Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(MLive.com)   Not News: eight-year old watches fellow student with delinquent lunch tab get a cold sandwich instead of a hot school meal. Fark: eight-year old raises $14,000 to pay for 4,000 reduced-price meals   (mlive.com) divider line 186
    More: Hero, school meal, fellow students, classmates, Lansing, elementary schools, students  
•       •       •

4880 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2014 at 8:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-06 09:51:12 AM  
Wait a minute.  $3.50 is a reduced price meal?

Does the school just run down to McDonalds and buy up a bunch of kids meals then keep the toys for themselves?
 
2014-03-06 09:51:41 AM  

RDixon: When has school lunch ever been free for all?

In the 60s in elementary school it was $1.00 per month for hot lunch.

Kids that didn't pay either brought their own or ate nothing.

In the late 60s to early 70s the free or reduced price lunch was started but only for very low income families.

In high school in the 70s lunch was $1.50 per week and breakfast was free for all.

And the food was just as bad then as it is now in schools.


It's not about the food, it's about shaming small children for being poor.
 
2014-03-06 09:52:34 AM  

abhorrent1: xanadian: Wait.  Kids have to PAY for their school lunches!??  When I was a kid, it was only the breakfasts they served before opening bell that kids had to pay for (and it was optional, of course).  Lunches were free.  WHAT KIND OF A MAD, TWISTED WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN, NOW!??

When did schools start serving breakfast? I never got breakfast at school. Yes, I'm old.


It wasn't all of them.  I think the school where I finished up high school had the option.  And the elementary school where I did 5th and 6th grade (I moved around a lot--divorced parents, you see...).  They were always pay-for things.  Poor kids could get waivers, though.

dittybopper: xanadian: Wait.  Kids have to PAY for their school lunches!??  When I was a kid, it was only the breakfasts they served before opening bell that kids had to pay for (and it was optional, of course).  Lunches were free.  WHAT KIND OF A MAD, TWISTED WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN, NOW!??

No, they weren't free.  TANSTAAFL.  *SOMEBODY* was paying for them.

Also, we had to pay for our lunches when I was a kid, even back in the early 1970's.


Yes, and those somebody's were the taxpayers.  My high school was contemplating charging for lunches back when I went there, but the parents went up in arms about it.  Of course, I guess it really depends on where you live.  The town I'm in now lets kids eat free, I believe ...but we also have an insanely high mil rate.  Property taxes here suck.
 
2014-03-06 09:55:59 AM  

mod3072: Personally, I think the whole free/reduced lunch system is broken. We attempted to make it fair and make sure that every kid gets at least one good meal per day by making the meals free or reduced for lower income families, but we still end up with parents who don't pay their bills and kids who get left out. A few storied like this actually make the news, but it's happening millions of times each day all across the country. Just make the program free and feed the damn kids. If we can afford to spend billions of dollars on welfare for the richest corporations the world has ever seen, we can afford a few sloppy joes for schoolkids.


My son's school took a community option for four years. Something like 75% of his school qualified for free or reduced lunches, so every kid in the grade school gets free breakfast and lunch. They do this during the summer when school's out, too. I wish all school districts could/would do this.
 
2014-03-06 09:56:36 AM  
Give the little gold-diggers nutra-loaf and put 'em in the box.

static.tvtropes.org
 
2014-03-06 09:57:48 AM  
Good for this kid, way to think of others.

My son's a 5th grader, I get up with him every morning and make him breakfast. I offer to make lunch and in the beginning of the school year he usually brown bags it, after a while he decided that he like a hot meal at lunch so we send money instead of a cold sandwich. Honestly I'd rather have a pizza, or burger or tacos than a cold sandwich any day and so would he.

/Fresh made sandwiches are good...
//bagged and in locker for 5 hour sandwiches...not so much
///I would have no problem with my taxes going to feed every kid a hot lunch.
 
2014-03-06 09:58:01 AM  

Danger Mouse: James!: Why when I was a boy I had to carry biscuits under my arms to keep them warm as I walked 5 miles to school in the snow. Up hill, both ways.

You had arms?!?!?!  We were so poor we had to share a 2nd hand prostheticbetween 4 kids!


You had siblings? We were so poor I had to be my mother, father, brother and creepy uncle. UP HILL, BOTH WAYS!!
 
2014-03-06 10:01:38 AM  

Phinn: xanadian: Wait.  Kids have to PAY for their school lunches!??  When I was a kid, it was only the breakfasts they served before opening bell that kids had to pay for (and it was optional, of course).  Lunches were free.  WHAT KIND OF A MAD, TWISTED WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN, NOW!??

Those gold-plated six-figure public-employee pensions aren't free, you know.  Somebody has to pay for them.


As a public employee with a pension plan, I'm really looking forward to my golden retirement check for $1200/month. I'm gonna be rich, I tell you!

(State government blue collar workers get paid shiat - don't believe what right-wing media yelps about)
 
2014-03-06 10:06:33 AM  

ThunderPelvis: Every child in America should get a full, nutritious school lunch, no strings attached.  It takes a pretty massive piece of sh*t to think otherwise, or to think that it's fair to segregate students' nutrition based on their parents' perceived or actual failings.  But...welcome to Fark.  I'm sure that at least one or two massive pieces of sh*t will be offended by my accurate characterization.

No child in the richest nation in the world should EVER go hungry, but the party of Jesus has decided that we just can't afford it, especially when there are tanks and fighter jets to build and rich people's taxes to cut.  Hallelujah.


If I'm responsible enough to feed my kids, why shouldn't I be forced to feed strangers kids as well?

You're more than welcome to give more of your to other people's kids. You're not welcome to force me to do the same.
 
2014-03-06 10:08:01 AM  

Fissile: RDixon: When has school lunch ever been free for all?

In the 60s in elementary school it was $1.00 per month for hot lunch.

Kids that didn't pay either brought their own or ate nothing.

In the late 60s to early 70s the free or reduced price lunch was started but only for very low income families.

In high school in the 70s lunch was $1.50 per week and breakfast was free for all.

And the food was just as bad then as it is now in schools.

It's not about the food, it's about shaming small children for being poor.


You went to a pretty farked up school of people "shamed" the reduced lunch kids.
 
2014-03-06 10:08:57 AM  

abhorrent1: xanadian: Wait.  Kids have to PAY for their school lunches!??  When I was a kid, it was only the breakfasts they served before opening bell that kids had to pay for (and it was optional, of course).  Lunches were free.  WHAT KIND OF A MAD, TWISTED WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN, NOW!??

When did schools start serving breakfast? I never got breakfast at school. Yes, I'm old.


They were doing so when my son started elementary school & that was in 1986, For some of the students the school breakfast & lunch was the only food they got each day. And schools offering breakfast is very important. A child learns better if they're not hungry.
 
2014-03-06 10:12:49 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Fissile: RDixon: When has school lunch ever been free for all?

In the 60s in elementary school it was $1.00 per month for hot lunch.

Kids that didn't pay either brought their own or ate nothing.

In the late 60s to early 70s the free or reduced price lunch was started but only for very low income families.

In high school in the 70s lunch was $1.50 per week and breakfast was free for all.

And the food was just as bad then as it is now in schools.

It's not about the food, it's about shaming small children for being poor.

You went to a pretty farked up school of people "shamed" the reduced lunch kids.


That's exactly what is happening to the kids at this school.   Kids that can pay: burgers and pizza.  Can't pay: Bowl of gruel.
 
2014-03-06 10:13:53 AM  
If children are getting free breaksfest and lunch at school, are we reducing the familly's welfare payments accordingly? Seems like double dipping to me.
 
2014-03-06 10:13:58 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: If I'm responsible enough to feed my kids, why shouldn't I be forced to feed strangers kids as well?

You're more than welcome to give more of your to other people's kids. You're not welcome to force me to do the same.


It might make you angry that a child is being fed on your pittance of a contribution to such a program but if you need to look at it in a selfish way children who get good nourishment today will cost you less tomorrow in other ways.
 
2014-03-06 10:15:16 AM  
So, how many rightwing death threats has this kid gotten so far?
 
2014-03-06 10:15:17 AM  

Dirty Doug: TNel, assuming you're being sarcastic... this is the fundamental problem with all of these welfare programs. There are lots of kids whose parents simply choose to spend their money on other non-essential stuff, then cry that they can't afford the essentials for their children. So we pay for the kids, and resent the whole system. But at the heart of it, it's a good idea. Because there are really kids who can't afford meals. And, frankly, if you can look at a hungry kid and not want to feed him, well, you're a better man than me.

/ Believe in financial responsibility
// Can't bear to watch a kid suffer


I was being a bit sarcastic but I can't fault the parents if they want to spend $50 a month on TV service.  If that makes them feel "normal" and makes the kids happy when they are home then why not?   The kid was eating a sandwhich so they are still getting food.  The stigma of poor people is horrible and fox news doesn't help.  When you are constantly being picked on by the population I can't fault people for wanting to have some kind of luxury in their life.

Let's say this students parents just lost their job and went on unemployment but they have a contract with DirecTV if they break that contract they have to pay $250 or they keep paying the $50 a month thinking that in 5 months they should have a job so it would be stupid to break contract and be out $250 all at one time (which they don't have so it goes straight to a collection agency screwing their credit for 6 years).

We love to look at people from the outside and judge but we almost never get the full information.  Maybe the kid was getting a cold lunch because the parents didn't realize that the kid was in the negative.  Our school use to just put a slip of paper in the bookbag which was lost many times, so my kid ate the "I have no money to get a lunch" meal before, not because I was a bad person and didn't want to feed my kid but because I didn't realize he was out of money due to him eating breakfast, lunch, extra milk, extra fruit, etc; darn kid was spending over $5 a day on school food.
 
2014-03-06 10:22:12 AM  
So, the kids parents help him set up a fundraiser to prove a political point, or at the least brought it to the attention of various bloggers and the media?  I'm unimpressed.

They're not feeding the poor, they're feeding the kids who have lazy/idiot parents who occasionally forget to send in the lunch money on time.

/My ex wife would very often "forget" to send in the lunch money, knowing that I'd cover it.  I hate scumbag parents.
 
2014-03-06 10:30:08 AM  
If hot lunches are anything like they were when I was a kid, the schools should just phase out the hot lunches and give all kids sandwiches. Childhood obesity may be on the decline, but I can't see a good argument for feeding kids burgers, pizza, lasagne and sloppy joes every day.

All that stuff used to taste foul anyway when produced in tubs by the culinary geniuses employed at the school.
 
2014-03-06 10:31:06 AM  

Ker_Thwap: So, the kids parents help him set up a fundraiser to prove a political point, or at the least brought it to the attention of various bloggers and the media?  I'm unimpressed.

They're not feeding the poor, they're feeding the kids who have lazy/idiot parents who occasionally forget to send in the lunch money on time.

/My ex wife would very often "forget" to send in the lunch money, knowing that I'd cover it.  I hate scumbag parents.


Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

1) Kid saw a problem.
2) Kid asked: "What can I do?"
3) Parents (who might have been shocked the moral lesson actually sunk in), went: "Well, let's see."
4) Everybody is happier.

Good on ya, kid.  And whoever taught you to look out for your fellow kid.
 
2014-03-06 10:32:47 AM  

scut207: I think it's abhorrent that the school system has two classes of meals.   You would think if there is one place on earth that should attempt to treat children equally its the public school system.


According to the article, they are treating them equally. Any student (I'd assume regardless of color, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, parents' income level, etc) whose account goes more than five dollars negative will receive the free sandwich meal. That's as close to complete equality as you could ever ask for.

What the article didn't say was if the truly needy students didn't already always get free lunch and breakfast, the hot version. I'd be very surprised if they didn't. That's not equality; it's an approximation of fairness, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that either.
 
2014-03-06 10:35:04 AM  
I have hope for this young generation. The entitled asshats in front of them? Not so much.
 
2014-03-06 10:36:03 AM  
Any help from the adults? Probably.
 
2014-03-06 10:38:52 AM  
Enjoy playing with money now, kid.  Good luck when you grow up and discover nobody named Cayden, Jayden, Braden, or any other -aden is taken seriously.
 
2014-03-06 10:42:46 AM  

ThunderPelvis: Every child in America should get a full, nutritious school lunch, no strings attached.  It takes a pretty massive piece of sh*t to think otherwise, or to think that it's fair to segregate students' nutrition based on their parents' perceived or actual failings.  But...welcome to Fark.  I'm sure that at least one or two massive pieces of sh*t will be offended by my accurate characterization.

No child in the richest nation in the world should EVER go hungry, but the party of Jesus has decided that we just can't afford it, especially when there are tanks and fighter jets to build and rich people's taxes to cut.  Hallelujah.


And a Democratic President who gives how many billions of our tax dollars to other nations? You need to point fingers at a wider variety of people. I do think every child in America should get food, but the money for that food needs to come from somewhere. I know that here in Memphis (and I know this for a fact because I used to deal with the school district's nutrition program) that a reduced-cost school lunch is only forty cents. Forty. Cents. If you're a parent and can't even afford forty cents, you're the massive piece of shiat. So no, your characterization is not accurate at all, but go ahead and call me a massive piece of shiat, and whatever other liberal buzzwords are in fashion right now.
 
2014-03-06 10:43:07 AM  

Headso: It might make you angry that a child is being fed on your pittance of a contribution to such a program but if you need to look at it in a selfish way children who get good nourishment today will cost you less tomorrow in other ways.


THIS.  It is extremely short-sighted to not realise that everybody benefits from this.  It has been proven that kids who have a balanced diet have better levels of concentration and energy, meaning less disruption in class.  This means that the teacher will have more time to spare for actual teaching rather than dealing with trouble makers.  I have long maintained that private schools do better not only because they pay the teachers better but because all of the kids get a nutritionally balanced meal and pay attention more in class.

So for anybody who is opposed to this on ideological and ignorant grounds (looking at you  DJATTOD) just remember - your special little snowflake BENEFITS from this so you don't have to feel TOO bad about helping the less fortunate.
 
2014-03-06 10:43:49 AM  

2 grams: If children are getting free breaksfest and lunch at school, are we reducing the familly's welfare payments accordingly? Seems like double dipping to me.


RAND PAUL?
 
2014-03-06 10:43:53 AM  
What's the issue with a cold sandwich, exactly?
 
2014-03-06 10:44:32 AM  

Another Government Employee: Ker_Thwap: So, the kids parents help him set up a fundraiser to prove a political point, or at the least brought it to the attention of various bloggers and the media?  I'm unimpressed.

They're not feeding the poor, they're feeding the kids who have lazy/idiot parents who occasionally forget to send in the lunch money on time.

/My ex wife would very often "forget" to send in the lunch money, knowing that I'd cover it.  I hate scumbag parents.

Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

1) Kid saw a problem.
2) Kid asked: "What can I do?"
3) Parents (who might have been shocked the moral lesson actually sunk in), went: "Well, let's see."
4) Everybody is happier.

Good on ya, kid.  And whoever taught you to look out for your fellow kid.


Want to teach your kid a lesson, teach them that throwing money at a problem isn't always the smart answer.   You can replace the words "hot lunch" and "cold lunch" in this article with "tan lunch" and "beige lunch" and nothing changes.   Want to help the poor, there are a thousand charities who can better spend the money.

No one pissed in my cereal, it's just this family has done nothing to solve the root issues, and is engaged in self congratulatory masterbation.  How nice.
 
2014-03-06 10:48:02 AM  

ph0rk: What's the issue with a cold sandwich, exactly?


The issue isn't the sandwich, it's the fact that the kids are being treated differently for circumstances they can't control.
 
2014-03-06 10:53:32 AM  

Ker_Thwap: Want to help the poor, there are a thousand charities who can better spend the money.


Yeah because when you give those charities $10k a whole $5k goes to the people that need it and the rest goes to overhead or you can do what this kid did and 100% goes to the people that need it.
 
2014-03-06 10:56:42 AM  

Rindred: Phinn: xanadian: Wait.  Kids have to PAY for their school lunches!??  When I was a kid, it was only the breakfasts they served before opening bell that kids had to pay for (and it was optional, of course).  Lunches were free.  WHAT KIND OF A MAD, TWISTED WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN, NOW!??

Those gold-plated six-figure public-employee pensions aren't free, you know.  Somebody has to pay for them.

As a public employee with a pension plan, I'm really looking forward to my golden retirement check for $1200/month. I'm gonna be rich, I tell you!

(State government blue collar workers get paid shiat - don't believe what right-wing media yelps about)


You apparently haven't learned how to game the system as well as others have.  The state police in Michigan apparently let you retire after 25 years with a pension that is based on the "overtime" you previously were paid.  Hundreds of them have retired around age 50 making well over $100,000, for life.  There are school administrators and local police/fire employees who do the same.

Most don't do that well, of course.  As I said, somebody has to pay for those people.  There is no free lunch.
 
2014-03-06 10:58:08 AM  

Danger Mouse: Splish: Danger Mouse: ThunderPelvis: Every child in America should get a full, nutritious school lunch, no strings attached.  It takes a pretty massive piece of sh*t to think otherwise, or to think that it's fair to segregate students' nutrition based on their parents' perceived or actual failings.  But...welcome to Fark.  I'm sure that at least one or two massive pieces of sh*t will be offended by my accurate characterization.

No child in the richest nation in the world should EVER go hungry, but the party of Jesus has decided that we just can't afford it, especially when there are tanks and fighter jets to build and rich people's taxes to cut.  Hallelujah.

I dont know  Qatar, Luxenborg, or Norway if kids are going  hungry.  But no child in this school was going hungry.  Who's said there was nutrional segregation? Who's to say the sandwhich and fruit is any less nutritious than the other meals?

I'd tell you you're a massive piece of sh*t, but he's already taken care of that preemptively. When I was a kid, I took a bag lunch to school. It was usually a sandwich, piece of fruit, chips, and a juice box. Apparently my mom was mistreating me and not supplying my nutritional needs. And anyone who disagrees with my spectacular assessment is a bedwetter.

?


Sorry, I want trying to attack you in any way. I actually agree with you. I just had never seen a pre-emptive ad hominem laid out as the opening argument and had to needle you a little bit for stepping into it.
 
2014-03-06 11:03:51 AM  

TNel: Ker_Thwap: Want to help the poor, there are a thousand charities who can better spend the money.

Yeah because when you give those charities $10k a whole $5k goes to the people that need it and the rest goes to overhead or you can do what this kid did and 100% goes to the people that need it.


You missed a crucial part of this equation.  It's Lansing Michigan, a place that does have real poverty concerns.  Let's say 30% of the children have poverty concerns.  So, 70% of this "charity" is to cover the lazy parents who can't plan in advance to send a check into the school once in a while.  I would not be shocked in the slightest to learn that this kid's parents are among those who occasionally forgot to send in the lunch money.

Again, it's easy enough to pop onto a charity search engine and pick one that you find has the proper percentages and goals.  Let's not pretend they're all 50% administration.
 
2014-03-06 11:09:10 AM  
Why aren't the parents feeding their own children? Why is it the school's responsibility?
 
2014-03-06 11:10:55 AM  

Splish: Danger Mouse: Splish: Danger Mouse: ThunderPelvis: Every child in America should get a full, nutritious school lunch, no strings attached.  It takes a pretty massive piece of sh*t to think otherwise, or to think that it's fair to segregate students' nutrition based on their parents' perceived or actual failings.  But...welcome to Fark.  I'm sure that at least one or two massive pieces of sh*t will be offended by my accurate characterization.

No child in the richest nation in the world should EVER go hungry, but the party of Jesus has decided that we just can't afford it, especially when there are tanks and fighter jets to build and rich people's taxes to cut.  Hallelujah.

I dont know  Qatar, Luxenborg, or Norway if kids are going  hungry.  But no child in this school was going hungry.  Who's said there was nutrional segregation? Who's to say the sandwhich and fruit is any less nutritious than the other meals?

I'd tell you you're a massive piece of sh*t, but he's already taken care of that preemptively. When I was a kid, I took a bag lunch to school. It was usually a sandwich, piece of fruit, chips, and a juice box. Apparently my mom was mistreating me and not supplying my nutritional needs. And anyone who disagrees with my spectacular assessment is a bedwetter.

?

Sorry, I want trying to attack you in any way. I actually agree with you. I just had never seen a pre-emptive ad hominem laid out as the opening argument and had to needle you a little bit for stepping into it.


My only reply was that  1) The US is not the richest country in the world. and 2) that there was no evidence of segrgation.  Everything else where the rants of some one else.
 
2014-03-06 11:13:14 AM  

Pick: Why aren't the parents feeding their own children? Why is it the school's responsibility?


Because the Republicans destroyed the economy a few years ago, and the load fell disproportionately on the bottom classes of people. They still need fed, though, or they'll die, and then who'll scrub the 1%'s toilets?
 
2014-03-06 11:13:47 AM  
Does it really cost $3.50 for a lunch in school these days?  That sounds like about triple what it could/should be.  Back in my day lunch was $.35 and was, by and large, pretty good.  In fact some things were so good that I have tried, unsuccessfully, to duplicate them.  But then, I like SOS.
 
2014-03-06 11:17:53 AM  

Pick: Why aren't the parents feeding their own children? Why is it the school's responsibility?


because you suck at trolling
 
2014-03-06 11:18:30 AM  

QueenMamaBee: ph0rk: What's the issue with a cold sandwich, exactly?

The issue isn't the sandwich, it's the fact that the kids are being treated differently for circumstances they can't control.


Who's being treated differently? I think the problem is that they're being treated the same and you think they should be treated differently.

Johnny's mom is broke and can't pay the bill, but he qualifies for free hot lunch. Splendid.

David's mom is scraping by but they don't qualify for the free lunch program. They can't afford the bill this month, so he gets a sandwich. Outrage!

Madison's dad is a millionaire and forgets to pay the bill, so Madison gets a cold sandwich. Outrage? Or "It won't kill her. She's lucky she's getting anything at all. Maybe this will teach them some responsibility"?
 
2014-03-06 11:18:58 AM  

strobis48z4: Does it really cost $3.50 for a lunch in school these days?  That sounds like about triple what it could/should be.  Back in my day lunch was $.35 and was, by and large, pretty good.  In fact some things were so good that I have tried, unsuccessfully, to duplicate them.  But then, I like SOS.


It's $2.10 here then ala carte for each additional item and that's where they bend you over.

Ker_Thwap: You missed a crucial part of this equation. It's Lansing Michigan, a place that does have real poverty concerns. Let's say 30% of the children have poverty concerns. So, 70% of this "charity" is to cover the lazy parents who can't plan in advance to send a check into the school once in a while. I would not be shocked in the slightest to learn that this kid's parents are among those who occasionally forgot to send in the lunch money.



And you are 100% sure about this and not pulling shiat out of your ass right?  Yeah just what I thought.  That's whats wrong with most Republicans they make up shiat that makes their world view a reality.
 
2014-03-06 11:21:58 AM  

strobis48z4: Does it really cost $3.50 for a lunch in school these days?  That sounds like about triple what it could/should be.  Back in my day lunch was $.35 and was, by and large, pretty good.  In fact some things were so good that I have tried, unsuccessfully, to duplicate them.  But then, I like SOS.



I haven't had a Tatar Tot that tasted as good as the ones in the school cafeteria.
 
2014-03-06 11:24:13 AM  

QueenMamaBee: ph0rk: What's the issue with a cold sandwich, exactly?

The issue isn't the sandwich, it's the fact that the kids are being treated differently for circumstances they can't control.


They probably can't control their verbal or math ability, either. Should they all be treated the same there, too?
 
2014-03-06 11:27:12 AM  

Danger Mouse: Splish: Danger Mouse: Splish: Danger Mouse: ThunderPelvis: Every child in America should get a full, nutritious school lunch, no strings attached.  It takes a pretty massive piece of sh*t to think otherwise, or to think that it's fair to segregate students' nutrition based on their parents' perceived or actual failings.  But...welcome to Fark.  I'm sure that at least one or two massive pieces of sh*t will be offended by my accurate characterization.

No child in the richest nation in the world should EVER go hungry, but the party of Jesus has decided that we just can't afford it, especially when there are tanks and fighter jets to build and rich people's taxes to cut.  Hallelujah.

I dont know  Qatar, Luxenborg, or Norway if kids are going  hungry.  But no child in this school was going hungry.  Who's said there was nutrional segregation? Who's to say the sandwhich and fruit is any less nutritious than the other meals?

I'd tell you you're a massive piece of sh*t, but he's already taken care of that preemptively. When I was a kid, I took a bag lunch to school. It was usually a sandwich, piece of fruit, chips, and a juice box. Apparently my mom was mistreating me and not supplying my nutritional needs. And anyone who disagrees with my spectacular assessment is a bedwetter.

?

Sorry, I want trying to attack you in any way. I actually agree with you. I just had never seen a pre-emptive ad hominem laid out as the opening argument and had to needle you a little bit for stepping into it.

My only reply was that  1) The US is not the richest country in the world. and 2) that there was no evidence of segrgation.  Everything else where the rants of some one else.


Yes, I know. I just thought it was funny that instead of ignoring the guy in the "I'm with stupid" T-shirt you walked over and stood in front of the arrow. That doesn't mean I think you're "stupid" or in this case "a massive piece of sh*t" for challenging his "accurate characterization." Apparently I didn't make that clear. I wasn't responding to you too disagree with you. This probably isn't a very graceful explanation either. Sorry.
 
2014-03-06 11:27:46 AM  

TNel: strobis48z4: Does it really cost $3.50 for a lunch in school these days?  That sounds like about triple what it could/should be.  Back in my day lunch was $.35 and was, by and large, pretty good.  In fact some things were so good that I have tried, unsuccessfully, to duplicate them.  But then, I like SOS.

It's $2.10 here then ala carte for each additional item and that's where they bend you over.

Ker_Thwap: You missed a crucial part of this equation. It's Lansing Michigan, a place that does have real poverty concerns. Let's say 30% of the children have poverty concerns. So, 70% of this "charity" is to cover the lazy parents who can't plan in advance to send a check into the school once in a while. I would not be shocked in the slightest to learn that this kid's parents are among those who occasionally forgot to send in the lunch money.


And you are 100% sure about this and not pulling shiat out of your ass right?  Yeah just what I thought.  That's whats wrong with most Republicans they make up shiat that makes their world view a reality.


Not a Republican.  I looked up the poverty level in Lansing, it's 29%.  I read the article,"it was a relatively rare situation where they didn't make contact with the parent."  I drew on real life experience as a parent who's child occasionally didn't have lunch money (because of a lazy ex.)  Don't be so quick to read your own fears into someone elses motivations.
 
2014-03-06 11:27:52 AM  
News: There are competent adults somewhere in society.

noticeably missing...

good luck kids :D

lelz

nanny 911 save us
 
2014-03-06 11:31:22 AM  

Ker_Thwap: Another Government Employee: Ker_Thwap: So, the kids parents help him set up a fundraiser to prove a political point, or at the least brought it to the attention of various bloggers and the media?  I'm unimpressed.

They're not feeding the poor, they're feeding the kids who have lazy/idiot parents who occasionally forget to send in the lunch money on time.

/My ex wife would very often "forget" to send in the lunch money, knowing that I'd cover it.  I hate scumbag parents.

Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

1) Kid saw a problem.
2) Kid asked: "What can I do?"
3) Parents (who might have been shocked the moral lesson actually sunk in), went: "Well, let's see."
4) Everybody is happier.

Good on ya, kid.  And whoever taught you to look out for your fellow kid.

Want to teach your kid a lesson, teach them that throwing money at a problem isn't always the smart answer.   You can replace the words "hot lunch" and "cold lunch" in this article with "tan lunch" and "beige lunch" and nothing changes.   Want to help the poor, there are a thousand charities who can better spend the money.

No one pissed in my cereal, it's just this family has done nothing to solve the root issues, and is engaged in self congratulatory masterbation.  How nice.


At eight years old, that lesson would be lost.

He started as local as you can get. The kids next to him.  He made his little area of the world better.

A lot better than you have this morning.
 
2014-03-06 11:31:25 AM  

Headso: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: If I'm responsible enough to feed my kids, why shouldn't I be forced to feed strangers kids as well?

You're more than welcome to give more of your to other people's kids. You're not welcome to force me to do the same.

It might make you angry that a child is being fed on your pittance of a contribution to such a program but if you need to look at it in a selfish way children who get good nourishment today will cost you less tomorrow in other ways.


Eh, I doubt it. Many of the kids on the free lunch program at my high school ended up in and out of jail and with kids of their own that they couldn't feed by the time the were 20.
 
2014-03-06 11:31:46 AM  

TNel: Dirty Doug: TNel, assuming you're being sarcastic... this is the fundamental problem with all of these welfare programs. There are lots of kids whose parents simply choose to spend their money on other non-essential stuff, then cry that they can't afford the essentials for their children. So we pay for the kids, and resent the whole system. But at the heart of it, it's a good idea. Because there are really kids who can't afford meals. And, frankly, if you can look at a hungry kid and not want to feed him, well, you're a better man than me.

/ Believe in financial responsibility
// Can't bear to watch a kid suffer

I was being a bit sarcastic but I can't fault the parents if they want to spend $50 a month on TV service.  If that makes them feel "normal" and makes the kids happy when they are home then why not?   The kid was eating a sandwhich so they are still getting food.  The stigma of poor people is horrible and fox news doesn't help.  When you are constantly being picked on by the population I can't fault people for wanting to have some kind of luxury in their life.

Let's say this students parents just lost their job and went on unemployment but they have a contract with DirecTV if they break that contract they have to pay $250 or they keep paying the $50 a month thinking that in 5 months they should have a job so it would be stupid to break contract and be out $250 all at one time (which they don't have so it goes straight to a collection agency screwing their credit for 6 years).

We love to look at people from the outside and judge but we almost never get the full information.  Maybe the kid was getting a cold lunch because the parents didn't realize that the kid was in the negative.  Our school use to just put a slip of paper in the bookbag which was lost many times, so my kid ate the "I have no money to get a lunch" meal before, not because I was a bad person and didn't want to feed my kid but because I didn't realize he was out of money due to him eating ...


Boy, I really hope this is a troll, and not your actual belief.  If you as a parent are choosing DirectTV over making sure your kids have food, you are a terrible parent.  FFS, get an antenna and watch over the air TV and put that money towards your kids!  Being a parent involves making sacrifices for your kids, end of story.  Whether it's time, money, or foregone opportunities.

And why the hell has society evolved to a point where you have to have DirectTV to "feel normal"???  What else do you need to "feel normal"?  A Gucci shoe tree?  A personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth?

And if people are donating their money to pay for meals only because these kids are losing their slips, and the parents aren't responsble enough to think, "You know, I haven't paid the school lunch bill in a while, maybe I ought to check on that and make sure it's Ok",  they should be PISSED.
 
2014-03-06 11:31:57 AM  
We always walked home for lunch .
 
2014-03-06 11:34:12 AM  
Just thought of something.

We at FARK should come up with a proper reward for this young man.

I propose we create and give to him The Mr. Rogers Good Neighbor award.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report