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  
•       •       •

10300 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:49 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



346 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report