PDA

View Full Version : School kitchen manager fired for giving lunches to hungry students




aGameOfThrones
06-02-2015, 09:15 PM
A married mother of two, Curry is the former kitchen manager at Dakota Valley Elementary School in Aurora. She lost her job on Friday after giving school lunches to students who didn't have any money.

"I had a first grader in front of me, crying, because she doesn't have enough money for lunch. Yes, I gave her lunch," Curry told CBS Denver station KCNC-TV.

In the Cherry Creek School District, students who fail to qualify for the free lunch or reduced lunch program receive one slice of cheese on a hamburger bun and a small milk.

According to Curry, that meal is not sufficient. She said she often paid for students' lunches out of her own pocket.

"I'll own that I broke the law. The law needs to change," she said.

To qualify for the free lunch program, a family of four would have to have a household income of around $31,000. To qualify for a reduced lunch, the threshold is below $45,000.

Curry said the students she helped did not qualify for either program.

"Kids whose parents make too much money to qualify, but a lot of times they don't have enough money to eat," she said.

Parent Darnell Hill told KCNC-TV Curry had helped out his son when he forgot his lunch money.

"Do something different than fire her," Hill said. "She's trying to help."

Curry said she understands the school district was just following policy when it fired her. Now she's hoping her story will lead to some changes.

"If me getting fired for it is one way that we can try to change this, I'll take it in a heartbeat," she said.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-kitchen-manager-fired-for-giving-lunches-to-students-without-money/

donnay
06-02-2015, 09:38 PM
"I'll own that I broke the law..."

The law is an ass! Disgusting.

Origanalist
06-02-2015, 10:34 PM
When lunches are outlawed, only outlaws give free lunches?

Origanalist
06-02-2015, 10:35 PM
Well, if that's not a incentive to stay below the poverty line......

donnay
06-02-2015, 11:01 PM
Well, if that's not a incentive to stay below the poverty line......


Bottom line they don't give a shit about the children...only when it suits their needs.

Schifference
06-02-2015, 11:05 PM
There is a procedure that needs to be followed. First don't feed your kids at home. Then call Child protective services. Then kids are taken from you and entitled to free lunch.

TheTexan
06-02-2015, 11:32 PM
It wasnt her lunch to give. That lunch belongs to the taxpayers of that school.

Schifference
06-02-2015, 11:40 PM
I remember reading in the past that at least some school districts will no longer allow children to bring lunch to school from home mandating that all those kids need to purchase school lunch.

TheTexan
06-02-2015, 11:45 PM
Well, its either this or just provide free lunch to all the kids who go to public school. But then you'd end up in a situation where people whose kids brought their own lunches, would be paying taxes for something they didn't use, and we certainly wouldn't want that.

amy31416
06-03-2015, 12:13 AM
What special kind of jackass do you have to be to turn down a hungry kid from eating crappy food? Obviously it'd be better if the lunch lady taught these kids how to grow and raise their own food and eat a healthy diet, but there's no way I'd ever condemn such a person.

tod evans
06-03-2015, 05:33 AM
If the parents aren't dragging the administration into the street and pounding knots on them then they deserve the treatment the permit themselves to be subjected to.

And their little doggy too!

jbauer
06-03-2015, 08:27 AM
We all break the law. She just needed to do a better job of not getting caught

pcosmar
06-03-2015, 08:50 AM
Never find yourself between an Authoritarian and their rules.

phill4paul
06-03-2015, 09:00 AM
one slice of cheese on a hamburger bun and a small milk.

This is what the big controversy is over? SMDH.

angelatc
06-03-2015, 09:02 AM
It wasnt her lunch to give. That lunch belongs to the taxpayers of that school.

But the children are hungry!!!! Forced wealth redistribution FTW!

angelatc
06-03-2015, 09:05 AM
What special kind of jackass do you have to be to turn down a hungry kid from eating crappy food? Obviously it'd be better if the lunch lady taught these kids how to grow and raise their own food and eat a healthy diet, but there's no way I'd ever condemn such a person.

Was it her own pocket she was reaching into? When I went to school we had to bring our own lunch If we forgot our lunch, the other kids would give us something they didn't want. Looking back, that probably meant the health stuff.

phill4paul
06-03-2015, 09:08 AM
Was it her own pocket she was reaching into? When I went to school we had to bring our own lunch If we forgot our lunch, the other kids would give us something they didn't want. Looking back, that probably meant the health stuff.

Does she pay property taxes?

Anti Federalist
06-03-2015, 09:09 AM
We all break the law. She just needed to do a better job of not getting caught

/thread

angelatc
06-03-2015, 09:13 AM
Does she pay property taxes?

Is she getting paid to do a job? Is her salary more than the money she pays in, if she pays in? Do we even know if she lives in that district?

And it isn't relevant, because I am fairly sure nobody voted for her to represent how their tax money should be spent. She wanted to feed a kid, she should have reached into her own pocket

phill4paul
06-03-2015, 09:19 AM
Is she getting paid to do a job? Is her salary more than the money she pays in, if she pays in? Do we even know if she lives in that district?

And it isn't relevant, because I am fairly sure nobody voted for her to represent how their tax money should be spent. She wanted to feed a kid, she should have reached into her own pocket

Meh, I'm not going to get bent over a slice of cheese on a hamburger bun and a small milk given to a hungry child.

Origanalist
06-03-2015, 09:22 AM
Meh, I'm not going to get bent over a slice of cheese on a hamburger bun and a small milk given to a hungry child.

Spendthrift.

Sam I am
06-03-2015, 09:31 AM
It's lines like this which make it difficult for me to form a proper opinion on the matter.


She said she often paid for students' lunches out of her own pocket.

If she paid for every(unauthorized) lunch she gave out, then that wouldn't be a big problem, but the problem is that It's hard to know whether or not "she often paid for students' lunches out of her own pocket." means that she paid for every lunch she gave out, or if it means she only paid for it some of the time.

Every time she doesn't pay for it herself, then she's literally stealing from the taxpayer on behalf of someone else. That's a perfectly valid firing offense.

specsaregood
06-03-2015, 09:34 AM
./

donnay
06-03-2015, 09:54 AM
At the beginning of the school year, the school's administrators push the Cafeteria managers to get as many kids on the "Free Lunch" program as possible. They get BIG BUCKS from the feds for this, so it is an incentive to have as many as they can on the roster. This is for breakfast and lunch, btw.

Cissy
06-03-2015, 11:25 AM
It wasnt her lunch to give. That lunch belongs to the taxpayers of that school.

"She said she often paid for students' lunches out of her own pocket."

tod evans
06-03-2015, 11:30 AM
Keep in mind that these fine dining establishments throw out the leftovers after every meal...

At most the taxpayers got cheated out of 1/2 a pint of milk.

quezkittel
06-03-2015, 11:34 AM
And it isn't relevant, because I am fairly sure nobody voted for her to represent how their tax money should be spent.

Isn't that the problem, though? As in, the main problem with government programs in general? Here is this lady, on the front lines, the most likely person to see the needs of the kids she feeds. Instead of her being given some discretionary power, we employ a panel of higher salaried, more removed and self important people in charge of doling out the money.

Maybe she did some "wrong" (note, she said she often paid for these lunches herself), but she probably throws away half pans of food at the end of the day all the time. The solution should be trying to figure out how to solve this problem in a way that doesn't require this lady to turn into robin hood and her employers to turn into king john. I know I would vote for the parent-bake-sale-funded fund and keep the cafeteria lady employed. Her heart was in a better place than the bureaucrats.

angelatc
06-03-2015, 11:35 AM
Meh, I'm not going to get bent over a slice of cheese on a hamburger bun and a small milk given to a hungry child.

But that's not what she is in trouble for. Kids who forget lunch are entitled to that by policy. But it was not, in the eyes of the liberals, enough.

They will never be satiated.

angelatc
06-03-2015, 11:41 AM
Isn't that the problem, though? .

Electing people to take our money is the problem. Being represented when they spend it isn't.

quezkittel
06-03-2015, 12:11 PM
Electing people to take our money is the problem. Being represented when they spend it isn't.

Sure, ideally, that's true. That's not our current system, though. Public school exists, and the free and reduced price lunch programs exist. So in a culture where so much of all of our money is taken and redistributed, personally I'd rather that lunch lady's bosses were out of a job than her. I'm not saying that her bosses should let her expand the program into feeding all of the school for free, but ideally the community would come together and pool together a small fund.

Ron Paul talked about how hospitals would treat charity cases before governmental insurance programs- you don't think that this very small expense (if it even is an expense- it's not even probable that she gave out the quantities of food needed to justify putting another pan of food in the oven) is done with similar charitable thoughts?

quezkittel
06-03-2015, 12:12 PM
..

angelatc
06-03-2015, 12:18 PM
Sure, ideally, that's true. That's not our current system, though. Public school exists, and the free and reduced price lunch programs exist. So in a culture where so much of all of our money is taken and redistributed, personally I'd rather that lunch lady's bosses were out of a job than her. I'm not saying that her bosses should let her expand the program into feeding all of the school for free, but ideally the community would come together and pool together a small fund.

Ron Paul talked about how hospitals would treat charity cases before governmental insurance programs- you don't think that this very small expense (if it even is an expense- it's not even probable that she gave out the quantities of food needed to justify putting another pan of food in the oven) is done with similar charitable thoughts?

Charity is giving away your own stuff. Socialism is giving away someone else's. It was not hers to give.

My thoughts are that the kids were given a free lunch even if they did not qualify for free or reduced lunch. It was not that she was not allowed to give them anything .

My thoughts are that I don't want a nanny state front line unelected do-gooder deciding that they are not getting enough. They will NEVER get enough.

My thoughts are that the Ron Paul charity model would look more like teaching the children to share their lunches, and not "steal from your employer if you think you're above property rights."

Christian Liberty
06-03-2015, 12:48 PM
I'm gonna channel Block on this one, stealing from an illegitimate government isn't theft.

Public schools aren't legitimate institutions in society, so it isn't properly "theft" to steal from them.

phill4paul
06-03-2015, 12:55 PM
But that's not what she is in trouble for. Kids who forget lunch are entitled to that by policy. But it was not, in the eyes of the liberals, enough.

They will never be satiated.

Ah, I see now. She gave the child a whole regular lunch instead of a slice of cheese on a bun and a small milk. That changes everything. Don't understand why she isn't in jail for misappropriating tax payer funds like that. Damn liberal. If the child cannot be satiated with a slice of cheese on a bun and a small milk that kid needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Damn (almost) welfare recipient.

angelatc
06-03-2015, 01:12 PM
Ah, I see now. She gave the child a whole regular lunch instead of a slice of cheese on a bun and a small milk. That changes everything. Don't understand why she isn't in jail for misappropriating tax payer funds like that. Damn liberal. If the child cannot be satiated with a slice of cheese on a bun and a small milk that kid needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Damn (almost) welfare recipient.

So a little socialism, a little theft is ok, as long as it's for the children. I guess we disagree.

Like I said, when I was a kid the schools didn't even serve lunch. The lessons we learned from that were much different than what the bleeding hearts learn today. We learned personal responsibility, who our friends were, and that nobody owed us anything.

A cheese sandwich and a glass of milk. My kids have actually had that for lunch. In the winter, sometimes I grilled it.

Sam I am
06-03-2015, 01:13 PM
I'm gonna channel Block on this one, stealing from an illegitimate government isn't theft.

Public schools aren't legitimate institutions in society, so it isn't properly "theft" to steal from them.

If you don't think that stealing from the government is stealing, than riddle me this:

Suppose that a city government of a $10,000 person city taxes each person $1000, for a total of $10,000,000 which they use to do typical city government things such like funding the school for instance.

Suppose 1 person steals that $10,000,000.

Would you consider that 1 person to not be the rightful owner of that $10,000,000 who can do what he pleases with it?

angelatc
06-03-2015, 01:17 PM
I'm gonna channel Block on this one, stealing from an illegitimate government isn't theft.

.

So you'll have no problem with this same lunch lady when she grabs cash from the drawer and fills up her gas tank.

Christian Liberty
06-03-2015, 01:19 PM
If you don't think that stealing from the government is stealing, than riddle me this:

Suppose that a city government of a $10,000 person city taxes each person $1000, for a total of $10,000,000 which they use to do typical city government things such like funding the school for instance.

Suppose 1 person steals that $10,000,000.

Would you consider that 1 person to not be the rightful owner of that $10,000,000 who can do what he pleases with it?

Hmmm... that's a good counter point to Block. That doesn't really seem right.

But, suppose we replace "government" with "mafia gang". What does that change, if anything? And should it?

Occam's Banana
06-03-2015, 01:21 PM
This item comes in at #573,094,281 on my list of "misappropriations of 'public' funds/resources to get my undies in a wad about."

#1 on that list is the non-voluntary & forcible extraction of private funds/resources without which any subsequent 'public' misappropriations wouldn't be possible in the first place.

IOW: At worst, she stole from her employers some of what her employers had already stolen from someone else. The much greater crime is the original theft that made hers possible ...

angelatc
06-03-2015, 01:31 PM
Hmmm... that's a good counter point to Block. That doesn't really seem right.

But, suppose we replace "government" with "mafia gang". What does that change, if anything? And should it?

How does supporting the lunch lady's theft change anything for the good? You've just expanded inaccountability and welfare in one fell swope.

staerker
06-03-2015, 02:01 PM
So you'll have no problem with this same lunch lady when she grabs cash from the drawer and fills up her gas tank.

I wouldn't. Every person who has had money stolen from them has the right to take it back. I can guarantee she has "paid" more than a tank of gas in taxes.

quezkittel
06-03-2015, 02:12 PM
Her "theft" was wrong. Fine, no disagreements, she is not allowed under current law to do what she did, and the food was not hers to give away.

However, if this Was a for-profit business, it would be extremely bad PR to fire her. This would be the equivalent to firing a bakery employee for giving out less then a half dozen bagels to some homeless guys at the end of the night instead of tossing them into the trash. You'd have to be insane as a business owner to fire someone for that, and this lunch lady's employers are going to face the same amount of ridicule.

This lady was trying to meet the needs of a few kids- which she may have done incorrectly. But most of us are not in a position to receive texts saying "An anonymous 4th grader claims theft of his lunch money by bully on way to school, is crying. Student has a math test next period and claims hunger. Donate for his lunch?" This lunch lady was not thinking of herself, she was trying to distribute funds given to this program for something close to this purpose to meet the needs she saw.

Rather than fire her, better PR would be to tell her she is not allowed to give away lunches, but will be put in charge of a small fund raised by parents to cover school lunch costs at her discretion.

tod evans
06-03-2015, 02:17 PM
This whole scenario could be avoided by simply removing all federal money from the equation.

If the schools employees had to justify their actions and expenditures to their neighbors you can bet everything would be handled differently.

donnay
06-03-2015, 02:49 PM
This whole scenario could be avoided by simply removing all federal money from the equation.

If the schools employees had to justify their actions and expenditures to their neighbors you can bet everything would be handled differently.

That is the answer.

Ronin Truth
06-03-2015, 02:55 PM
Were they her's to give?

angelatc
06-03-2015, 03:18 PM
I wouldn't. Every person who has had money stolen from them has the right to take it back. I can guarantee she has "paid" more than a tank of gas in taxes.

But she is also taking a salary from the taxes. How much money is she allowed to grab before it becomes theft?

phill4paul
06-03-2015, 03:24 PM
But she is also taking a salary from the taxes. How much money is she allowed to grab before it becomes theft?

She should have simply done as policy prescribed and thrown the child's lunch into the garbage then made the child a cheese sandwich. That's how you really save the tax payers money.

Christian Liberty
06-03-2015, 03:50 PM
I understand the theoretical case that people are making here and I respect it. Yes, it does logically become problematic if you take what she did and multiply it by a million. Yes, we can't really say she had a right to recover her lost money, seeing as she's actually being paid by taxpayers (I don't see this as necessarily wrong, after all we are in the situation that we are in and we don't live in a free market economy, but she isn't being victimized like private sector workers are.)

One thing I find interesting is that most people who don't take Walter Block's view on the matter will also say that its wrong to use public services (to a point, though most aren't really consistent about it), in which case, the guy who steals 10,000,000 from the government isn't really harming any innocent people. Since the only people who would be being harmed are, you know, those who are taking stuff from the government.

Personally, I'm a bit more uncomfortable with the guy who takes millions of dollars from the city government than I am with the lunch lady giving a hungry kid food (which I agree isn't the proper function of government, but there would also be way less hungry kids if it wasn't for our government, so there's that.)

I don't really know the answer. The answers are tough when you're living in a State that has its fingers in anything. I'm honestly not sure how much I'd fault the guy who stole the $10,000,000. As a Christian I don't believe that's the way I'm supposed to change the world, but I honestly tend to think signing up to be a police officer is significantly worse. And I know otherwise good people who are doing that as well.

For what its worth, I emailed Walter Block the question that Sam I Am asked me. I am curious as to his take on it.

Ronin Truth
06-03-2015, 03:55 PM
I understand the theoretical case that people are making here and I respect it. Yes, it does logically become problematic if you take what she did and multiply it by a million. Yes, we can't really say she had a right to recover her lost money, seeing as she's actually being paid by taxpayers (I don't see this as necessarily wrong, after all we are in the situation that we are in and we don't live in a free market economy, but she isn't being victimized like private sector workers are.)

One thing I find interesting is that most people who don't take Walter Block's view on the matter will also say that its wrong to use public services (to a point, though most aren't really consistent about it), in which case, the guy who steals 10,000,000 from the government isn't really harming any innocent people. Since the only people who would be being harmed are, you know, those who are taking stuff from the government.

Personally, I'm a bit more uncomfortable with the guy who takes millions of dollars from the city government than I am with the lunch lady giving a hungry kid food (which I agree isn't the proper function of government, but there would also be way less hungry kids if it wasn't for our government, so there's that.)

I don't really know the answer. The answers are tough when you're living in a State that has its fingers in anything. I'm honestly not sure how much I'd fault the guy who stole the $10,000,000. As a Christian I don't believe that's the way I'm supposed to change the world, but I honestly tend to think signing up to be a police officer is significantly worse. And I know otherwise good people who are doing that as well.

For what its worth, I emailed Walter Block the question that Sam I Am asked me. I am curious as to his take on it.

Thou shalt not steal.

Christian Liberty
06-03-2015, 03:59 PM
Thou shalt not steal.

I'm not for stealing. But, does the government really own anything?

mad cow
06-03-2015, 04:23 PM
So a little socialism, a little theft is ok, as long as it's for the children. I guess we disagree.

Like I said, when I was a kid the schools didn't even serve lunch. The lessons we learned from that were much different than what the bleeding hearts learn today. We learned personal responsibility, who our friends were, and that nobody owed us anything.

A cheese sandwich and a glass of milk. My kids have actually had that for lunch. In the winter, sometimes I grilled it.

Same here,no grade school I ever went to ever served lunch and yet we survived somehow on brown bag lunches our parents made us.A cheese sandwich was often in the rotation.

Not only did we learn personal responsibility,so did our parents.A forgotten lesson judging from all the bellyaching in this thread.

staerker
06-03-2015, 04:51 PM
The schooling taking place in these facilities is more socialistic, by many orders. But I would not fault a teacher for distributing pencils and paper for students to keep.

It is important to remove moral events from the immoral systems in which they take place.

This differs from police/military, in that their existence necessitates coercion. Public school teachers etc. (as a concept,) however, are moral actors in a field held captive by the government.

Ronin Truth
06-03-2015, 05:48 PM
I'm not for stealing. But, does the government really own anything? Actually no irrelevancy, the lunches she stole were not her property. That's why she was fired.

anaconda
06-03-2015, 06:39 PM
It wasnt her lunch to give. That lunch belongs to the taxpayers of that school.

Sad but true.

anaconda
06-03-2015, 06:50 PM
Great grunge song:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1llXHXWqGM

pcosmar
06-03-2015, 07:03 PM
Actually no irrelevancy, the lunches she stole were not her property. That's why she was fired.

Actually,, the child stole them.. she only aided a hungry child in stealing lunch.

and I guarantee,, that school throws away (wastes) more than that child was given.

and for those that begrudge a child a cheese sandwich and glass of milk,,, shame on you.

Wooden Indian
06-04-2015, 11:03 AM
My daughter stopped wanting us to pack her lunch a while back. Since she wasn't eating it most days, we begrudgingly obliged (she is eating breakfast then lunch when she gets home; we eat a late dinner).

So, one day she did get hungry while at school, and came home with a simple note that read, "Parent: Your child wished to eat lunch in the cafeteria today but did not have the funds. It is our policy to feed each hungry child and she was given a standard lunch. Please include $3.00 in this envelope for your child to leave with our cafeteria cashier by the close of this week, or simply drop it by our office." -or something to that effect.

Well, I have to say, I was impressed by their method of handling that! Of course, we put in 3 bucks, made sure we gave her extra to carry in case she got hungry at school again, and there were no issues going forward. A solid policy that makes sense.

But... what if I didn't pay? I wonder at some point they just cut the kid off, or do they start hounding the parents? Either way, it surely cuts back on both hungry kids and "revenue loss". Not a bad system.

specsaregood
06-04-2015, 11:17 AM
and for those that begrudge a child a cheese sandwich and glass of milk,,, shame on you.

As has been mentioned; the cheese sandwich and milk was the policy to GIVE to children without lunch or funds. she wasn't fired for that, if she had stuck to that she would still be employed. evidently that was not enough for her; so she gave the kids a full lunch.

Ronin Truth
06-04-2015, 11:18 AM
Isn't seeing that your children are properly fed, primarily a parent's responsibility?

Begging the school lunch lady for handouts, isn't really the right answer.

Suzanimal
06-04-2015, 01:18 PM
In Baltimore schools, free meals for all


Beginning this week, every student in the city, regardless of income level, is being offered free breakfast and lunch under a federal program that allows school districts to eliminate a decades-old meal-subsidy structure for students in high-poverty schools.

Baltimore is among a handful of districts in Maryland taking advantage of the opportunity that was opened to schools nationwide last year. Maryland schools are able to adopt the program under state legislation passed this year in the General Assembly.

Del. Keith Haynes, chief sponsor of the legislation, said Tuesday during an announcement at Beechfield Elementary/Middle School that the law is the "great equalizer" for city students, closing one more gap that exists from socio-economic disparities.

"We know that nutritious, balanced meals has a direct correlation to positive outcomes for our students," said Haynes, a Baltimore Democrat. "And we know not everyone has access to that."

...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/blog/bs-md-ci-school-food-program-20150602-story.html

pcosmar
06-04-2015, 01:46 PM
As has been mentioned; the cheese sandwich and milk was the policy to GIVE to children without lunch or funds. she wasn't fired for that, if she had stuck to that she would still be employed. evidently that was not enough for her; so she gave the kids a full lunch.

And what was done with the food that was not eaten?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/art/files/library/Chunky_Baby_Blue_Dumpster.JPG

Ronin Truth
06-04-2015, 01:54 PM
And what was done with the food that was not eaten?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/art/files/library/Chunky_Baby_Blue_Dumpster.JPG

And tell the "starving" children that, after school some 'lunch' will be available in the dumpster out back.

navy-vet
06-04-2015, 02:06 PM
It wasnt her lunch to give. That lunch belongs to the taxpayers of that school.
That is true.

erowe1
06-04-2015, 02:09 PM
"Kids whose parents make too much money to qualify, but a lot of times they don't have enough money to eat," she said.

Baloney.

erowe1
06-04-2015, 02:09 PM
^See what I did there?

erowe1
06-04-2015, 02:12 PM
Honestly, a free hamburger bun with a slice of cheese and some milk to tide a kid over until they get home from school doesn't sound bad to me.

Notice the word in the thread title: "hungry."

They don't use the word "starving," because the kids aren't starving. "Hungry" is the word they always use today, because no matter what, you can always count on there being some people who get hungry every once in awhile.

navy-vet
06-04-2015, 02:14 PM
Charity is giving away your own stuff. Socialism is giving away someone else's. It was not hers to give.

My thoughts are that the kids were given a free lunch even if they did not qualify for free or reduced lunch. It was not that she was not allowed to give them anything .

My thoughts are that I don't want a nanny state front line unelected do-gooder deciding that they are not getting enough. They will NEVER get enough.

My thoughts are that the Ron Paul charity model would look more like teaching the children to share their lunches, and not "steal from your employer if you think you're above property rights."


Yes...this^^^^

specsaregood
06-04-2015, 02:20 PM
And what was done with the food that was not eaten?


I don't know. It was not written up. Maybe they donate it to a local soup kitchen.

navy-vet
06-04-2015, 02:38 PM
Same here,no grade school I ever went to ever served lunch and yet we survived somehow on brown bag lunches our parents made us.A cheese sandwich was often in the rotation.

Not only did we learn personal responsibility,so did our parents.A forgotten lesson judging from all the bellyaching in this thread.

I agree.

ARealConservative
06-04-2015, 02:52 PM
It is flat out horrifying reading the lack of cohesive thought from some of you.

many of you should post less, and read angelatc more closely. You would actually learn something.

amy31416
06-04-2015, 09:26 PM
It is flat out horrifying reading the lack of cohesive thought from some of you.

many of you should post less, and read angelatc more closely. You would actually learn something.

I agree with her 99%, but the notion of humiliating some kid whose parents obviously are sub-par--I just couldn't do it. Call me a bleeding heart, commie, liberal thief, whatever...I accept that and understand why. Just still couldn't do it--those other kids know that he couldn't afford a "real" lunch if he showed up with the cheese sandwich. I'm obviously torn on this issue, but not everything is black and white. Hell, I used to give an abused dog half of my lunch when I walked to school.

Libertarians need to be empathetic in order for the system to work. I have too much of it, always have, always will until the dementia kicks in.

phill4paul
06-04-2015, 09:31 PM
I don't know. It was not written up. Maybe they donate it to a local soup kitchen.

They do not. As she mentioned in another article the child goes through the line. She checks to see if they qualify. If the child does not qualify then policy is for her to throw out that tray of food. The child has touched it. It is not sanitary by health standards. So policy is to scrape the tray into the trash and give the kid a cheese sandwich and milk.

She committed an act of civil disobedience. She owned up to it.

Origanalist
06-04-2015, 09:51 PM
They do not. As she mentioned in another article the child goes through the line. She checks to see if they qualify. If the child does not qualify then policy is for her to throw out that tray of food. The child has touched it. It is not sanitary by health standards. So policy is to scrape the tray into the trash and give the kid a cheese sandwich and milk.

She committed an act of civil disobedience. She owned up to it.

Gulag!

jonhowe
06-04-2015, 10:28 PM
I just want this to be on the screen again:



and I guarantee,, that school throws away (wastes) more than that child was given.

and for those that begrudge a child a cheese sandwich and glass of milk,,, shame on you.


School lunches are not made to order. Anything this lady is giving away was going into the trash if not to a kid. I remember watching sometimes dozens or hundreds of lunches being trashed.

Anyone saying this lady is in the wrong is so blinded by politics they've lost their perspective. You must be great at parties.

Origanalist
06-04-2015, 10:36 PM
I just want this to be on the screen again:



School lunches are not made to order. Anything this lady is giving away was going into the trash if not to a kid. I remember watching sometimes dozens or hundreds of lunches being trashed.

Anyone saying this lady is in the wrong is so blinded by politics they've lost their perspective. You must be great at parties.

Guarantied. Does anybody really believe that a tax paying citizens child didn't get lunch because of this horrible crime?

angelatc
06-04-2015, 10:46 PM
I just want this to be on the screen again:



School lunches are not made to order. Anything this lady is giving away was going into the trash if not to a kid. I remember watching sometimes dozens or hundreds of lunches being trashed.

Anyone saying this lady is in the wrong is so blinded by politics they've lost their perspective. You must be great at parties.3

This is not a conservative position. It is not a libertarian position. It is a socialist position. The food was not hers to give.

The kid was getting a lunch. The woman just decided that it was not enough of a lunch. Children have a stomach smaller than the size of your fist. Those of us whining that a cheese sandwich and a glass of mikl is not enough better never bitch about childhood obesity.

I honestly can't wait until I am dead. Again, when I was a kid the schools didn't even feed us. Note that nobody ever starved to death the, either.

Now I' am getting neg reps because someone stealing from the taxpayers to feed them MORE got fired?

FML.

Origanalist
06-04-2015, 10:50 PM
3

This is not a conservative position. It is not a libertarian position. It is a socialist position. The food was not hers to give.

You're right Angela. She should have told that whiny kid to suck it and thrown that food in the garbage where it would have gone anyway.

angelatc
06-04-2015, 10:52 PM
You're right Angela. She should have told that whiny kid to suck it and thrown that food in the garbage where it would have gone anyway.

It was not her food to give. Your position is the socialist one, not mine.

Origanalist
06-04-2015, 10:56 PM
It was not her food to give. Your position is the socialist one, not mine.

I don't remember saying your position was a socialist one. But be that as it may, hows about we just cut out "free" lunches altogether and this woman's inexcusable largess would not even be happening?

timosman
06-04-2015, 10:56 PM
What if it was your kid ?

Spikender
06-04-2015, 10:57 PM
If you make over 41000 dollars and can't afford to send your kid to school with at least a tuna sandwich and a pouch of Sunny D or a few bucks for lunch, you're living beyond your means.

Origanalist
06-04-2015, 11:02 PM
If you make over 41000 dollars and can't afford to send your kid to school with at least a tuna sandwich and a pouch of Sunny D or a few bucks for lunch, you're living beyond your means.

Of course. But the kids still hungry, and you need to say sorry, your parents are losers so no sammy for you. Go around back in an hour and dive in the dumpster.

angelatc
06-04-2015, 11:04 PM
If you make over 41000 dollars and can't afford to send your kid to school with at least a tuna sandwich and a pouch of Sunny D or a few bucks for lunch, you're living beyond your means.

I already knew we had a generation that believe sold people would die if the government did not send them cash. I am really beyond sad to learn that the younger generation also sincerely and emphatically believes that children will starve if the government does not provide lunch.

And not only that - the kids are entitled to it. Because kids and feelz and stuff.

Good luck teaching charity and personal responsibility. The handwringers chanting "but the kids!!!" have won the war. We are done.

specsaregood
06-04-2015, 11:07 PM
They do not. As she mentioned in another article the child goes through the line. She checks to see if they qualify. If the child does not qualify then policy is for her to throw out that tray of food. The child has touched it. It is not sanitary by health standards. So policy is to scrape the tray into the trash and give the kid a cheese sandwich and milk.

She committed an act of civil disobedience. She owned up to it.

Well I assumed that when pete asked, "And what was done with the food that was not eaten?" he was referring to leftovers. But you are saying kids grab a meal then can't pay and that's the food she chose to give them. Well of course you can't give food some kid has touched to a soup kitchen.

But is that what the lesson here is supposed to be? Any time you see some food you want but can't pay for you should just grab it because then you'll get it for free?

I still say if the community isn't happy about this, they should setup a fundraiser and put together a fund to cover these sorts of situations.

angelatc
06-04-2015, 11:08 PM
Of course. But the kids still hungry, and you need to say sorry, your parents are losers so no sammy for you. Go around back in an hour and dive in the dumpster.

Again, "for the kids!" is the time honored chant of the left. I am absolutely 100% fine telling kids that the fact that they don't have a lunch is indeed the fault of their parents.

And again, when some of us were kids, there were no government lunches. If you forgot your lunch, you went hungry or your friends gave you half a sandwich and a bruised peach they didn't want anyway. Those lessons learned were healthy and moral.

The government should not be responsible for feeding children. Parents are responsible for feeding children.

Origanalist
06-04-2015, 11:20 PM
Again, "for the kids!" is the time honored chant of the left. I am absolutely 100% fine telling kids that the fact that they don't have a lunch is indeed the fault of their parents.

And again, when some of us were kids, there were no government lunches. If you forgot your lunch, you went hungry or your friends gave you half a sandwich and a bruised peach they didn't want anyway. Those lessons learned were healthy and moral.

The government should not be responsible for feeding children. Parents are responsible for feeding children.


The government should not be responsible for feeding children. Parents are responsible for feeding children.

Yes, I agree 100%. And in our perfect world you are 100% correct. But our perfect world still is a bit unrealized. I don't think the woman should be fired, but that's just me.

Ronin Truth
06-05-2015, 03:50 AM
Fostering "entitlement dependency" may not be a crime, but it should be. You are really doing these folks no worthwhile favor.

I understand it's often just another sleazy way to buy votes.

“When the goal of political action is no longer the defense of liberty, no word other than demagoguery can describe the despicable nature of politics.” -- Ron Paul

pcosmar
06-05-2015, 05:53 AM
I honestly can't wait until I am dead. Again, when I was a kid the schools didn't even feed us. Note that nobody ever starved to death the, either.


Plea for sympathy duly noted.

I don't know how old you are but thought a few years younger than me.
My Mom taught my older siblings in a One Room Schoolhouse on Lime Island.. It had no cafeteria.

around 1960 they were going to a Public School,, I started in Bruce Twp School about 1962.. They had a Cafeteria.. and everyone had lunches,, every day. (Left overs went home to the pigs on the Cafeteria workers farm ,, every day)
It was not till High School that there was any paid lunches. and it was a minimal amount.

My druthers would be to end the entire school system,, but that ain't happening and even your "conservatives" will not even suggest disposing of the mass indoctrination system.
If you are going to institutionalize the kids,,feeding them should be included.. or scrap the whole thing.

luctor-et-emergo
06-05-2015, 05:59 AM
In theory I don't think there should be any free lunches.

Free lunches in reality.. IDK but it makes me happy to see hungry people eat. I believe in charity and even though this may in some way be taxpayer money. There are a lot of abuses regarding taxpayer money that I'd want to solve before touching this.

jonhowe
06-05-2015, 08:04 AM
I honestly can't wait until I am dead.
Again, you must be great at parties.



Now I' am getting neg reps because someone stealing from the taxpayers to feed them MORE got fired?
No one stole from the taxpayers (beyond what was already stolen to fund the entire public school apparatus, but that is not what is being debated here). Food that was literally going to be scraped off a plate into the trash (read the other articles, the kids ALREADY HAD THE FOOD, and it would have been THROWN AWAY) was instead given to a kid who, for whatever reason (shitty parents, school bully, whatever) did not have money. Again, it could go in the TRASH, or it could go to a CHILD. I don't see how a human being with reasoning faculties could do anything but that the woman did.
The PROBLEM is not how the woman acted. The problem is a system that is run in such a way. This story is about a woman objecting to a clearly absurd system. By not giving the child the full lunch she is wasting LESS food. If she had thrown away the original meal and then given him the 'free' option, that's 2 meals gone for the price of zero. Instead, she found a way to SAVE taxpayer money and not have to throw away he smaller 'free' option.

Absolutely shocking to find someone on the other side of this issue. It's SO simple.
Now, if you told me the district wanted to raise taxes in order to give free lunches to all kids, I'd be opposed. That is NOT what happened here. This is a story about a woman and 2 kids living within an f-ed up system, acting like human beings rather than cogs.


And angelatc, I've gotten mean spirited 'neg reps' before, but none quite as crude a mean as yours. Well done.

jonhowe
06-05-2015, 08:08 AM
Fostering "entitlement dependency" may not be a crime, but it should be. You are really doing these folks no worthwhile favor.

I understand it's often just another sleazy way to buy votes.

“When the goal of political action is no longer the defense of liberty, no word other than demagoguery can describe the despicable nature of politics.” -- Ron Paul

The lunch lady was buying votes?


I've never seen a non political story so politicized.

phill4paul
06-05-2015, 08:16 AM
Again, you must be great at parties.


No one stole from the taxpayers (beyond what was already stolen to fund the entire public school apparatus, but that is not what is being debated here). Food that was literally going to be scraped off a plate into the trash (read the other articles, the kids ALREADY HAD THE FOOD, and it would have been THROWN AWAY) was instead given to a kid who, for whatever reason (shitty parents, school bully, whatever) did not have money. Again, it could go in the TRASH, or it could go to a CHILD. I don't see how a human being with reasoning faculties could do anything but that the woman did.
The PROBLEM is not how the woman acted. The problem is a system that is run in such a way. This story is about a woman objecting to a clearly absurd system. By not giving the child the full lunch she is wasting LESS food. If she had thrown away the original meal and then given him the 'free' option, that's 2 meals gone for the price of zero. Instead, she found a way to SAVE taxpayer money and not have to throw away he smaller 'free' option.

Absolutely shocking to find someone on the other side of this issue. It's SO simple.
Now, if you told me the district wanted to raise taxes in order to give free lunches to all kids, I'd be opposed. That is NOT what happened here. This is a story about a woman and 2 kids living within an f-ed up system, acting like human beings rather than cogs.


And angelatc, I've gotten mean spirited 'neg reps' before, but none quite as crude a mean as yours. Well done.

To some throwing away the food is the right and proper thing to do because of..rule of regulation or some such. Doesn't matter that it actually costs more to make a whole new lunch out of cheese, bread and milk.

Ronin Truth
06-05-2015, 11:46 AM
The lunch lady was buying votes?


I've never seen a non political story so politicized. No, she was enabling entitlement dependency. DUH!

specsaregood
06-05-2015, 11:58 AM
To some throwing away the food is the right and proper thing to do because of..rule of regulation or some such. Doesn't matter that it actually costs more to make a whole new lunch out of cheese, bread and milk.

Well I never got an answer to my question. Is the lesson that we are going to teach these children then that anytime they want something they can't afford they should just grab it and expect it to be given to them? Should these kids later go to the convenience store and just expect to start eating candy bars? I mean that sure seems like the lesson you want to teach them.

phill4paul
06-05-2015, 12:15 PM
Well I never got an answer to my question. Is the lesson that we are going to teach these children then that anytime they want something they can't afford they should just grab it and expect it to be given to them? Should these kids later go to the convenience store and just expect to start eating candy bars? I mean that sure seems like the lesson you want to teach them.

Well, let's see. We have a first grader. If you didn't know that means the child is around age 6-7. Now this kid had probably seen others, or himself been, allowed a free meal because he or others forgot their lunch money. So the child did as before and got lunch. Age 6-7 mind you. I don't think your straw-man about just taking something from a store holds up. Seems to me the school needs a new policy in which children are checked before entering the line. But, ya know, if that child has a plate in their hand I wouldn't be one to just throw it away either.

Here's a picture of an first-grader in case you don't know what one looks like...

http://www.fcps.net/media/207172/nicholas.jpg

Ronin Truth
06-05-2015, 12:21 PM
Well I never got an answer to my question. Is the lesson that we are going to teach these children then that anytime they want something they can't afford they should just grab it and expect it to be given to them? Should these kids later go to the convenience store and just expect to start eating candy bars? I mean that sure seems like the lesson you want to teach them.

That's one form of entitlement dependency. Now happens EVERY DAY, in many places.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

specsaregood
06-05-2015, 12:24 PM
Well, let's see. We have a first grader. If you didn't know that means the child is around age 6-7. Now this kid had probably seen others, or himself been, allowed a free meal because he or others forgot their lunch money. So the child did as before and got lunch. Age 6-7 mind you. I don't think your straw-man about just taking something from a store holds up. Seems to me the school needs a new policy in which children are checked before entering the line. But, ya know, if that child has a plate in their hand I wouldn't be one to just throw it away either.

Here's a picture of an first-grader in case you don't know what one looks like...


Despite your snark; I actually have a fair amount of experience with 6-7 yr olds and younger. And guess what, they can and do learn. It may sound wasteful to throw the food away and exchange it for the free cheese sandwich but they will learn that they can't have the free lunch without money. And if you let them keep the free lunch they will learn that as well.

phill4paul
06-05-2015, 01:28 PM
Despite your snark; I actually have a fair amount of experience with 6-7 yr olds and younger. And guess what, they can and do learn. It may sound wasteful to throw the food away and exchange it for the free cheese sandwich but they will learn that they can't have the free lunch without money. And if you let them keep the free lunch they will learn that as well.

Or you can change policy and check to see if they qualify before getting in line. The school policy was to give these children a free meal up to three times before the credit was cut off. Meaning that this child had been through the line three times. What was the child taught again? And by whom? It doesn't sound wasteful to throw away the lunch, it unequivocally is wasteful. And to throw it away and replace it with a not-so-free cheese sandwich is undisputedly wasteful. As a kid I was taught never to be wasteful of food when so many go without. What about you angelatc?
As for the lunch manager she exercised civil disobedience in the face of what she considered unjust policy. She accepted and took responsibility for her actions. I don't see what the fuss is about WRT her actions.

erowe1
06-05-2015, 01:46 PM
Well, let's see. We have a first grader. If you didn't know that means the child is around age 6-7. Now this kid had probably seen others, or himself been, allowed a free meal because he or others forgot their lunch money. So the child did as before and got lunch. Age 6-7 mind you. I don't think your straw-man about just taking something from a store holds up. Seems to me the school needs a new policy in which children are checked before entering the line. But, ya know, if that child has a plate in their hand I wouldn't be one to just throw it away either.

Here's a picture of an first-grader in case you don't know what one looks like...

http://www.fcps.net/media/207172/nicholas.jpg

That looks like a child who would be able to make it until the end of the school day on a free cheese sandwich and milk.

nobody's_hero
06-05-2015, 03:00 PM
I wonder if mom owns an I-phone 8000, but lord no, 'ain't got no money to feed that kid!'

Ronin Truth
06-05-2015, 03:54 PM
I wonder if mom owns an I-phone 8000, but lord no, 'ain't got no money to feed that kid!'

Or for clothes, medicine, housing, school supplies, gifts, toys, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter dinners, etc., etc., etc..

She'll also abort or pop out another one with some other, now absent husband/father, pretty quickly too.

erowe1
06-05-2015, 04:52 PM
I wonder if mom owns an I-phone 8000, but lord no, 'ain't got no money to feed that kid!'

She has plenty of money. It's not like they can't afford to buy lunch. But she forgets to give her kid lunch money a lot. And really, why shouldn't she?

phill4paul
06-05-2015, 05:05 PM
Clearly that child needs to be taken by the state. Obviously the child's parent(s) can't take care of him/her. It'll be much cheaper than a free lunch.

phill4paul
06-05-2015, 05:10 PM
RPF's "bootstraps" brigade....

Blame the 'liberool' lunch manager.
Blame the child.
Blame the parent.

Naw. I'm gonna go with blaming the government 100% on this contention. Federal and local. And also the citizens that allow it.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:01 PM
It's lines like this which make it difficult for me to form a proper opinion on the matter.



If she paid for every(unauthorized) lunch she gave out, then that wouldn't be a big problem, but the problem is that It's hard to know whether or not "she often paid for students' lunches out of her own pocket." means that she paid for every lunch she gave out, or if it means she only paid for it some of the time.

Every time she doesn't pay for it herself, then she's literally stealing from the taxpayer on behalf of someone else. That's a perfectly valid firing offense.

Oh fuck this. I couldn't give two shits a piss if money goes into a stomach rather than into a bomb. You, sir, are an abhorrent individual. Stealing from the taxpayer!?!?! AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH. Get on the rights violation page to vent this bullshit. Stealing from the taxpayer: Guess what, Ben Frank, us Taxpayers don't get up in arms over feeding hungry kids. Just bombing them.

Firing offense, someone find this asshole an SS squad to join.

erowe1
06-05-2015, 09:14 PM
Oh fuck this. I couldn't give two shits a piss if money goes into a stomach rather than into a bomb. You, sir, are an abhorrent individual. Stealing from the taxpayer!?!?! AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH. Get on the rights violation page to vent this bullshit. Stealing from the taxpayer: Guess what, Ben Frank, us Taxpayers don't get up in arms over feeding hungry kids. Just bombing them.

Firing offense, someone find this asshole an SS squad to join.

What are you babbling about?

Oh the poor rich kids. The only free lunch we get forced to buy for them is a cheese sandwich and some milk. Why won't the stupid SS people force us to buy them some Doritos to munch on in class so they won't ever feel hungry?

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:15 PM
Oh fuck this. I couldn't give two shits a piss if money goes into a stomach rather than into a bomb. You, sir, are an abhorrent individual. Stealing from the taxpayer!?!?! AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH. Get on the rights violation page to vent this bullshit. Stealing from the taxpayer: Guess what, Ben Frank, us Taxpayers don't get up in arms over feeding hungry kids. Just bombing them.

Firing offense, someone find this asshole an SS squad to join.

Literally stealing from the taxpayer. That divine individual that eats to much, shits to much, but has naught a thought. Proper opinion: Starving kid=feed by whatever means necessary.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:18 PM
What are you babbling about?

Oh the poor rich kids. The only free lunch we get forced to buy for them is a cheese sandwich and some milk. Why won't the stupid SS people force us to buy them some Doritos to munch on in class so they won't ever feel hungry?

Yeah, cause rich kids need free food. WTF? I'm babbling about the astounding lack of empathy I've seen here recently. Don't let my join date fool you, I've been around. Actually, the wealth of the parents does not reflect in a kids diet. Hungry kid? Feed it, and spare another child the bomb. Nah, but with the neocon ascent here, lets make sure they are white before we feed them, with nice English names. Make the crown proud.

erowe1
06-05-2015, 09:20 PM
Yeah, cause rich kids need free food.

Since when?

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:21 PM
Fucking assholes here blabber (blather is a superior adjective) about justice? Fuck it all, most of you wouldn't know justice if it was a tazer fired into your grandmother's slowly rotting ass. Hungry children: Fuck them! They are the problem. Nevermind a multimillion dollar bomb,

erowe1
06-05-2015, 09:22 PM
Starving kid=feed by whatever means necessary.

This isn't about starving kids. The whole reason they use the word "hungry" is because they're not starving. We all ought to feel hungry a few times a day. If you don't, you eat too much.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:22 PM
Since when?

Since you learned to communicate ingenuously.

mad cow
06-05-2015, 09:23 PM
A short quiz,multiple choice:

1) There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

2) From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

A) A bedrock principle of the Communist Party.

B) A bedrock principal of libertarianism.

You have 5 minutes,begin.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:25 PM
This isn't about starving kids. The whole reason they use the word "hungry" is because they're not starving. We all ought to feel hungry a few times a day. If you don't, you eat too much.

I burn more calories per day than most professional athletes. I'm on the tour de france level. And yes, if you have the means you aught. I guess this guy has never been hungry.

Or is that your level for intervention: Starving children. I can see how that goes. So long as you starve first. Sounds like some throwback roman bullshit to me.

erowe1
06-05-2015, 09:26 PM
Fucking assholes here blabber (blather is a superior adjective) about justice? Fuck it all, most of you wouldn't know justice if it was a tazer fired into your grandmother's slowly rotting ass. Hungry children: Fuck them! They are the problem. Nevermind a multimillion dollar bomb,

You have this backwards idea that contradicts all of history that somehow propping up the welfare state will starve the warfare state. It's the exact opposite. The two support one another. Your notion of justice brought about the murder by government over the course of the 20th century of a number of people equal to the current total population of the United States.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:29 PM
You left out some choices. Hardly a surprise. Multiple choice, I mean, singular masturbation. Pander, panda, ponder.

specsaregood
06-05-2015, 09:29 PM
Fucking assholes here blabber (blather is a superior adjective) about justice? Fuck it all, most of you wouldn't know justice if it was a tazer fired into your grandmother's slowly rotting ass. Hungry children: Fuck them! They are the problem. Nevermind a multimillion dollar bomb,

Oh well, I guess if its "For the Children"™ then its ok.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:35 PM
You have this backwards idea that contradicts all of history that somehow propping up the welfare state will starve the warfare state. It's the exact opposite. The two support one another. Your notion of justice brought about the murder by government over the course of the 20th century of a number of people equal to the current total population of the United States.
Fuck the welfare state, here we speak of private action taken by an individual. I've no notion of justice, certainly not one professed by a half-conscious. But I do know that that present should not suffer for the past's sins. Take that unbiblically (cause that books bullshit too). My notion of justice? Hahahaa? I couldn't explain it to you had I eons to do the talking. Tell you what, go ahead an pretend that all the complicated shit that occurs in you brain does not also occur in others. All the shame, the hatred, the joy, the pride... It is just yours, no one else knows a damn thing about it :)

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:36 PM
Oh well, I guess if its "For the Children"™ then its ok.

Oh yeah, drop that tired line in the one case it is apparently true. Lets strike "Children" and make them hungry. Yeah, in this case, it is OKAY. Fucking right equal treatment before the aristorcratic hunger board is okay.

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:45 PM
Let us rain hellfire on the ME because children deserve no larger degree of kindness than adults. Fake Christians that this forum is replete with. Yall are like pickachus. Easy t gather, but lacking always in authenticity.

Pikachu christians, profaning a fictional martyr since whenever.

William Tell
06-05-2015, 09:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc

BV2
06-05-2015, 09:53 PM
We cannot divorce children from cops=we are fucked anyways,

libertariantexas
06-13-2015, 04:27 AM
What special kind of jackass do you have to be to turn down a hungry kid from eating crappy food? Obviously it'd be better if the lunch lady taught these kids how to grow and raise their own food and eat a healthy diet, but there's no way I'd ever condemn such a person.

If she really felt that way, why didn't she pay for the kids lunch, rather than expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill?

BTW, the PARENTS are the problem. It says people earning up to $45,000 (not wealthy, but not exactly destitute) get reduced cost lunches.

Why isn't the PARENT providing a lunch? Are you telling me someone making OVER $45k per year can't afford two slices of bread, peanut butter, and jelly?

libertariantexas
06-13-2015, 04:37 AM
What if it was your kid ?

If it was my kid, I'd use 30 cents out of my $45k+ yearly income and make the kid a freakin' PB&J rather than have him sponge off the taxpayers.

The little parasite could still belly up for a free cheese sandwich and milk (at taxpayer's expense) on top of that if he chose to do so.

When did it become the taxpayer's job to feed every kid 3 meals a day?

pcosmar
06-13-2015, 06:44 AM
When did it become the taxpayer's job to feed every kid 3 meals a day?

Just a guess,,

When Children are forced into public schools. And that was back in the late 50s,, and early 60s.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0f/40/1e/0f401e70e16dd5054d2fcfe187440eb2.jpg

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truant%20officer


Truancy is any intentional unauthorized or illegal absence from compulsory education. It is absences caused by students of their own free will, and usually does not refer to legitimate "excused" absences, such as ones related to medical conditions. Truancy is usually explicitly defined in the school's handbook of policies and procedures. Some children whose parents claim to homeschool have also been found truant in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truancy

amy31416
06-13-2015, 06:57 AM
If it was my kid, I'd use 30 cents out of my $45k+ yearly income and make the kid a freakin' PB&J rather than have him sponge off the taxpayers.

The little parasite could still belly up for a free cheese sandwich and milk (at taxpayer's expense) on top of that if he chose to do so.

When did it become the taxpayer's job to feed every kid 3 meals a day?

I get the points you're making, and it's not our job to do it, obviously--but you really are being a jackass about the situation. It's not our job, but it is a moral obligation to help out others in need, in my opinion. Libertarianism doesn't work when people are jerks--it'll always bring out the liberals who want to take money from (who they perceive) as being greedy.

Welfare and school systems are simply another form of blowback.

Occam's Banana
06-13-2015, 07:35 AM
Getting pissed off because a public-school lunch lady filches some food and gives it to a kid is like getting pissed off when a gang of arsonists sets your house on fire - but not because your house is burning; rather because one of them tracked some mud on your carpet ...

Cissy
06-13-2015, 09:23 AM
My daughter stopped wanting us to pack her lunch a while back. Since she wasn't eating it most days, we begrudgingly obliged (she is eating breakfast then lunch when she gets home; we eat a late dinner).

So, one day she did get hungry while at school, and came home with a simple note that read, "Parent: Your child wished to eat lunch in the cafeteria today but did not have the funds. It is our policy to feed each hungry child and she was given a standard lunch. Please include $3.00 in this envelope for your child to leave with our cafeteria cashier by the close of this week, or simply drop it by our office." -or something to that effect.

Well, I have to say, I was impressed by their method of handling that! Of course, we put in 3 bucks, made sure we gave her extra to carry in case she got hungry at school again, and there were no issues going forward. A solid policy that makes sense.

But... what if I didn't pay? I wonder at some point they just cut the kid off, or do they start hounding the parents? Either way, it surely cuts back on both hungry kids and "revenue loss". Not a bad system.

Schools are not permitted, due to federal law, to refuse to feed schoolchildren. The bill will continue to mount for the parents, however, the school can forbid a child from picking up "extras" (chips, milk, dessert, etc.) until the tab is paid.

Christian Liberty
06-13-2015, 09:33 AM
You have this backwards idea that contradicts all of history that somehow propping up the welfare state will starve the warfare state. It's the exact opposite. The two support one another. Your notion of justice brought about the murder by government over the course of the 20th century of a number of people equal to the current total population of the United States.

Without commenting on anything else, I will say that I don't think this is always true. THe Great Society lost some steam because of Vietnam. Eventually "guns and butter" start competing for funds. And eventually, even the government will go bankrupt.

Cissy
06-13-2015, 09:36 AM
If she really felt that way, why didn't she pay for the kids lunch, rather than expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill?

BTW, the PARENTS are the problem. It says people earning up to $45,000 (not wealthy, but not exactly destitute) get reduced cost lunches.

Why isn't the PARENT providing a lunch? Are you telling me someone making OVER $45k per year can't afford two slices of bread, peanut butter, and jelly?

From the article:


According to Curry, that meal is not sufficient. She said she often paid for students' lunches out of her own pocket.

Christian Liberty
06-13-2015, 09:45 AM
Getting pissed off because a public-school lunch lady filches some food and gives it to a kid is like getting pissed off when a gang of arsonists sets your house on fire - but not because your house is burning; rather because one of them tracked some mud on your carpet ...

LOL! /thread

Christian Liberty
06-13-2015, 09:47 AM
I'm not trying to dismiss any of you guys who have complaints about this, but I do have a question.

Do any of you people that are against this lunch lady think there is any such thing as a "good cop"? Do you remind any cops in your life about what they are really doing every time you talk to them? (I, for the record, do not.)

Because, I'm pretty sure any singular cop in this nation has done more harm to innocent individuals, engaged in more theft if not kidnapping, than this woman has. And they did it completely "legally." And they did it against individuals, not "the government" which really doesn't own anything anyway.

I can see why one could say what this woman did was wrong, but I can't imagine how they could find the time to care much :p

twomp
06-13-2015, 11:17 AM
I think this lunch lady has her heart in the right place. But at the same time, if she starts some trend where every child is expected to have a free lunch then she would have done more harm than good. It's always the same thing when the government does these things. The first year, all the kids benefit from this. Five years later, they create MORE hungry kids.

Look at student loans. Poor students couldn't afford college. Tears. Government makes student loans available to EVERYONE. The first year, students rejoice. Five years later, students graduate school 100k in debt and school prices sky-rocket. Good intentions often lead to future disasters.