Free and reduced lunch program.

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by roryjr, Aug 28, 2007.

  1. roryjr

    roryjr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    227
    0
    0
    Location:
    Warrenton, NC
    My son just started kindergarten. Last year he went to pre-K. Both years, every parent received a free and reduced lunch application. We were encouraged to fill it out even though we know we don't qualify. And here's why:

    "Reimbursements and Funding
    In FY 2006, federal spending totaled $7.4 billion for the National School Lunch Program. This federal support comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each meal served. The 2007-08 school year basic federal reimbursement rates are:


    Free Lunches $2.47
    Reduced Price Lunches $2.07
    Paid Lunches $0.23

    Alaska and Hawaii receive higher reimbursement rates. For schools where 60 percent or more of the second preceding school year lunches were served free or reduced price, an additional $.02 reimbursement is given for each free, reduced price, or paid meal served. "


    This is from the National School Lunch Program website: http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_prog...grams/nslp.html

    Last year, it was $1.00 per day for lunch and dinner. This year it went up to $1.25 in North Carolina. I don't know if it differs from state to state.

    Questions:

    1. If someone is paying full price for lunch, why is the federal government giving and additional $0.23 to the school?

    2.Isn't if obvious that the Alaska and Hawaii bonus program encourages the school system to encourage parents to depend on the government as much as they can?
     
  2. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    First, i agree with you about the full priced lunches... that just doesn't make sense. To your second point, however, i don't think so. I would imagine that Hawaii, being an Island, and Alaska, being cut off from the mainland US, generally have higher prices for things like food. higher reimbursement rates would only go to pay those increased costs. (I don't know this for a fact, but it does seam to make sense)
     
  3. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    16,326
    7,645
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Aug 28 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]503172[/snapback]</div>
    In Alaska, a gallon of bleach can run $20+. The upmark for food isn't as high, but it's there.

    As for the reimbursing for paid lunches, it is possible the school isn't charging the parents the full cost of the meal. Do the states also chip in?
     
  4. Stev0

    Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    7,200
    1,066
    0
    Location:
    Northampton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Aug 28 2007, 09:15 AM) [snapback]503191[/snapback]</div>
    That's true. There's no way that a full lunch can cost just a buck. That extra money has to come from somewhere.

    I don't see what the problem is.
     
  5. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    1. Students don't know if they qualify. Take the application home.

    2. Parents don't know if they qualify. Fill out the application.

    3. Everyone does it. No stigma for filling out and returning the application. (Not the school's job to decide who and who does not qualify.)

    4. For some students, this is the ONLY balanced meal they get during the day. We also have free breakfast for our qualifying students because they wouldn't get a breakfast either if we didn't feed them.

    Educators know that the better the health of a student, the better they do in school. They're healthier the more balanced meals they eat, than going without, or subsisting on a diet of beans and rice, or macaroni and cheese. When we test, everyone gets a snack break of fruit.

    Go RED. Keep the undeserving stupid. Make those mothers have those babies.....then keep them malnourished. How else will we get our future janitors and maids.
     
  6. Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    922
    10
    1
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    This thread is disgusting!

    You are advocating abusing a program designed for poor kids just to make sure that the numbers look good for Federal funding. Maybe if the parents weren't taxed so much they'd have some money to pay for their kids lunches. Of course you probably don't trust the parents to take care of their kids, because you knoiw better, or you can find examples of few that don't. But then that would take the power away from the all giving Government teet!
     
  7. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 28 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]503256[/snapback]</div>
    And you're advocating taking the food out of children's mouths with the old "let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or they're lazy" arguement. Equally if not more sickening. If the parents want to send their kid to school with a sack lunch, they are free to do so. But this program ensures that no child goes hungry.

    As for cutting taxes, in what way are the taxes of the poor being cut enough to pay for anything? Not enough to pay for healthcare. And you want them to pay for lunches too.

    Republicans: anti-abortion, Democrats: Pro-Child.
     
  8. roryjr

    roryjr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    227
    0
    0
    Location:
    Warrenton, NC
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 28 2007, 12:54 PM) [snapback]503267[/snapback]</div>

    That argument will run this country into the ground. More and more people are on the government dole than ever before and with the new SCHIP program and others, this will continue to escalate. When is enough enough? The more people you put on the dole, the further tax money is stretched resulting in the democrats favorite thing: a tax increase. But this won't tax the poor.

    How many times do I have to drag my personal example out to prove this to you? I lost my job and worked half a year at a crappy job. I paid $900 in federal income tax. When I did my tax return, I got $3800 back. The $3800 pretty much covered federal, state, fica, and and any other tax I had paid that year. It was a one time thing for me, but millions of the poor get this windfall every year and the "unpoor" pay for it.
     
  9. Stev0

    Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    7,200
    1,066
    0
    Location:
    Northampton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Aug 28 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]503287[/snapback]</div>
    And what do we have here? Why yes, it's another visit to Bizarro World! Meanwhile, back on Earth, The number of welfare recipients dropped under President Clinton. And your tax cuts won't make Bush's debt go away, it will just pass it on to your children.

    Why DO conservatives hate children so much?
     
  10. roryjr

    roryjr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    227
    0
    0
    Location:
    Warrenton, NC
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 30 2007, 12:27 AM) [snapback]504158[/snapback]</div>
    Conservatives don't hate children. Liberals love to kill them before they can even get out of the womb.

    As for the drop in welfare recipients dropping, that was due to the massive tax cuts put in by Ronaldus Magnus. This spurred a long growth cycle. President Bush's tax cuts have done the same thing. Our economy has been growing steadily since he put them in.

    It's very simple and has been proven over and over. Lower taxes and people have more money in their pocket to spend. They buy more stuff and companies make more money. More money made allows companies to expand and therefore hire more employees. More people getting a job, means more people coming off welfare.

    Raise taxes and people have less money to spend. They cut back spending and companies make less money. Less money coming in means less money to spend on silly things like.... oh ..... employees maybe? Less money for employees means employees get laid off and some of them may end up on welfare.
     
  11. geologyrox

    geologyrox New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    513
    0
    0
    I just woke up and I'm running a fever and I have to drive 750 miles to go to a funeral tonight, so I'm probably a little crankier than I need to be - mods feel free to delete if I crossed a line:


    You guys are all dipshits. OK, so not all, and maybe none of you are completely afflicted, but those who would rather play catfight than do anything that might actually address the issues you are itching about deserve the crap I'm dishing.

    I mean, really, 'conservatives hate children?' 'Liberals love to kill them before they can even get out of the womb?' Time to grow up. That mindset doesn't solve anything - you can make good points on either side, but any possibility of improving the situation gets tossed out the window when you start acting like children.


    And we end up with threads about why today's kids are particularly petulant, stubborn, and arrogant. I wonder where we got that from.
     
  12. jweale

    jweale Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    80
    5
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Aug 30 2007, 01:23 AM) [snapback]504176[/snapback]</div>
    The drop in welfare recipients has been pretty clearly tied to the welfare reform of '96. The five year limit enacted in 1996 has seen welfare recipients drop by 57%. While your implication that some of that is due to Clinton's low tax policies and excellent handling of the economy is surely true, the 5 year limit contributed by the Republican Revolution congress, which has kicked many folks out of the program, also deserves some credit. Your ignorance of this basic history makes me think it not worth arguing the large economic issues you seem to be ignoring.

    The federal school lunch program was instituted after WWII when it was found a large number of the people rejected from the military for physical deficiencies had suffered from childhood malnutrition. That is, it was seen that many men who grew up in the low taxation era of the US were unable to serve in the army since they were physically stunted, deformed, and prone to disease due to poor childhood nutrition. Are you honestly suggesting that the federal government has no interest in insuring that its population grows up healthy enough to defend itself? Cutting the school lunch program, a very cheap and incredibly cost effective mechanism (doubly so in combination with its tie into the agricultural subsidy progam - now there's a legit pork target) to increase overall population health, productivity, and reduce future health expenditures, would be an extraordinarily poor idea. Any CEO who suggested cutting a program with this kind of proven ROI would be ousted immediately, but I do not know of any respectable politician on either side of the aisle that honestly unintelligent. It's as stupid as advocating the elimination of public school, again a position too provably inadvisable for any intelligent politician (and anti-government rhetoric to suppress moderate turnout aside, most of them are pretty smart folks) to advocate.

    I almost wonder if you're deliberately creating a conservative caricature to make 'conservatives' look bad. The Republican party has a long track record of sound and well thought out governance, they do not promote canceling a cheap program which clearly and measurably serves the national interest (although they justifiably have quibbles around the edges, such as when it is trying to be expanded to breakfast, and dinner, with some sports thrown in, and maybe some free clothes...).
     
  13. roryjr

    roryjr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    227
    0
    0
    Location:
    Warrenton, NC
    Where in my original post did I mention cancelling this program?


    My original questions:

    1. If someone is paying full price for lunch, why is the federal government giving and additional $0.23 to the school?

    2.Isn't if obvious that the Alaska and Hawaii bonus program encourages the school system to encourage parents to depend on the government as much as they can?


    Yes as usual on this board, the topic devolved into partisan bickering and I admit I participated in that. I never mentioned anything about Clinton's low tax policies. To my knowledge, all he did with taxes was raise the percentage of social security income that was taxable. You are probably right about the '96 welfare reform but I still stand by my tax lesson a partial contribution. There are problems here and there but the economy continues to hum along due to the tax cuts.

    On October 7th on 2002, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 7,181. This was shortly after 9/11. Look at the market today. We just had a major correction, but it is still currently hovering between 13,000 and 14,000 ( the previous high).
     
Loading...