights should be punishable by summary execution


This
 
2014-02-06 05:41:17 PM

SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


I'm a liberal who's brother is a teacher and I'm a bit annoyed with the things you have missed. We've been cutting funding and raising the bar for who qualifies for free lunches. I would go hungry myself long before I would let my kid do so, but just because some government functionary declares that if you make X dollars you don't get free lunches, doesn't mean everyone making X dollars can afford to buy their kids lunch.

Generally the dollar amounts for free lunches don't vary as they should for the area where the kids lives in the state. Thus someone in a rural area and an urban area making the same amount of money are weighted the same, even though urban area's are far more expensive than rural areas.

I'm glad you weren't one of my teachers. You seem to believe in absolute truths in situations that don't exist. When the government set the guidelines for standardized testing, did you immediately agree with them and think every teacher and school district who didn't make the grades should have their funding cut?

Nearly everything about our education system is geared towards getting some measurable result no matter how arbitrary the means for getting that result is. It used to be schools existed to educate children, now they exist to provide feedback about the education system.
 
2014-02-06 05:44:53 PM

Nemo's Brother: 60 parents that would rather spend their money on cable, 40s and smokes instead of pay for their children to eat.


Your parents were failures.
 
2014-02-06 05:45:41 PM

tricycleracer: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: HotWingConspiracy: TomD9938: BTW, you all are defending parents with money

Most people are talking about the kids. You cannot seem to separate the two because it's offensive to your notions of responsibility.


The kids should get to eat (on the other parents' dime for the time being).  I've said this more than once in this thread.

The parents should get their wages garnished via some state or federal mechanism ASAP to make up for the cost of the meals and to cover the costs incurred by the government agency responsible for collection.

Do you imagine this system will save money vs. just feeding the kids a proper meal?

"Hello Mr. Jones.  I see you're here to renew your Utah drivers license for another four years."

"Ok, that'll be $80.00 for the license renewal, $30.00 for the school lunch lien on file and another $40.00 filing fee to cover the transfer of said debt from the education to the transportation department."

"Will that be cash or charge?"

There are no savings, just as there are no profits on the people who do pay.

Wait, you trust the DMV to competently do something?  Why do I feel that this runs contrary to your normal views of government agencies?


cdn.wegotthiscovered.com

We've got a new member today! Eric Cartman, do you love your country?!

 
2014-02-06 05:47:22 PM
Easy solution, just give everyone a free lunch at school.
 
2014-02-06 05:49:43 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: rkiller1: ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.

You may find the answer here

For real?  You think that if kids get a 'free lunch' at school, it's passed on to them in other sneeky ways, like charging them more for beer?


No, you're right. There ARE free lunches, which nobody pays for.
Sorry, my bad.
 
2014-02-06 05:50:52 PM

SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones


...and apparently you think all of them should be treated like responsible adults who should go home and talk to their parents about how they are spending their money. Poor kids generally have uneducated parents who make bad decisions, why would you blame the kids for that?

Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

My brother is a teacher, he gets pissed at his kids sometimes. I have to remind him about all the shiat I pulled in school. I turned out OK. I work full time, pay taxes, and I'm not on any type of government assistance.
 
2014-02-06 05:56:33 PM
I can hear my right wing friends now...  "Now these kids will expect to have lunch every day!"
 
2014-02-06 05:56:33 PM
When did this thread go into surreal territory?
 
2014-02-06 05:57:35 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones

...and apparently you think all of them should be treated like responsible adults who should go home and talk to their parents about how they are spending their money. Poor kids generally have uneducated parents who make bad decisions, why would you blame the kids for that?

Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

My brother is a teacher, he gets pissed at his kids sometimes. I have to remind him about all the shiat I pulled in school. I turned out OK. I work full time, pay taxes, and I'm not on any type of government assistance.


He/she wasn't blaming the kids. Reread the posts.

Look into another profession? Wow, that escalated quickly. Try to stay on task.

You turned out OK? Good for you. Clearly your anecdotal data is true for all.
 
2014-02-06 05:57:50 PM

TomD9938: rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.


Yeah, this thread took a weird turn right out of the gate.

/ my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.


Wow, what a guy.
 
2014-02-06 06:00:56 PM

what_now: dpzum1: me wanting to keep what I've earned, not give it to you or the government,

Oh this bullshiat.

You know how you've never been attacked by Vikings? Why do you think that is?


I have an anti-Viking-attack rock.

/it's for sale.
 
2014-02-06 06:07:24 PM

FarkedOver: There's so many people that think they know what socialism is but really have no idea what it is.  Fantastic!


And most of them are the same dopes who think Obama's implementing it.
 
2014-02-06 06:07:31 PM

SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones


If that's what it takes to make sure the hungry ones get fed, then I'm cool with it.
 
2014-02-06 06:07:34 PM

shlabotnik: squirrelflavoredyogurt: SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones

...and apparently you think all of them should be treated like responsible adults who should go home and talk to their parents about how they are spending their money. Poor kids generally have uneducated parents who make bad decisions, why would you blame the kids for that?

Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

My brother is a teacher, he gets pissed at his kids sometimes. I have to remind him about all the shiat I pulled in school. I turned out OK. I work full time, pay taxes, and I'm not on any type of government assistance.

He/she wasn't blaming the kids. Reread the posts.

Look into another profession? Wow, that escalated quickly. Try to stay on task.

You turned out OK? Good for you. Clearly your anecdotal data is true for all.


Funny how he attacked me for not fully analyzing the entire public education and federal food system during my lunch break (1/2 hour), but then used anecdotal evidence of his own experience to somehow generalize the experience of the American public school student.
 
2014-02-06 06:09:07 PM

Rev.K: trappedspirit: Because poor.  I don't understand how you can not understand.

It's just for poor kids?

I thought it was for all kids.

Perhaps I was wrong.


I went to an elementary school for years before accidentally discovering the "breakfast club".  I was like why the fark are they eating breakfast at school.  A teacher told me that some of their families couldn't afford breakfast.  I didn't know what to think about that but I knew those were the weird kids.
 
2014-02-06 06:11:27 PM

rkiller1: Ed Grubermann: And I'm even okay with paying more taxes to make sure that schools get the funding they need for all programs.

Then as an example to us all, you surely volunteer at the local school or at least give them money unconditionally, right?  I mean, if I see you do it, then I promise to follow suit.


Don't let my sloth keep you from doing the Right Thing.
 
2014-02-06 06:16:31 PM

FarkedOver: There's so many people that think they know what socialism is but really have no idea what it is.  Fantastic!


Exactly. When people say that Jesus was socialist, it just exposes them as morons.
 
2014-02-06 06:17:17 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.


What's the matter?  Can't handle reality and/or truth?
 
2014-02-06 06:17:49 PM

El Rich-o: TomD9938: rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.


Yeah, this thread took a weird turn right out of the gate.

/ my dad would rather have died than to have a stranger pay for my lunch.

Wow, what a guy.



He was.
 
2014-02-06 06:19:41 PM

rkiller1: Vlad_the_Inaner: rkiller1: ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.

You may find the answer here

For real?  You think that if kids get a 'free lunch' at school, it's passed on to them in other sneeky ways, like charging them more for beer?

No, you're right. There ARE free lunches, which nobody pays for.
Sorry, my bad.


Yeah, you are bad, not because there are free lunches, because the moral of the story with TANSTASFL is to tell you that when someone offers you a free lunch, you should look for the cost hidden elsewhere.  So you missed the whole point.  So waving a TANSTAFL flag at a hungry kid is farking useless, because kids do not understand costs, much less hidden costs.  All they know is they are hungry.

The only way raising kids makes economic sense is in a pay-it-forward sense.  Yeah, they don't have to pay now.  But yeah, later they'll probably have have to pay it later in life for the next generation of kids who have bad luck.

And because they got benefit of it in the past, they'll probably understand why they are paying in the future.

/Well, except for the ones who become libertarians, because 'Fark you, I got mine!"
 
2014-02-06 06:19:53 PM

WhyteRaven74: Easy solution, just give everyone a free lunch at school.



Strange that food was somehow separated from things like heat, electric, etc.
 
2014-02-06 06:21:16 PM

d23: Isitoveryet: maybe if it weren't for the burden of administrative costs a little bit of the money pumped into our schools could go to feeding the students and more to our teachers!

we feed our soldiers, why not feed our future soldiers?

We don't always feed our former soldiers, though.


Because good soldiers are supposed to die in battle where they're carried into the arms of Republican Jesus at his Neocon Valhalla Party Palace. How else are politicians supposed to shill 'em out for votes?
 
2014-02-06 06:24:23 PM

change1211: Doesn't that mean that your lack of support for the Democrats mean that a party even farther from your position will do better?


I have to vote for Saruman or Sauron will win!
 
2014-02-06 06:47:33 PM

HotWingConspiracy: limboslam: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Something tells me you don't actually know what socialism is.


/Sweden
 
2014-02-06 06:49:49 PM
Im sure Private equity companies would find a way to make money from the school lunches.
 
2014-02-06 06:50:45 PM

Itstoearly: iheartscotch: what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.

What if I don't like raw turnips and vodka? And graft, you can't forget about the graft.

/ socialism is a good idea; who wouldn't want a chicken in every pot, school for every child, work for everyone, nobody scraping to get by. It's just that humanity can't seem to get the hang of everybody being equal and happy; some people will always feel that they are more equal than others. And that is why pure socialism is doomed to fail.

No, the reason pure socialism is doomed to fail is because if everyone is guaranteed not to have to struggle to get by, then most people are going to stop working hard, and when enough people do that, suddenly the economy is not strong enough to support everyone.
The problem is not that humans hate other people, the problem is that most humans are lazy and will do the least work possible to meet their minimum comfort level.


That's a hell of an assertion there, sparky... I'd love to see your evidence for that. As well as the evidence that even working hard in this country is enough to meet a minimum comfort level.
 
2014-02-06 06:57:31 PM
I know I'm late.  Did he buy them bootstraps?
 
2014-02-06 07:04:18 PM

WhyteRaven74: Easy solution, just give everyone a free lunch at school.



img.fark.net
 
2014-02-06 07:15:38 PM

red5ish: Is the United States a third world country?


Republicans are trying.
 
2014-02-06 07:28:26 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: rkiller1: Vlad_the_Inaner: rkiller1: ongbok: Why can't the schools just provide free lunch and breakfast to all students? I'm sure the money is there for it. Wouldn't this be better than having hungry kids or school officials punishing kids by embarrassing them because they have poor parents or parents that are inattentive assholes? Trust me, you take it out on a kid because their parent is an asshole, you will end up with a kid who is an asshole.

You may find the answer here

For real?  You think that if kids get a 'free lunch' at school, it's passed on to them in other sneeky ways, like charging them more for beer?

No, you're right. There ARE free lunches, which nobody pays for.
Sorry, my bad.

Yeah, you are bad, not because there are free lunches, because the moral of the story with TANSTASFL is to tell you that when someone offers you a free lunch, you should look for the cost hidden elsewhere.  So you missed the whole point.  So waving a TANSTAFL flag at a hungry kid is farking useless, because kids do not understand costs, much less hidden costs.  All they know is they are hungry.

The only way raising kids makes economic sense is in a pay-it-forward sense.  Yeah, they don't have to pay now.  But yeah, later they'll probably have have to pay it later in life for the next generation of kids who have bad luck.

And because they got benefit of it in the past, they'll probably understand why they are paying in the future.

/Well, except for the ones who become libertarians, because 'Fark you, I got mine!"


Let's agree that we're on separate tracks and the nearest switch points are near Timbuktu.
Peace.
 
2014-02-06 07:31:08 PM

what_now: SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.

Somerville, MA has recently decided to provide free, nutritious breakfast to every student in public school, regardless of income, and reduce the cost of lunch to $2.75 per meal, and has this policy for students who haven't paid:
 All students who are not eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch or have not submitted a lunch application are required to pay for lunch if they choose to get a lunch from the cafeteria. Students are allowed to debit up to ($25.00) and still receive lunch. Students that have reached this threshold of owing $25.00 will not be allowed to receive additional lunches until they submit payment. However they will be able to receive cereal, fruit, juice and milk anytime they do not have money. Students in grades K through 2 will be allowed to receive lunch regardless of the amount of money owed. All students will be provided with nutritious food each day and no student will be denied food.

You know, as a tax payer in Somerville, I'm a perfectly ok with this.


MA did something decent?

What evil must now occur to balance it out?
 
2014-02-06 08:16:14 PM

bluenovaman: We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.


Done in one. Well said.
 
2014-02-06 08:20:13 PM

bluenovaman: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

My friends call me one all the time (along with dirty hippie among other amusing labels), I wouldn't go so far as to agree with them on that, but I'm not ashamed of the label.  I'm happy to support my fellow working class Americans against the tyranny of the GOP.


The libs do as much as the GOP to fark the working class.
 
2014-02-06 08:23:30 PM
Wait a minute. If he zeroed the balances, doesn't that just mean the school wins, and the kids still don't get lunch?
 
2014-02-06 09:05:02 PM
A compassionate man in Texass?
 
2014-02-06 09:08:41 PM

FarkedOver: If people are really interested in joining a socialist party be prepared for what you are getting involved with (I am a socialist).  Socialists are not democrats and they are not liberals.  Socialism is a revolutionary movement.  You will likely not be successful with getting socialist candidates elected, you will read a lot of Marx and Lenin and you will be asked to be involved with many demonstrations.


ho hum revisionist vs. revolutionary zzzzzz
 
2014-02-06 09:14:47 PM

Chach: bluenovaman: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

My friends call me one all the time (along with dirty hippie among other amusing labels), I wouldn't go so far as to agree with them on that, but I'm not ashamed of the label.  I'm happy to support my fellow working class Americans against the tyranny of the GOP.

The libs do as much as the GOP to fark the working class.


Not even close.
 
2014-02-06 09:26:18 PM
Wow. This being Fark, I knew there would be some hate for this guy for helping kids with his own money - but the amount and intensity of the hate is, well pathological. there's no other word for it. When I was a kid, back in the "conservative" 50s, this man's act would have received nothing but praise. Today - people spitting venom and hate at him, in their convulsive paranoia and terror.
I know something about these creatures - there is no way these sick, crazy, wicked animals will ever listen to reason.
Be prepared.
 
2014-02-06 10:01:43 PM

wambu: INeedAName: wambu: Will he do it next month? And after that? What about all the other kids in need every day?

/not likely to do it again

//what seems like a nice gesture fails to actually help

Kids who eat better, do better in school. Education fights poverty. Keeping kids fed gives them a better education, and helps them get out of poverty. Sounds like it helps to me.

Agreed. Well-fed kids do better in school. No dispute there.

Or do you believe that by not feeding these kids, the parents will learn a valuable lesson that will lead to sweeping lifestyle changes and they'll get all boot strappy?

That may be what is happening in your head, but it's not close to what I said or even implied.

Some parents can't afford to pay for things and some parents choose not to. Punishing the parents that can't, because some parents don't isn't a way to run a civilized nation.

Way to go far astray, Sparky.

My point was that the wrong person was paying, his resources were not adequate to address the problem and would not ever solve the problem. He's good for some feel-good headlines and makes it easy for some people to smugly assume that "things are being done for the children" while the problem continues unabated. Well, maybe "fixed" for the briefest of moments, but not in any substantive manner. In that sense, he might have done more harm than good for these children.


Bullshiat! At least it's a start and may well get people involved.
 
2014-02-06 10:08:12 PM

Chach: bluenovaman: kimwim: bluenovaman: a socialist

And, what's wrong with being a socialist? When I was first dating my now husband, he told me he was a socialist at heart, I rolled my eyes, not knowing even what one was. Thinking he was a nutter. Now, I don't even know what would be wrong with being one, inclined to becoming one myself, taking myself off the dem rolls in town, and join the socialist party. Because it's clear what we've got now really isn't working.

My friends call me one all the time (along with dirty hippie among other amusing labels), I wouldn't go so far as to agree with them on that, but I'm not ashamed of the label.  I'm happy to support my fellow working class Americans against the tyranny of the GOP.

The libs do as much as the GOP to fark the working class.


I don't consider myself a lib, I am pretty much in the middle. But BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2014-02-06 10:11:34 PM

Rev.K: I've never understood why American schools have a breakfast and lunch program.

Even in socialist Canada, the vast majority of schools don't have such a program. Kids bring their own lunch and eat breakfast before school.


Why is it socialism to wanna get something for your hard-earned taxes. Why should only millionaires get rich off our tax dollars through endless bailouts and corruption? You call us socialist because some little pinhead on Fox news told you that's what it is so your own little brain just repeats it, although you haven't got a farking clue what these words mean.
 
2014-02-06 10:56:59 PM

SubBass49: what_now: SubBass49: I'm a liberal who has taught for the past 13 years in a low-income urban school, and I am a bit annoyed by a lack of points being made here...

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?

I don't know. But starving the children certainly isn't one of them.

Somerville, MA has recently decided to provide free, nutritious breakfast to every student in public school, regardless of income, and reduce the cost of lunch to $2.75 per meal, and has this policy for students who haven't paid:
 All students who are not eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch or have not submitted a lunch application are required to pay for lunch if they choose to get a lunch from the cafeteria. Students are allowed to debit up to ($25.00) and still receive lunch. Students that have reached this threshold of owing $25.00 will not be allowed to receive additional lunches until they submit payment. However they will be able to receive cereal, fruit, juice and milk anytime they do not have money. Students in grades K through 2 will be allowed to receive lunch regardless of the amount of money owed. All students will be provided with nutritious food each day and no student will be denied food.

You know, as a tax payer in Somerville, I'm a perfectly ok with this.

Then the question becomes how many people out there are like you?  Where I live, until this school year, budgets were being cut left & right.  It was hard as hell to get the voters to pass a tax increase to just keep our heads above water.
Are you representative of the voting public, or more left-leaning than they are?
What will happen when an increasi ...


So what if the students in question get more than enough money from their parents to pay for lunch and get snacks or whatever and are spending the money on cigarettes, booze, other drugs for recreational use, or those overpriced Beats and just don't care if they eat the lunch the school provides?
 
2014-02-06 11:58:46 PM

damphool: Whatchoo Talkinbout: utard

LOL.  Subby must be from Wyoming.  That is the only place where I have heard the term "Utards."  In case you guys are serious about not getting the reference, it's a derogatory reference to the residents of Utah.  It's like those of us in the great State of Kansas referring to the bastard land to our east as "Misery"  or the "Show Me... How to Drive" State.


Really? Brownbackistanians do that?
 
2014-02-07 12:01:35 AM

bluenovaman: We are the richest country in the world.  We spend more money on our military than the next 10 nations combined yet we can not provide breakfast and lunch to all children ensuring that they will grow up strong and healthy.  We buy tanks and airplanes only to send them to the desert to rot away.  GOP is doing their damnedest to turn me into a socialist and it's working.


Thats not what Republican Jesus would do.
 
2014-02-07 04:49:30 AM

just_another_asshole/jaa: So what if the students in question get more than enough money from their parents to pay for lunch and get snacks or whatever and are spending the money on cigarettes, booze, other drugs for recreational use, or those overpriced Beats and just don't care if they eat the lunch the school provides?


Ha. My mother gave me $20 a week for lunch (single mom), and I damn sure did skip lunch every day. $20 was a lot of money then and I had fun with it. If schools had been giving out free lunches I would have been broke.
 
2014-02-07 04:57:52 AM

Chach: The libs do as much as the GOP to fark the working class.


You mean Democrats, right?

Liberals are to conservatives, as Democrats are to Republicans.  You are mixing up your lexicon.
 
2014-02-07 08:55:09 AM

what_now: limboslam: Because Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it's been tried.

Um.. Yeah. It works great in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Costa Rica...

But I'm sure those are just outliers.


Yes, remember, when the American Right says "socialism" has failed or always fails, they don't mean "socialism", they mean communism.  They see zero difference between a democratic government with a socialist support system like Sweden or Norway, and a Stalinist/Maoist-style communist dictatorship with a command economy.

They assume that the moment you allow, say, a national socialized medicine system, you instantly jump to gulags, the holodomor, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

False dichotomy
 
2014-02-07 11:34:38 AM

rkiller1: squirrelflavoredyogurt: rkiller1: So even though the kids had received, continued to receive and will in the future receive free lunches, there is outrage here about military spending and the GOP.
Interesting logic.

The kids in Utah had taken away, thrown in the garbage, and were given milk and an orange. Because it's more efficient and small governmenty to waste the food they already had, then give them different food because of principals.

It's as logical as complaining about freeloading drug abusers taking taxpayer money, then making taxpayers foot the bill for drug tests which end up costing more than we were wasting giving to the drug abusers. Any group that wants to waste more taxpayer money to increase government regulation, that then calls themselves "fiscally conservative" and "small government" is full of shiat.

I'm sure every single parent is out wasting their money on 40's and smokes too, which is why they don't have money in their kids lunch fund. That statement is a great example of fairness and balance. I bet you're well educated and not a bigot at all.

I'm not sure you quoted the right posting, but that's okay.  You sound angry and such venting may help you along.
Peace.


This from the person who accuses others of not having the ability to read? I guess that comes from your top notch education.
 
2014-02-07 11:48:54 AM

shlabotnik: squirrelflavoredyogurt: SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones

...and apparently you think all of them should be treated like responsible adults who should go home and talk to their parents about how they are spending their money. Poor kids generally have uneducated parents who make bad decisions, why would you blame the kids for that?

Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

My brother is a teacher, he gets pissed at his kids sometimes. I have to remind him about all the shiat I pulled in school. I turned out OK. I work full time, pay taxes, and I'm not on any type of government assistance.

He/she wasn't blaming the kids. Reread the posts.

Look into another profession? Wow, that escalated quickly. Try to stay on task.

You turned out OK? Good for you. Clearly your anecdotal data is true for all.


"but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left."

So you have reading comprehension problems too then? Explain to me how that statement isn't blaming the kids for wasting the food.

When people clearly don't like their jobs they should stay at them? Sounds like a pretty crappy idea to me, but hey I don't want to be accused of "escalating" a good idea or anything. The point I was making was that if he didn't like his job he should look for another, what "task" was it you thought I should get back to?

I'm not sure that stating an opinion that I turned out OK, and then stating that I work full time and pay taxes is an anecdote. I wasn't trying to amuse anyone and since I have worked full time for nearly 30 years at several different jobs it isn't about a particular incident or event.

Don't let the fact that you don't understand the definition of a word stop you from using it in an attempt to belittle someone else though.
 
2014-02-07 11:55:02 AM

SubBass49: shlabotnik: squirrelflavoredyogurt: SubBass49: BTW...the school where I teach feeds over 2,000 kids per day breakfast & lunch for free (entire school population), but the kids waste so much of it that the seagulls fly about 20+ miles from the coast at lunch time to scavenge the utter waste-field that is left.

/BTW, most of the kids have smart-phones
//Many of the kids have BEATS headphones

...and apparently you think all of them should be treated like responsible adults who should go home and talk to their parents about how they are spending their money. Poor kids generally have uneducated parents who make bad decisions, why would you blame the kids for that?

Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

My brother is a teacher, he gets pissed at his kids sometimes. I have to remind him about all the shiat I pulled in school. I turned out OK. I work full time, pay taxes, and I'm not on any type of government assistance.

He/she wasn't blaming the kids. Reread the posts.

Look into another profession? Wow, that escalated quickly. Try to stay on task.

You turned out OK? Good for you. Clearly your anecdotal data is true for all.

Funny how he attacked me for not fully analyzing the entire public education and federal food system during my lunch break (1/2 hour), but then used anecdotal evidence of his own experience to somehow generalize the experience of the American public school student.


Funny how you a teacher don't understand the definition of the word anecdote.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdote

Is being employed full time for 30 years and paying taxes each of those years an "incident". It seems to my that you'd have to consider that more than an an individual occurrence or event.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incident?s=t


You suck at your job, and you don't like it. You should quit.
 
2014-02-07 11:57:07 AM

SubBass49: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

What's the matter?  Can't handle reality and/or truth?


What reality and/or truth is it that you're suggesting I can't handle exactly?
 
2014-02-07 12:02:30 PM

SubBass49: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Kids are kids, we threw away a lot of food back in the 70's too. It sounds to me like you're a teacher who doesn't like the job and resents the kids. Maybe you should look into another profession.

What's the matter?  Can't handle reality and/or truth?


Speaking of truth, seagulls range inland thousands of miles, so having them fly a whole 20 miles inland to eat garbage at your school is in no way odd behavior for them. Not sure why that's a huge surprise for an educator. I bet it wouldn't be for one who didn't suck at their job.
 
2014-02-07 02:02:47 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: So you have reading comprehension problems too then? Explain to me how that statement isn't blaming the kids for wasting the food.

When people clearly don't like their jobs they should stay at them? Sounds like a pretty crappy idea to me, but hey I don't want to be accused of "escalating" a good idea or anything. The point I was making was that if he didn't like his job he should look for another, what "task" was it you thought I should get back to?

I'm not sure that stating an opinion that I turned out OK, and then stating that I work full time and pay taxes is an anecdote. I wasn't trying to amuse anyone and since I have worked full time for nearly 30 years at several different jobs it isn't about a particular incident or event.

Don't let the fact that you don't understand the definition of a word stop you from using it in an attempt to belittle someone else though.


1. Of course I blame the kids who waste the food.  They get in line, grab a tray full, and proceed to throw a good percentage on the ground (rather than in a trash can).  Who else should be blamed?  I've eaten the food before (teachers can purchase the same food from a counter inside the cafeteria) and it's not bad.  Most common wasted items?  Fresh fruits & vegetables.  If I had a dollar for every carrot or apple thrown on the ground I could retire after a year of work.

2. "Clearly don't like the job?"  Screw that...I LOVE my job.  I love teaching.  I love helping kids who come from rough backgrounds.  There's a reason I've watched wave after wave of new teachers come & go from the school.  Many couldn't hack it.  Many got overwhelmed by being blamed for all of society's ills.  I just put my head down & barrel through, helping as many kids as I can along the way.  With my years of teaching experience I could always wimp out and head for greener pastures (lord knows they abound here), but I actually love my job.

3. More reading comprehension issues, son?  I never used the word "anecdotal" in my post.  That was someone else, dumbass.  Try to know what you speak of before you speak.

4. The reality/truth you couldn't handle is the situation I described.  You got all butthurt about what I posted (the truth) and suggested I must hate (and/or suck at) my job...all because I was honest.  You sure are a sensitive Susan, aren't you?  So yeah, I stick by my previous assertion that you can't handle the truth/reality.  Get help...preferably professional help.

5. Good for farking seagulls.  Did I mention somewhere that I'm a teacher of seagull behavior and/or flight patterns?  Hmmm...can't seem to find that anywhere.  The seagull reference was to illustrate what happens with much of the free food given to students at the school where I teach.  It feeds flying shiat-machines.  The fact that the seagulls know the timing of the lunch period would make for a fun study for behavioral scientists.  Considering there's a landfill much closer to the ocean than our location, I'd be curious to know why the pickings are better at a high school than a dump.

/BTW...EABOD
 
2014-02-07 04:43:25 PM

SubBass49: squirrelflavoredyogurt: So you have reading comprehension problems too then? Explain to me how that statement isn't blaming the kids for wasting the food.

When people clearly don't like their jobs they should stay at them? Sounds like a pretty crappy idea to me, but hey I don't want to be accused of "escalating" a good idea or anything. The point I was making was that if he didn't like his job he should look for another, what "task" was it you thought I should get back to?

I'm not sure that stating an opinion that I turned out OK, and then stating that I work full time and pay taxes is an anecdote. I wasn't trying to amuse anyone and since I have worked full time for nearly 30 years at several different jobs it isn't about a particular incident or event.

Don't let the fact that you don't understand the definition of a word stop you from using it in an attempt to belittle someone else though.

1. Of course I blame the kids who waste the food.  They get in line, grab a tray full, and proceed to throw a good percentage on the ground (rather than in a trash can).  Who else should be blamed?  I've eaten the food before (teachers can purchase the same food from a counter inside the cafeteria) and it's not bad.  Most common wasted items?  Fresh fruits & vegetables.  If I had a dollar for every carrot or apple thrown on the ground I could retire after a year of work.

2. "Clearly don't like the job?"  Screw that...I LOVE my job.  I love teaching.  I love helping kids who come from rough backgrounds.  There's a reason I've watched wave after wave of new teachers come & go from the school.  Many couldn't hack it.  Many got overwhelmed by being blamed for all of society's ills.  I just put my head down & barrel through, helping as many kids as I can along the way.  With my years of teaching experience I could always wimp out and head for greener pastures (lord knows they abound here), but I actually love my job.

3. More reading comprehension issues, son?  I never used the ...


Oh fun let me respond.

1.) I was responding to shlabotnick, who said you weren't blaming the kids. I think it was obvious to everyone but him that you were, so I'm not sure why you're making this point to me.

2.) Clearly you'd know better than I would how you feel about your job. You did complain about the kids. Kids are basically the main feature of teaching, so I don't think it was that big of a stretch for me to think perhaps you didn't like your job.

3.) This is your quote, "Funny how he attacked me for not fully analyzing the entire public education and federal food system during my lunch break (1/2 hour), but then used anecdotal evidence of his own experience to somehow generalize the experience of the American public school student." So now we both know that you're dishonest.

4.) This was your point that I contended:

- ALL public school students whose families meet income guidelines can get free or reduced-price lunches from school.

- In order for the kids to have negative balances on their lunch accounts, it means their families CAN afford to feed them OR pay for their food, but they chose not to.

- What alternatives should be offered up to deal with deadbeat parents CAPABLE of paying for their own damn food who choose not to?


I did so quite clearly by suggesting that just because someone picked a number and said if you make this you can afford to pay for your kids lunches doesn't make it true for every person in all situations.

If you're suggesting it does, how about a little evidence to that effect rather than suggesting it's a truth that I can't handle? Do you have any evidence that every single person not on the free lunch list has a parent or guardian who can afford to feed them that doesn't?

5.) Well I'm not a seagull expert either, but I'd imagine if I were a seagull I'd try to get the freshest food I could find, meaning I'd go to the source of the food rather than waiting for it to show up at the dump.
 
Displayed 346 of 346 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report