Posted on 12/24/2015 1:16:27 PM PST by Fiji Hill
Thanks. My assessment is that many on this thread are attempting to suggest that the solution to society's problems is to demonstrate a lack of discipline. This is ironic since most of the problems come about due to a lack of discipline.
Most are also taking the liberal position that by not doing what the woman did, AUTOMATICALLY means the child would have STARVED gone hungry for a few hours and that NOT to do what the woman did means we would have allowed the child to starve.
From what I've read of those like you and I, if in the position of doing what the woman did, we would have paid for the lunch out of our own pockets to begin with, so the issue never would have been raised.
But liberals being liberals always paint pictures in black and white. Either you agree with them or you're an evil monster who wants children to die.
From the get go, there was always an alternative. The media just chose not to show it, leading everyone to believe the school was being a bully to a kind, compassionate woman. They never let it be known that she had been warned in the past about giving things away. Or that there were cold lunch alternatives for kids with no lunch or money. Or that the school had a $11 lunch account for every student, that the child had enough in to pay for a lunch.
All things the media conveniently left out to drive an agenda.
The kid could have had a cheese sandwich and a glass of milk. But that wasn't what the little spoiled kid wanted.
The media needs to do a story about these government food programs. The biggest problem is when they institute these programs they get an epidemic of obesity.
The problem is, that when the media DOES do a story about government programs, IT'S ALWAYS from the angle that there isn't enough money being spent.
There was PLENTY of information available of this situation.
The media CHOSE to write ITS narrative.
If you had read the comments I said from the get go that if its a once in awhile emergency I see no issue. If a particular child is abusing the system a quiet call home should result.
The comments on this thread seem to be about a different situation than the one being portrayed. Some one has some axes to grind. Perhaps you are angry that many children are being fed breakfast lunch & dinner at the taxpayers expense and being given food to take home on the weekend. That is going on across the nation. I think that is a very bad situation because it institutionalizes dependence.
The funny thing is that the reality is so much worse in terms of giving free food than the pretend one, ten, hundred numbers you are throwing around.
I am very unimpressed by people who know nothing about this particular child now calling him/her a spoiled brat. On Christmas Eve no less with the associations with Jesus and giving you still want to try and make a hot lunch into a theft from your pocket when no additional supplies or time were required. I am sad to think that perhaps when you needed compassion none was given to you and so you have none to give.
We have a welfare and entitlement monster in this country but the way to reverse it isn’t by denying lunch to children. If you have seen all the hoopla about Michelle Obama’s lunches I think its going too far to talk about luxury food in school. The kid chose her/his lunch and at the end was short on the lunch card. The staff was supposed to throw the lunch in the trash but instead let the child keep it and no doubt told them to get Mom/Dad to fix the problem. No stealing just a bit of common sense and compassion.
My parents were a high-school-dropout on her second marriage and an alcoholic. After years of dysfunction and having four children, they divorced and finally my life started to become something better than a Dicken's novel.
I KNOW what it is like to be on welfare. I know what it is like to live in public housing. I know what it is like to reach the age of thirteen before owning underwear.
I know EXACTLY what it is like to be without lunch at school and I am grateful to this day for hot lunches supplied to me which only years later did I recognize were a form of welfare.
All that said, I can assure you that virtually all of these problems stemmed from immature undisciplined parents who were never FORCED to do the right thing.
I don't begrudge the child a lunch. I very much resent the fact that we hear nothing about the responsibility of the parents to feed their child. Having the school employee "donate" public resources to feed this child demonstrates a lack of discipline.
The monthly cost of these hot meals is about forty dollars. It is the parents' responsibility to make this money available; not mine, not yours, and not the school's.
I guess the Idahoans need a little “religion” too.
Read the article!!!! The CHILD WILL GET A SANDWICH AND MILK!!!!!
As a child growing up if you were hungry and offered a cheese sandwich and a glass of milk would you have rejected it?
How appropriate.
Pretty tortured logic on your part. From where I'm sitting it appears that everybody is ragging on the lady for being a thief. You are just deciding when theft is acceptable.
Sorry but I’m done. I don’t agree with your premise no matter how its pushed.
And the hot lunch gets dumped in the trash to teach the child.
What a stupid system. By all means read the article so you can experience the full stupidity of the school’s lesson for children.
The school lunch lady immediately sought out her supervisor but wasn’t allowed to pay. So that shoots down all the stealing comments. The lady had been reprimanded for giving out a cookie in the past. A repeat offender..(sarc)..
The children do not know they are short of funds until they reach the end of the line and then their lunch gets dumped in the trash and they get a cheese sandwich. To the happy soul who said that the kid had $11 wrong...they were $11 in the hole and that’s where the whole thing started. To the people who said a cheese sandwich is all they need..perhaps but its given with a dose of public shaming for something that the child didn’t do. If it were me the sandwich would have choked me because of the way it was given and I wouldn’t have eaten it.
We want children to do their best in school and part of that is that they will be treated fairly and with respect. A twelve year old doesn’t earn money and cannot buy their own lunch so someone other than the kid is screwing up. But its easier for the school to shame the kid to get to the parents. Well phooey on them; they have evidenced that they no more understand kids and value them than the man in the moon. I am not surprised by anything in our current public ducation system but I am certainly not going to give any cover to the lazy thinking and callousness of their power games.
2015
Just over half of all students attending public schools in the United States are now eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, according to a new analysis of federal data. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/school-poverty-study-southern-education-foundation.html?_r=0
In a report released Friday by the Southern Education Foundation, researchers found that 51 percent of children in public schools qualified for the lunches in 2013, which means that most of them come from low-income families. By comparison, 38 percent of public school students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches in 2000.
Free or Subsidized Lunch & snack to 31 million kids/day in 2012
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
1. What is the National School Lunch Program?
The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in over 100,000 public and non-profit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provided nutritionally balanced, low cost or free lunches to more than 31 million children each school day in 2012. In 1998, Congress expanded the National School Lunch Program to include reimbursement for snacks served to children in afterschool educational and enrichment programs to include children through 18 years of age.
The Food and Nutrition Service administers the program at the Federal level. At the State level,
the National School Lunch
Program is usually administered by State education agencies, which
operate the program through agreements with school food authorities.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp
Children who are eligible for such lunches do not necessarily live in poverty. Subsidized lunches are available to children from families that earn up to $43,568, for a family of four, which is about 185 percent of the federal poverty level.
The number of children eligible for subsidized lunches has probably increased in part because the federal Agriculture Department now allows schools with a majority of low-income students to offer free lunches to all students, regardless of whether they qualify on an individual basis or not.
An increasing number of school districts now also serve dinner to students. In Cleveland, where the vast majority of the school district’s 39,000 students are poor, Eric Gordon, chief executive of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, said that most schools there have regular programs to send food home with students and that the district has staff members who help homeless families find places to stay.
Yea, when it comes to feeding a child, I guess I am..........and I have no qualms whatsoever when it comes down to it.
So who will be judged fairly by God and Jesus when you and I die? You and your own self righteousness? We'll see.........
Of course they will, they're the "PURISTS"...and I could care less.
These so called compassionate Christians eventually show their true beliefs.........Fortunately they don't align with mine...........
I remember a few stories about Jesus feeding the hungry. I must have missed the part where he stole from others to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.