We've known for almost a century that free school lunches work best when every kid gets one. My dad, born in 1931, got a free school lunch even though his family didn't need it. Not only did every kid get free lunch, but they had to eat everything on the plate. This caused Dad to form a life long aversion to stewed prunes.
Is this part of their “children are punishment” stance? “If you can’t afford them, don’t have them” magic where the children will disappear if expensive?
When the school where I worked went to all free lunch, there were ostensibly liberal people who were mad. “_Those people_ can afford to pay for their kids’ lunch! They spend their money on the wrong things!” We had free breakfast too, and my only annoyance with that was that they took teacher prep time up with supervising it and still pretended it was prep.
I pointed out that the district was literally saving money by not having four people who had to track lunch accounts and one whose whole job was managing the program, and the liberals were swayed. I held my tongue about the classism that made them insist that it was somehow shameful to accept free school lunch.
This is the dumbest argument. Why shouldn’t schoolchildren be fed by the state that requires them to attend school?
I'm fortunate/unfortunate enough to live in Louisiana, where we just elected a right wing extremist governor, Jeff Landry. He's axed a food assistance program from the feds, refusing the funds. There was an article from the local paper shared on facebook, saying that a local restaurant had stepped up to provide free Easter meals for families in response to the cuts. The number of mean-spirited, ugly, resentful comments about this ("lazy parents," etc.) was so fucking depressing. There really are people out there who don't have a problem with kids going hungry.
The New Testament couldn't have more nice things to say about how God wants you to treat the poor with kindness. I'll never understand why so many Christians are hell-bent on punishing the poor just for existing.
One of the few things good things I can say about Los Angeles unified in the 90s (and my parental units) was they did have their shit together for free/reduced lunch. Wasn't great but if your hungry your hungry. Big fan of kids nowadays not having to try and hide their "poor tickets".
The other big thing about universal versus means-tested benefits of any description is that there are people who feel stigmatised by claiming means-tested benefits, even if they need them, so they don't claim. Universal benefits don't have that stigma.
i never went to a school that had a cafeteria until high school.
high school was interesting . . . there seemed to be a tiny kitchen, short serving line and a (very) few seats . . . i can't remember ever seeing any food there but there seemed to be a (possibly imaginary) lunch lady.
Too bad school lunches in the U.S. don't really include a lot of, say "food". Michelle Obama tried to change that, but the fucking hot dog and pizza lobbyists put a stop to that.
"Republicans won’t have to stay up at night worrying about anyone “undeserving” getting a pork pattie..."
In the US, both Ds and Rs go in for means testing (testing how mean they can be?), and I wonder if just providing services, and assuming some people will "cheat" or take more than they "deserve" isn't cheaper in the long run than trying to weed out the deserving and undeserving among us.
Ta, Robyn. My one true love is a public school teacher. My best friend started teaching public school in 1967; he finally retired but still does some teaching at the local university. Kids. Need. Food.
We've known for almost a century that free school lunches work best when every kid gets one. My dad, born in 1931, got a free school lunch even though his family didn't need it. Not only did every kid get free lunch, but they had to eat everything on the plate. This caused Dad to form a life long aversion to stewed prunes.
Is this part of their “children are punishment” stance? “If you can’t afford them, don’t have them” magic where the children will disappear if expensive?
When the school where I worked went to all free lunch, there were ostensibly liberal people who were mad. “_Those people_ can afford to pay for their kids’ lunch! They spend their money on the wrong things!” We had free breakfast too, and my only annoyance with that was that they took teacher prep time up with supervising it and still pretended it was prep.
I pointed out that the district was literally saving money by not having four people who had to track lunch accounts and one whose whole job was managing the program, and the liberals were swayed. I held my tongue about the classism that made them insist that it was somehow shameful to accept free school lunch.
This is the dumbest argument. Why shouldn’t schoolchildren be fed by the state that requires them to attend school?
I'm fortunate/unfortunate enough to live in Louisiana, where we just elected a right wing extremist governor, Jeff Landry. He's axed a food assistance program from the feds, refusing the funds. There was an article from the local paper shared on facebook, saying that a local restaurant had stepped up to provide free Easter meals for families in response to the cuts. The number of mean-spirited, ugly, resentful comments about this ("lazy parents," etc.) was so fucking depressing. There really are people out there who don't have a problem with kids going hungry.
The New Testament couldn't have more nice things to say about how God wants you to treat the poor with kindness. I'll never understand why so many Christians are hell-bent on punishing the poor just for existing.
“Truly, if poor people were half as good at fraud as Republicans…”
No possible, “Republican” thy name is fraud.
One of the few things good things I can say about Los Angeles unified in the 90s (and my parental units) was they did have their shit together for free/reduced lunch. Wasn't great but if your hungry your hungry. Big fan of kids nowadays not having to try and hide their "poor tickets".
The other big thing about universal versus means-tested benefits of any description is that there are people who feel stigmatised by claiming means-tested benefits, even if they need them, so they don't claim. Universal benefits don't have that stigma.
i never went to a school that had a cafeteria until high school.
high school was interesting . . . there seemed to be a tiny kitchen, short serving line and a (very) few seats . . . i can't remember ever seeing any food there but there seemed to be a (possibly imaginary) lunch lady.
not bad for a school with about 400 students.
free lunch for every student . . . i'm for it!
Too bad school lunches in the U.S. don't really include a lot of, say "food". Michelle Obama tried to change that, but the fucking hot dog and pizza lobbyists put a stop to that.
"Republicans won’t have to stay up at night worrying about anyone “undeserving” getting a pork pattie..."
In the US, both Ds and Rs go in for means testing (testing how mean they can be?), and I wonder if just providing services, and assuming some people will "cheat" or take more than they "deserve" isn't cheaper in the long run than trying to weed out the deserving and undeserving among us.
Republicans also never seem to mentionthat means testing and preventing "fraud" cost more than the "fraud".
Ta, Robyn. My one true love is a public school teacher. My best friend started teaching public school in 1967; he finally retired but still does some teaching at the local university. Kids. Need. Food.
I’m going to need to see their data on the widespread fraud and abuse in school breakfast and lunch programs.
What if tax cuts were limited to the “truly needy”?
Cruelty is the only thing the GOPers understand.
> Truly, if poor people were half as good at fraud as Republicans seem to think they are, they would all be running
for president on the Republican ticket by now.
FTFY