Julie Bove wrote:
>
> Some school districts have a program where they send backpacks full of food
> home for the weekend to needy kids. From what I have read about these
> programs, they are done by private donations. We have no such program here.
> But some years the teachers will ask for us to send in healthy, shelf stable
> snacks because there are always hungry kids with no food.

When I got divorced, I was "room mother" for 4 years. You would not
believe all the horror stories of how some of these kids live...mostly
with single drug addict slut mothers or the occasional single father
that is a total POS too.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
> don't care.

Dave. There are many young kids that live with a parent that is not a
caring parent. They only had the kids due to lack of contraceptives.
Those parents are worthless POS's and a drain on society. It REALLY
IS a bad life out there for some of those kids. I've known of a few
and worked with a grown up one. He's really messed up from his
childhood experiences. It's sad.

wrote:
>
> I can only reiterate, feed the child and in return have a more useful
> adult. Who knows? The kid with the full belly who studies, learns
> and grows into a good adult will pay taxes and help you in your old
> age. The kid left to go hungry becomes bitter, turns to crime or
> drugs and will knock you over the head when you are vulnerable.

I don't think it's about hunger. So many parents now a days just seem
to ignore their kids. They don't enforce doing homework at night but
then blame teachers for the problems. Raising a child is the most
important job you will ever had. I left a good job to strike out on my
own when I became a single parent. This provided me with more time to
be home for her. And it worked. For all of her school years, I was
home when she left to go to school, I worked 6.5 hours, then I got
home right before she got home too. And once home, I got on her about
homework, etc, and just spent alot of time with her.

Even then, I always told people that raising her was my most important
job. I think I was right. She was a great student and got into a great
college (UVA). She has no tattoos and now she is married with
children. I like to think that my sacrifices were worthwhile.

>
> Entirely off subject, a chipmunk just ran along the branch outside my
> window, haven't seen one in the city for years and years. Hope it
> sticks around, I have just the sort of bird feeders they like, there,
> that brings it back on subject :-þ

Cool! Chipmunks are very cool. I haven't seen one in years either.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 03:18:30 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:14:46 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 9/6/2014 5:40 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Here, you have to be pretty darned poor to qualify for free or reduced
> > >> > lunches.
> > >>
> > >> So you have private sector assist and public?
> > >
> > > No. Standards are high, but it's the honor - system so people can lie
> > > about income and get a free meal. The question is why do they do it?
> > > I remember when one of the wealthiest families in my city did that and
> > > they got away with it on a yearly basis.
> >
> > How can they lie? I think here we have to submit proof of income. I am not
> > positive on that as I have never tried to do it.
>
> --
> Avoid hiring a raccoon to babysit your cat.

Too expensive to investigate every claim. All welfare perks have the
same problem. If there is something free offered, the vultures swarm
in.

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:31:08 AM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:32:50 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:14:46 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 9/6/2014 5:40 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> >> >
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Here, you have to be pretty darned poor to qualify for free or reduced
>
> >> > lunches.
>
> >>
>
> >> So you have private sector assist and public?
>
> >
>
> >No. Standards are high, but it's the honor - system so people can lie
>
> >about income and get a free meal. The question is why do they do it?
>
> >I remember when one of the wealthiest families in my city did that and
>
> >they got away with it on a yearly basis.
>
>
>
> Often they tire of supporting the parasites.

The wealthy *ARE* the parasites. Julie isn't shit compared to super-rich
****s who similarly contribute little, but consume way, WAY more than our
Miss White Trash.

--Bryan

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:14:46 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/6/2014 5:40 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Here, you have to be pretty darned poor to qualify for free or reduced
> >> > lunches.
> >>
> >> So you have private sector assist and public?
> >
> > No. Standards are high, but it's the honor - system so people can lie
> > about income and get a free meal. The question is why do they do it?
> > I remember when one of the wealthiest families in my city did that and
> > they got away with it on a yearly basis.
>
> How can they lie? I think here we have to submit proof of income. I am not
> positive on that as I have never tried to do it.

Talking about unemployment and food stamps now. I worked with a guy
that always went for that free stuff. He would lie about his income
and get unemployment insurance often and also the food stamp thing.
The unemployment claims were weekly but the food stamps (a card now)
were good for 6 months once you got approved, no matter how much you
made later.

I told him that he could go to jail for this but he thinks, "No. they
will only make you pay them back if you get caught." I don't agree.
Problem is though that they don't have the funds to check up on all
these claims so there are many that take advantage of the free money
and many get away with it.

This common abuse makes it bad for the people that really need the
assistance.

Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> The wealthy *ARE* the parasites. Julie isn't shit compared to super-rich
> ****s who similarly contribute little, but consume way, WAY more than our
> Miss White Trash.

Read this and then discount it:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

There are many more examples if you can't look them up for yourself.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:27:16 -0400, Gary > wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > What I don't understand is school starting at 7:20. Our first class was
> > 8:30 IIRC. Maybe things just started later in the city.
>
> I think my senior year of hs started at 8am. Here in Va.Beach, hs
> starts at 7:15 or 7:20

Same here and it's been that way for a long time... 20 years at least.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 9/7/2014 3:25 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/6/2014 2:13 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:05:46 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-09-06 3:53 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with a kid getting a meal. It's just that I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think it is the school's responsibility. Cheri reported that all the
>>>>>> kids in her area get the free <?> breakfast. I guess that removes the
>>>>>> stigma from being one of the needy ones. I might question the need to
>>>>>> remove the stigma. Maybe there needs to be a stigma so that those you
>>>>>> need to be fed might aspire to better rather than expecting the
>>>>>> school
>>>>>> to feed them. Hopefully, they will graduate and get a job. I
>>>>>> don't know
>>>>>> many jobs where the company provides breakfast.
>>>>>
>>>>> The kids at school receiving a meal hardly have the option to work
>>>>> harder to not need it. A kid with a full tummy will work better and
>>>>> ultimately be less likely to be troublesome, disturbing the class, and
>>>>> getting into gangs/trouble as a teen. Facts prove that, it's just
>>>>> hard to right wing people to see that - they are prepared to pay less
>>>>> taxes - at any price - even kids.
>>>>
>>>> As I suggested.... if you think there is a need for a breakfast
>>>> program in your local school get a bunch of people together to
>>>> volunteer
>>>> their time to raise funds, find sponsors and do the work.
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget that the same kids who need breakfast on school days will
>>>> probably need it on weekends and holidays too.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that is the difference between some of the people you view as
>>>> right wingers and those who need to get a free breakfast provided.
>>>> Those
>>>> right wingers don't need someone to teach them about breakfast, don't
>>>> need to have someone provide it for them.
>>>>
>>> Let's all work on the volunteer system. If you think there is a need
>>> to have potholes on your street fix, get together a program,
>>> volunteers and donations. We all know that individual programs and
>>> works is so much more efficient and cost effective.
>>> Janet US
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like an apples and oranges example.
>
> Big difference between food and potholes. Many school districts do send
> food home with the kids for the weekend.

Really?

> I don't like potholes but I sure as heck am not going to pool my money
> with others to fix them. I didn't cause the potholes. Not that we have
> any on our street. We don't. They have actually been really good about
> redoing the streets here. It is a PITA because it slows us down because
> they are often down to one lane. But I can't complain too much. Staten
> Island OTOH was a nightmare!

On 9/7/2014 3:42 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/6/2014 3:30 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 14:44:51 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/6/2014 2:25 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:05:46 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I suggested.... if you think there is a need for a breakfast
>>>>>> program in your local school get a bunch of people together to
>>>>>> volunteer
>>>>>> their time to raise funds, find sponsors and do the work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't forget that the same kids who need breakfast on school days
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> probably need it on weekends and holidays too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I support a charity that delivers lunch to needy kids during the
>>>>> summer.
>>>>
>>>> Typical American generosity!
>>>>
>>>>> I am also happy to support hungry kids with my tax dollars during the
>>>>> school year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hungry kids impact their entire class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tara
>>>>
>>>> They may, but we need to make sure it's not abused by lazy parents
>>>> looking for one less thing to have to do in the morning.
>>>
>>> Get real,
>>
>> I am.
>>
>>> far cheaper to simply feed the class rather than setting up
>>> a committee to make sure nobody receives it who it is felt should not
>>> receive it.
>>
>> Financial aid is means tested, the same metrics and assets can be used
>> for this.
>>
>> Ergo the "far cheaper" premise is unproven.
>>
>>
>>> What do you say to the child whom the committee decides
>>> has parents who can feed it ? So sorry, see your parents ?
>>
>> I say, CPS!
>>
>> And post haste too.
>>
>> School administrators are trained to look for such abuses and report
>> them.
>>
>> In addition ANY hungry kid, even be it for sleeping late and missing
>> breakfast should be addressed on a needs basis each day.
>>
>> Keep good records and the system is ultimately self-regulating, by one
>> means or another or both.
>>
>> Make blanket unsupervised programs and expect rampant abuse - this is
>> a lesson most of us have seen played out far too many times.
>
>
> As I mentioned in another reply, it isn't always easy to spot abuse.
> And often when we think we might see it, the kid will be quick to deny
> it for various reasons. One being fear of taken from their siblings.
> One being fear of being abused even more at home. Another being fear of
> being put into foster care and getting perhaps new and different forms
> of abuse. From what I have read there are some foster parents who are
> only in it for the money and they don't treat the kids well.
>
> When I was a kid, my friend had a dad who was a cop. I don't think her
> mom worked but she never seemed to be home. She had a younger brother
> and there was always a foster kid, female around age 16. The foster kid
> was kept in a tiny room in the basement and they were expected to stay
> there unless there was work to be done. They did the laundry for the
> family, the cooking, cleaning etc. They also babysat. I rarely saw
> these girls. One came up and made popsicles for us when my friend asked
> her to. That's when my friend told me that her parents got them so they
> could use them for these purposes. They were not treated as family
> members. More as servants. I can't speak in these cases if there was
> abuse but there was a whole slew of other weird things about this
> family, some of which I may never know. My mom knew some things but
> wouldn't tell me.
>
> Also, many teachers and other people are reluctant to call CPS. They
> may see something that they don't think is right but they likely can't
> prove anything and often the kid isn't going to admit to anything being
> wrong.
>
> I can think of two kids from my elementary school years. Both were
> always filthy. So filthy that they smelled vile. Because of this they
> earned not so nice nicknames. One also had some sort of physical
> problem that caused him to walk on his toes. His nickname had to do
> with that but the other was called Smelly _____. Name calling seemed to
> be tolerated in those days. I never called them names to their faces
> and felt sorry for them. They didn't seem to have any friends.
>
> I just assumed that they must come from households that were so poor
> that they couldn't afford soap or water or new clothes. But after
> reading some of the books I have of true stories of abuse, this in and
> of itself is a form of abuse. The parents force the kids to dress in
> rags and will not let them bathe. I guess I will never know if that was
> the case with those two boys. But it may well have been.
>
> Sadly there is no cut and dried solution. And while I don't feel that
> it is up to me or even up to the school to feed every kid, I also don't
> want kids to go hungry and someone has to do it. So I don't mind if
> some of my taxes go for that.

Of course there isn't a single solution, it's a systemic problem and as
such requires systemic fixes.

I listed nut a few, and they are sound.

There is no reason that those who require breakfasts can not be tracked
each day and the resultant data analyzed and compared against individual
teacher commentaries.

In the case of students whose parents are just lazy - after a certain
number of "oops" meals - start billing them - game over.

In the case of those who use the program each day, a brief interview
with the parents or guardians and metrics on income level is sufficient.

There are _always_ answers, if we have the objectivity to look for them.

On 9/7/2014 4:16 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:40:48 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-06 19:40, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>>> They have streets and we have streets. We pay for theirs and they pay
>>>> for ours. In the breakfast example, I pay for my kid's breakfast and I
>>>> pay for their kid's breakfast. They pay for...... nothing.
>>>
>>> that's only true if they pay no taxes at all. You have a stereotype
>>> for people that makes you feel comfortable with your stance. I'm not
>>> going to change your view and you are not going to change mine.
>>
>>
>> I don't suppose you see the irony in your presumption of my stereotypes.
>>
>> Maybe you should try to read this BBC article
>> http://www.bbc.com/news/education-19951590
>>
>> "A survey from Kellogg's found that four out of five teachers in England
>> have seen examples of pupils starting school without having eaten any
>> breakfast.
>>
>> "Parental apathy" was identified as the biggest single cause - followed
>> by a shortage of money."
>>
>> Or this one:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ol-hungry.html
>> "Two thirds of 500 teachers surveyed said the main reason that children
>> are arriving unfed is because of apathy by parents, while a similar
>> proportion cited a lack of time at home."
>>
>>
>>
>> I had to look further to get articles from American sources. The first
>> one I came to was from USA Today
>> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ast14_CV_N.htm
>>
>> It seems that in Pueblo CO they have free breakfasts for all students
>> and they are delivered to the classroom. That saves the poor students
>>from the stigma of not being able to afford food, but the rest of them ....
>> "Bus schedules, parents' work schedules, and, for high school students,
>> the desire to sleep as late as possible make getting to school early for
>> breakfast difficult. "
>>
>>
>> As for healthy breakfasts....
>> At 8:28 a.m., the cafeteria ladies of Centennial High School take up
>> positions in the second-floor hallway, just outside closed classroom
>> doors. Each woman is pushing a cart loaded with milk, juice, whole-wheat
>> doughnuts and individual packages of Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms cereal.
>>
>> At least the donuts are whole wheat. I am sure that the sugar in the
>> Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms gives them a good short term boost.
>>
>>
> So work on parenting but in the meantime, FEED THE KIDS
>

But WITH proper monitoring, means testing for their parents, and sound
guidance from teachers.

On 9/7/2014 4:17 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/6/2014 5:40 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On 9/6/2014 12:10 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 11:59:34 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-09-06 11:48 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2014 2:06 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where I am the schools provide free breakfasts to all students at
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> time. Don't know how long it will last since it was going on last
>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>> too, or if it's available for all of CA, but it is here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It will last as long as YOU pay taxes for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't mind paying higher taxes to feed someone else's kids
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> perhaps you would not mind paying an even higher tax levy to cover
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> us who resent being expected to pay for them as well as our own
>>>>>> kids. I
>>>>>> really don't think it is too much to expect people to give their
>>>>>> kids a
>>>>>> proper meal before sending them off to school. In many cases it may
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> having to get up off their lazy asses to prepare the meals, or to
>>>>>> divert
>>>>>> money from their cigarette and booze budget to buy food.
>>>>>
>>>>> stereotype much?
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the very low cost of oatmeal and cereal it's hard to imagine not
>>>> having enough money or SNAP assistance to feed a child.
>>>>
>>>> Even basic bread will fill a stomach.
>>>>
>>>> When I was in school teachers always had some crackers, jam and peanut
>>>> butter in stock for "snacks" if one forgot their lunch or missed
>>>> breakfast.
>>>
>>> Assistance is not meant to be 100%. And people may not be able to get
>>> to a good grocery store to buy food. I was very happy when Walmart put
>>> in an expanded grocery and happier still when Fred Meyers went in,
>>> fairly close. That particular area at the time had nothing but
>>> apartments up and down it. Since then, newer apartments and some houses
>>> have gone in. But it's a very long stretch of road with not a lot else
>>> there.
>>>
>>> We do have buses here but they only go to certain specific places. So
>>> if someone is living on that street with no car, up until these changes
>>> were made, those people had to depend on what Walmart sold. Which was
>>> mainly cereal, beverages, an aisle of two of canned goods and a few
>>> freezer and refrigerator cases. No fresh produce. I remember feeling
>>> sad when this one couple ahead of me said they were buying groceries for
>>> the week and were so happy that Walmart was there. They had a stack of
>>> frozen pizzas, milk, cereal and some canned things.
>>>
>>> Things can be worse for some people living in big cities. They might
>>> have to depend on little mom and pop stores with inflated prices, little
>>> selection and no fresh produce.
>>>
>>> These days the schools usually keep things like fruit snacks and granola
>>> bars. I don't think they keep peanut butter because there are too many
>>> peanut allergies. But... The teacher either has to buy them or asks
>>> parents to donate or send in money. I always did send things when asked
>>> for. My daughter said it was usually the same kids who hadn't eaten.
>>>
>>> Here, you have to be pretty darned poor to qualify for free or reduced
>>> lunches.
>>
>> So you have private sector assist and public?
>
> Some school districts have a program where they send backpacks full of
> food home for the weekend to needy kids. From what I have read about
> these programs, they are done by private donations.

That is very cool!

> We have no such
> program here. But some years the teachers will ask for us to send in
> healthy, shelf stable snacks because there are always hungry kids with
> no food.

That is how I recall it being when I was younger - same for school
supplies for those who either forgot theirs of couldn't afford them.

People helping people.

On 9/7/2014 4:17 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 21:43:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-06 19:54, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>>> I'm opting out of this conversation. I can't deal with someone who
>>> feels they are getting screwed because they feed a child.
>>
>>
>> Sure... stick up for the parents who don't bother to send their kids off
>> to school with a proper breakfast. As per the articles I linked and
>> quoted, the primary reason for kids not getting a proper breakfast is
>> parent apathy.
>>
>>>
> She was not 'sticking up for the parents' - she was advocating feeding
> hungry children !
>

Can we have some metrics and means testing for that - please???

On 9/7/2014 4:20 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:26:21 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2014 6:00 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 17:54:59 -0600, Janet Bostwick
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 18:01:09 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-09-06 4:13 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe that is the difference between some of the people you view as
>>>>>>> right wingers and those who need to get a free breakfast provided. Those
>>>>>>> right wingers don't need someone to teach them about breakfast, don't
>>>>>>> need to have someone provide it for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's all work on the volunteer system. If you think there is a need
>>>>>> to have potholes on your street fix, get together a program,
>>>>>> volunteers and donations. We all know that individual programs and
>>>>>> works is so much more efficient and cost effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seriously think that maintaining public infrastructure is comparable
>>>>> to looking after your own children? When it gets to the point where you
>>>>> think that children have to be given a bowl of cereal and a glass of
>>>>> juice as school because they aren't being fed at home you are pretty
>>>>> much throwing in the towel on a whole segment of society.
>>>>
>>>> I'm opting out of this conversation. I can't deal with someone who
>>>> feels they are getting screwed because they feed a child.
>>>> Janet US
>>>
>>> Me too - I really don't get it. Roads ? Well now they're important,
>>> that's different. To hell with the kid who can't concentrate because
>>> the belly hurts. False policy, we can pay a little now to fix the
>>> problem or suffer a lot later on from crime etc. Heaven forbid we
>>> should put some food in the stomach of kid belonging to a lounger,
>>> yes, we should definitely punish the kid. A pox on their houses, how
>>> selfish.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, you really are polarized past reason.
>
> Oh, you must be looking in the mirror ?
>
I have adopted a position in favor of food for the hungry kids but one
that requires means testing for parents and yet still leaves no stomach
unfed.

Now go on, tell me that is polarized.

Sheesh!

On 9/7/2014 4:35 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/6/2014 5:53 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 9/6/2014 11:48 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 9/6/2014 2:06 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where I am the schools provide free breakfasts to all students at
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> time. Don't know how long it will last since it was going on last
>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>> too, or if it's available for all of CA, but it is here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will last as long as YOU pay taxes for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> I don't mind for the poor kids, but it is not easy to separate them
>>>> from a parent that is just too lazy and now has reason not to make
>>>> breakfast.
>>>
>>> And so the kid should suffer? If the parent is too lazy for that, then
>>> the kid is probably lacking in other ways. I'd rather not see the kid
>>> suffer.
>>
>> No reasonable person would, but it is reasonable to have metrics to
>> weed out the lazy parents.
>
> I would have to disagree with you there.

You may, but you'll be wrong.

> Because who would determine
> what constitutes as lazy?

Those who means test and monitor abuses, duh.

> As I have said... Some might say that I am
> lazy. I don't work. And I have been in a situation where some kid lost
> control of a ball. It rolled right past me and I did not try to get
> it. Why? I am disabled and I know that there is no way I could move
> fast enough to get it. Heck, most of the time my muscles are so stiff
> that I can't even bend over. I think have to explain to any others who
> might be standing around, why I didn't run after the ball. Because of
> course they are looking at me like I was lazy.

You've way over-internalized this, as per usual.

> Maybe the parent is ill, either physically or mentally. I do have days
> when I am more mobile than others. I am better now than I used to be.
> But when my daughter was a baby, I couldn't walk. The best I could do
> was scoot or crawl across the floor and if I was lucky, hoist myself up
> onto a bar stool to cut up some food that someone else had bought for
> me. Thankfully she was eating toddler type food like cheese cubes, raw
> veggies and fruit and canned green beans. Because cooking was often
> beyond what I could do. Husband might have to make do with a sandwich
> while I had a salad.

Maybe hubby should step up then.

> Sometimes people need to be on a medication that makes them
> non-functional. Like a muscle relaxant. Or maybe they have a mental
> illness that lets them function pretty normally most of the time but
> might leave them hiding in bed some days.
>
> People with these types of problems could easily be seen as lazy by
> others. My friend has an adult daughter with mental illness. If you
> were to see her when she was having a really good hour...I say hour
> because that's about the limit to her being able to maintain some sense
> of normalcy, you might think she was pleasant and fine. But the reality
> was she was in no way shape or form able to hold down a job or even care
> for her son. Her brain just doesn't think in a normal fashion any
> more. So my friend had to take custody of her grandson.
>
> Some of these situations are/were or could be temporary. Maybe the kid
> didn't get breakfast two or three days in a row because the parent just
> wasn't up to fixing it. And maybe someone would say that parent was
> lazy. But the kid shouldn't suffer.
>
> I have only ever once met a person who admitted to be lazy. I won't say
> who it was. But some years ago, my bro got me a little battery operated
> Astrology/Horoscope device. It not only did charts for people but told
> what the charts meant and gave their daily horoscope. So I did the
> chart for this person and it said that he was inherently lazy. Worse
> still in looking at his daily readings, most of them said that he would
> be feeling lazy. As I read this to him, I said I was sorry, these were
> not my words but this was what the device was telling me. He laughed
> and said that he agreed with the device. He was in fact lazy.
>
> And where is he today? Prison. And not for the first time. He is a
> hard core drug addict. He did work at a variety of jobs but was caught
> stealing more times than I can remember. And I'm sure I don't know the
> half of it. He has two kids and lost custody of one. Not sure about the
> other one. I presume he lives with the mother but from pics I have seen
> of her, she looks like a drug addict as well.
>
> Anyway... I don't think most people are lazy and probably few people
> really are. But there are some who love to play the system and some who
> will probably appear lazy.

That was too long a rant to even respond to each point.

Congratulations, you have single-handedly come with a panoply of excuses
leading to a "do nothing" response.

That's absurdism deluxe.

Any and all abuses, be they medical, laziness, or simple leaching can
and ought be addressed, treated for context, and used to make a
functional program in which the regular users are the ones who have real
need.

If that need is due to illness, so be it.

If it's income, fine.

If it's laziness or abuse of resources, bill the parents back.

It can ALL be handled, period.

End of discussion, afiac.

"sf" > wrote in message
...

> Additionally, while the menu may read like it's some sort of gourmet
> food - it's not. It is cooked off site and reheated, if the school
> has the equipment to do it. The truth is that in most school
> districts, it's more like prison food than home cooking. Think of the
> worst cafeteria food you've ever eaten. It's worse.

That's not true at all where I am. There are very few schools that don't
have kitchens and the food is prepared daily. When I worked at the transport
school, we did prepare and make 1200 or so lunches early in the morning that
were transported to some of the other schools in the district that didn't
have kitchens for lunch, plus snacks for the latchkey kids, and most of it
was tasty. Also, in the past couple of years, the menus have improved
greatly with a lot of choices that kids didn't used to have, including salad
and soup bars.

Cheri

On 9/7/2014 5:38 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:25:09 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-07 6:17 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure... stick up for the parents who don't bother to send their kids off
>>>> to school with a proper breakfast. As per the articles I linked and
>>>> quoted, the primary reason for kids not getting a proper breakfast is
>>>> parent apathy.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> She was not 'sticking up for the parents' - she was advocating feeding
>>> hungry children !
>>>
>>
>>
>> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
>> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
>> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
>> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
>> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
>> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
>> don't care.
>>
> So would you still not feed those kids ?

Is it now that we save everyone form the consequences of their actions?

How do they ever learn to take responsibility, kid or parent?

> Or would you feel it was
> more important the kids belly be full than reasons why it might be
> empty ?

That's a trap question - again.

> I can only reiterate, feed the child and in return have a more useful
> adult. Who knows? The kid with the full belly who studies, learns
> and grows into a good adult will pay taxes and help you in your old
> age. The kid left to go hungry becomes bitter, turns to crime or
> drugs and will knock you over the head when you are vulnerable.

What about the kid who NEVER learns to accept the consequences of their
decisions?

I'd say that breeds sociopathy.

> Entirely off subject, a chipmunk just ran along the branch outside my
> window, haven't seen one in the city for years and years. Hope it
> sticks around, I have just the sort of bird feeders they like, there,
> that brings it back on subject :-þ

On 9/7/2014 6:17 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> Entirely off subject, a chipmunk just ran along the branch outside my
>> window, haven't seen one in the city for years and years. Hope it
>> sticks around, I have just the sort of bird feeders they like, there,
>> that brings it back on subject :-þ
>
> It seems to have been a good year for chipmunks this year. I have seen
> way more than usual.
>
>
But are they missing breakfast?

;-)

On 9/7/2014 7:13 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:25:09 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-07 6:17 AM, wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure... stick up for the parents who don't bother to send their kids off
>>>> to school with a proper breakfast. As per the articles I linked and
>>>> quoted, the primary reason for kids not getting a proper breakfast is
>>>> parent apathy.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>> She was not 'sticking up for the parents' - she was advocating feeding
>>> hungry children !
>>>
>>
>>
>> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
>> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
>> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
>> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
>> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
>> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
>> don't care.
>>
> If not eating in the morning is due to parent apathy, then why make
> children suffer even more? In any case, it sounds like you're calling
> teenagers who have food in the house available to eat "kids". Sure
> they might be eligible for the new food for all program, but they are
> not the focus of this discussion. The teenagers you're talking about
> made a choice to sleep and to not eat, the choice wasn't made for them
> because their families couldn't afford to buy food.
>
> There is also a stigma to being eligible for a free food program, so I
> can understand why the criteria was waved. Don't think that just
> because "free" food is made available before the start of school that
> they will suddenly choose to eat. That's not how teenagers work.
> Additionally, while the menu may read like it's some sort of gourmet
> food - it's not. It is cooked off site and reheated, if the school
> has the equipment to do it. The truth is that in most school
> districts, it's more like prison food than home cooking. Think of the
> worst cafeteria food you've ever eaten. It's worse.
>
>
The menu we read posted was impressive.

The reality that Jamie Oliver found in his program on W. Virgina school
food was appalling.

On 9/7/2014 7:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/7/2014 7:38 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:25:09 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>
>>>
>>> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
>>> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
>>> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
>>> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
>>> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
>>> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
>>> don't care.
>>>
>> So would you still not feed those kids ? Or would you feel it was
>> more important the kids belly be full than reasons why it might be
>> empty ?
>>
>> I can only reiterate, feed the child and in return have a more useful
>> adult.
>
> At what point does personal responsibility kick in? IMO, it goes back
> to poor parenting. Teach the kids from early years that you have to go
> to sleep at this time to get up at that time and be able to do what
> needs to be done, including breakfast.

Yes!


> No, I'm not turning away a 6 or 8 year old that is hungry, but by junior
> year in HS, you should know better. Stop by the fridge and grab something.

+1

On 9/7/2014 8:17 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:12:00 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2014 5:43 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:06:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's not forget the whole John Edwards mess either...
>>>
>>> And don't forget St. Teddy.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah...black sheep, etc...
>
> Wouldn't that be a racial slur?
>
We would have to ask Bo!

Cheri wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/6/2014 2:19 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > > Free breakfasts
> > > for everyone where I am, and I'm glad. No reason to beat it to
> > > death now, so I'll leave it unless you would like for me to post
> > > the breakfast menus for next week. ;-)
> > >
> > > Cheri
> >
> > Sure why not, be fun to see what they get!
>
> OK, here goes with the choices and all breakfasts come with a choice
> of 1% milk or non-fat chocolate milk.
>
> Monday-WOW soy butter and jelly sandwich, yogurt and fruit parfait
> with a whole grain rich cereal bar, fresh summer fruit, diced fruit.
>
> Tuesday-Whole grain rich white chocolate chip cranberry scone,
> sausage and cheese english muffin sandwich, fresh summer fruit,
> assorted fruit juices.
>
> Wednesday-Whole grain rich pancakes and pork link sausages, yogurt
> and fruit parfait with whole grain rich Gripz Grahams, fresh summer
> fruit, diced fruit
>
> Thursday-Whole wheat blueberry muffin with a cheese stick. Whole
> grain rich breakfast pizza, fresh summer fruit, assorted fruit juice.
>
> Friday-Toasted whole grain rich bagel with cream cheese and jelly,
> yogurt cup with whole grain rich oatmeal bar, fresh summer fruit,
> diced fruit.

Where do I sign up!

LOL, seriously,watching this conversation fact is left out is the
nominal level. Make just too much to qualify for aide (or when
Charlotte was younger, too stinkin' proud to take it and toughed it
through) or can afford the basics but no group purchase to make this
level.

I think the big gap here might be what time it is served and when the
kids actually get there by bus. You could get some sort of lunch back
in 1976-78 at HS but it was served before the bus got you there unless
you could walk in early or had someone drive you. Since gas isnt free,
such worked only for those who could walk in.

Carol

--

On 9/7/2014 8:36 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 10:17:17 -0400, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:12:00 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2014 5:43 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:06:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's not forget the whole John Edwards mess either...
>>>>
>>>> And don't forget St. Teddy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah...black sheep, etc...
>>
>> Wouldn't that be a racial slur?
>
>
> Yes, if I was the black sheep I would not like to be likened to him,
> most insulting!
>

Plus you'd need to be a really good swimmer to survive him...

On 9/7/2014 10:04 AM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:31:08 AM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:32:50 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:14:46 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On 9/6/2014 5:40 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> Here, you have to be pretty darned poor to qualify for free or reduced
>>
>>>>> lunches.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> So you have private sector assist and public?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No. Standards are high, but it's the honor - system so people can lie
>>
>>> about income and get a free meal. The question is why do they do it?
>>
>>> I remember when one of the wealthiest families in my city did that and
>>
>>> they got away with it on a yearly basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> Often they tire of supporting the parasites.
>
> The wealthy *ARE* the parasites. Julie isn't shit compared to super-rich
> ****s who similarly contribute little, but consume way, WAY more than our
> Miss White Trash.
>
> --Bryan
>
More ignorant and unevolved class warfare, what a surprise, not...

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 10:32:25 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Additionally, while the menu may read like it's some sort of gourmet
> > food - it's not. It is cooked off site and reheated, if the school
> > has the equipment to do it. The truth is that in most school
> > districts, it's more like prison food than home cooking. Think of the
> > worst cafeteria food you've ever eaten. It's worse.
>
> That's not true at all where I am. There are very few schools that don't
> have kitchens and the food is prepared daily. When I worked at the transport
> school, we did prepare and make 1200 or so lunches early in the morning that
> were transported to some of the other schools in the district that didn't
> have kitchens for lunch, plus snacks for the latchkey kids, and most of it
> was tasty. Also, in the past couple of years, the menus have improved
> greatly with a lot of choices that kids didn't used to have, including salad
> and soup bars.
>

Lucky you and lucky kids. The food is exactly how I described it in
the district where I live. You won't eat free food unless there is a
real need to.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:41:58 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

> On 9/7/2014 7:13 AM, sf wrote:
> >>
> > If not eating in the morning is due to parent apathy, then why make
> > children suffer even more? In any case, it sounds like you're calling
> > teenagers who have food in the house available to eat "kids". Sure
> > they might be eligible for the new food for all program, but they are
> > not the focus of this discussion. The teenagers you're talking about
> > made a choice to sleep and to not eat, the choice wasn't made for them
> > because their families couldn't afford to buy food.
> >
> > There is also a stigma to being eligible for a free food program, so I
> > can understand why the criteria was waved. Don't think that just
> > because "free" food is made available before the start of school that
> > they will suddenly choose to eat. That's not how teenagers work.
> > Additionally, while the menu may read like it's some sort of gourmet
> > food - it's not. It is cooked off site and reheated, if the school
> > has the equipment to do it. The truth is that in most school
> > districts, it's more like prison food than home cooking. Think of the
> > worst cafeteria food you've ever eaten. It's worse.
> >
> >
> The menu we read posted was impressive.

I take school menus with a grain of salt. It may look good on paper,
but what does it look and taste like in living person? I've seen too
much industrialized cr*p being served to think otherwise.
>
> The reality that Jamie Oliver found in his program on W. Virgina school
> food was appalling.

More the norm, I'm sure.
http://www.sfusd.edu/assets/sfusd-st...hool-lunch.pdf
I've seen these things in person. The reality is they are more like
an MRE than desirable food.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:19:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

> In the case of students whose parents are just lazy - after a certain
> number of "oops" meals - start billing them - game over.
>
> In the case of those who use the program each day, a brief interview
> with the parents or guardians and metrics on income level is sufficient.
>
> There are _always_ answers, if we have the objectivity to look for them.

Who is going to do all of this?


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 9/7/2014 12:10 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:41:58 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2014 7:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>> If not eating in the morning is due to parent apathy, then why make
>>> children suffer even more? In any case, it sounds like you're calling
>>> teenagers who have food in the house available to eat "kids". Sure
>>> they might be eligible for the new food for all program, but they are
>>> not the focus of this discussion. The teenagers you're talking about
>>> made a choice to sleep and to not eat, the choice wasn't made for them
>>> because their families couldn't afford to buy food.
>>>
>>> There is also a stigma to being eligible for a free food program, so I
>>> can understand why the criteria was waved. Don't think that just
>>> because "free" food is made available before the start of school that
>>> they will suddenly choose to eat. That's not how teenagers work.
>>> Additionally, while the menu may read like it's some sort of gourmet
>>> food - it's not. It is cooked off site and reheated, if the school
>>> has the equipment to do it. The truth is that in most school
>>> districts, it's more like prison food than home cooking. Think of the
>>> worst cafeteria food you've ever eaten. It's worse.
>>>
>>>
>> The menu we read posted was impressive.
>
> I take school menus with a grain of salt.

Touche!

> It may look good on paper,
> but what does it look and taste like in living person? I've seen too
> much industrialized cr*p being served to think otherwise.
>>
>> The reality that Jamie Oliver found in his program on W. Virgina school
>> food was appalling.
>
> More the norm, I'm sure.
> http://www.sfusd.edu/assets/sfusd-st...hool-lunch.pdf
> I've seen these things in person. The reality is they are more like
> an MRE than desirable food.
>
>
I suppose that like airline food there are packaging and presentation
economies of scale. That said, it sure reads as quite palatable.

I mean come on, I used to get fried fish sticks, sloppy joes, hot dogs,
some utter garbage when growing up.

This reads way better.

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:21:02 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The wealthy *ARE* the parasites. Julie isn't shit compared to super-rich
>
> > ****s who similarly contribute little, but consume way, WAY more than our
>
> > Miss White Trash.
>
>
>
> Read this and then discount it:
>
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm
>
This is the only thing that matters.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woe1/4745929712/
>
> There are many more examples if you can't look them up for yourself.

The system itself is set up so even when there was a very highly
progressive tax regime, the wealthy still ended up with far more
than their share of the pie.

What if the rules of the game were different? What if there were a
law that required that the lowest paid employee of any business to be
compensated at an hourly rate at no less than 1/20th the hourly
compensation of the highest paid employee (typically the CEO)?

What if dividends and short term capital gains were taxed at a higher
rate than wages and salaries? Or even an equal rate?##
What if sales of equities were subject to a national sales tax?
What if all wealth were taxed yearly, the way that real estate and
personal property are taxed?

What if we decided to make god damned ****ing SURE that everyone in
the USA who is willing to work is given that opportunity, and that
every worker is compensated well enough to afford decent housing,
decent food and decent health care?


## "The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man's life and it descends to his heirs."
--Andrew Mellon, Sec. of the Treasury under H. Hoover

--Bryan

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:14:15 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "sf" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:14:46 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> On 9/6/2014 5:40 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> > Here, you have to be pretty darned poor to qualify for free or reduced
>
> > >> > lunches.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> So you have private sector assist and public?
>
> > >
>
> > > No. Standards are high, but it's the honor - system so people can lie
>
> > > about income and get a free meal. The question is why do they do it?
>
> > > I remember when one of the wealthiest families in my city did that and
>
> > > they got away with it on a yearly basis.
>
> >
>
> > How can they lie? I think here we have to submit proof of income. I am not
>
> > positive on that as I have never tried to do it.
>
>
>
> Talking about unemployment and food stamps now. I worked with a guy
>
> that always went for that free stuff. He would lie about his income
>
> and get unemployment insurance often and also the food stamp thing.
>
> The unemployment claims were weekly but the food stamps (a card now)
>
> were good for 6 months once you got approved, no matter how much you
>
> made later.
>
>
>
> I told him that he could go to jail for this but he thinks, "No. they
>
> will only make you pay them back if you get caught." I don't agree.
>
> Problem is though that they don't have the funds to check up on all
>
> these claims so there are many that take advantage of the free money
>
> and many get away with it.
>
>
>
> This common abuse makes it bad for the people that really need the
>
> assistance.

I would have reported him. I was in a grocery line, I think 2 or 3 years
ago, and some guy offered to pay for my food with his card, then have me
pay him only half what it cost. I outed him in front of everyone around,
and he left the store.

The way I feel about SNAP is that foods should be restricted to disallow
soda pop, candy, etc. but that the program should be well funded. Fraud
should be treated as theft of Government property, and carry jail time
for a 2nd offense.

--Bryan

On 2014-09-07 9:13 AM, sf wrote:

>>> She was not 'sticking up for the parents' - she was advocating feeding
>>> hungry children !
>>>
>>
>>
>> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
>> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
>> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
>> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
>> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
>> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
>> don't care.
>>
> If not eating in the morning is due to parent apathy, then why make
> children suffer even more? In any case, it sounds like you're calling
> teenagers who have food in the house available to eat "kids". Sure
> they might be eligible for the new food for all program, but they are
> not the focus of this discussion. The teenagers you're talking about
> made a choice to sleep and to not eat, the choice wasn't made for them
> because their families couldn't afford to buy food.

I read back what I had written and I am having a hell of time finding
the word "teen" in there.

On 2014-09-07 9:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/7/2014 7:38 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:25:09 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>
>>>
>>> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
>>> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
>>> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
>>> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
>>> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
>>> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
>>> don't care.
>>>
>> So would you still not feed those kids ? Or would you feel it was
>> more important the kids belly be full than reasons why it might be
>> empty ?
>>
>> I can only reiterate, feed the child and in return have a more useful
>> adult.
>
> At what point does personal responsibility kick in? IMO, it goes back
> to poor parenting. Teach the kids from early years that you have to go
> to sleep at this time to get up at that time and be able to do what
> needs to be done, including breakfast.
>
> No, I'm not turning away a 6 or 8 year old that is hungry, but by junior
> year in HS, you should know better. Stop by the fridge and grab something.
>
>
>
Dammit Ed. How dare you suggest the use of common sense and expect
people to demonstrate personal responsibility.

On 2014-09-06 9:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> At 16 she is old enough to make her own breakfast. Also, at 16 she is
> more knowledgeable in everything in the world compared to than a parent.
>
> What I don't understand is school starting at 7:20. Our first class was
> 8:30 IIRC. Maybe things just started later in the city.
>


It is likely because of transportation issues. The school boards double
on the buses to help cut costs. Rather than having 100 buses and 100
drivers each doing a single route, they have them do double runs,
cutting the number of buses in half and giving the drivers enough hours
to make it worth while. Around here the high schools start early and
get out early. The buses do the high school runs and after dropping
those students off they do the elementary school runs. Then in the
afternoon they pick up the high school kids around 2:15 and drop them
off then go to the elementary schools for dismissal around 3:30.

On 9/7/2014 12:11 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:19:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> In the case of students whose parents are just lazy - after a certain
>> number of "oops" meals - start billing them - game over.
>>
>> In the case of those who use the program each day, a brief interview
>> with the parents or guardians and metrics on income level is sufficient.
>>
>> There are _always_ answers, if we have the objectivity to look for them.
>
> Who is going to do all of this?
>
>
It's not that difficult, just build off of existing architecture.

The mechanisms exists for so many other programs, model, implement,
complete.

On 9/7/2014 12:26 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:21:02 AM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The wealthy *ARE* the parasites. Julie isn't shit compared to super-rich
>>
>>> ****s who similarly contribute little, but consume way, WAY more than our
>>
>>> Miss White Trash.
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this and then discount it:
>>
>> http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm
>>
> This is the only thing that matters.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/woe1/4745929712/
>>
>> There are many more examples if you can't look them up for yourself.
>
> The system itself is set up so even when there was a very highly
> progressive tax regime, the wealthy still ended up with far more
> than their share of the pie.

They earn what they can, so?

> What if the rules of the game were different? What if there were a
> law that required that the lowest paid employee of any business to be
> compensated at an hourly rate at no less than 1/20th the hourly
> compensation of the highest paid employee (typically the CEO)?

What if it were discovered that you are some kind of raving Marxist moron?

> What if dividends and short term capital gains were taxed at a higher
> rate than wages and salaries?

You'd collapse a bunch of pension funds.

> Or even an equal rate?##

Same.

> What if sales of equities were subject to a national sales tax?

What if people left and invested elsewhere, even gold or platinum?

> What if all wealth were taxed yearly, the way that real estate and
> personal property are taxed?

You'd end up with a dead economy.

> What if we decided to make god damned ****ing SURE that everyone in
> the USA who is willing to work is given that opportunity, and that
> every worker is compensated well enough to afford decent housing,
> decent food and decent health care?

What if we liberated Iraq and Afghanistan and GAVE them democracy?

Yeah...that would happen...

On 9/7/2014 12:27 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> The way I feel about SNAP is that foods should be restricted to disallow
> soda pop, candy, etc. but that the program should be well funded. Fraud
> should be treated as theft of Government property, and carry jail time
> for a 2nd offense.
>
> --Bryan

Damn - from dreamer to commonsense in one post, what happened?

On 9/7/2014 12:49 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-09-07 9:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/7/2014 7:38 AM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2014 07:25:09 -0400, Dave Smith
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It was indicated in the articles I linked that one of reasons kids came
>>>> to school hungry was because they wanted to sleep later, so they didn't
>>>> have time to have breakfast. You guys seem to be under the impression
>>>> that the only reason the kids come to school is that they families
>>>> cannot afford them. Apparently, that is nor the case. It is more often
>>>> that the kids don't want to get up early enough to eat and the parent's
>>>> don't care.
>>>>
>>> So would you still not feed those kids ? Or would you feel it was
>>> more important the kids belly be full than reasons why it might be
>>> empty ?
>>>
>>> I can only reiterate, feed the child and in return have a more useful
>>> adult.
>>
>> At what point does personal responsibility kick in? IMO, it goes back
>> to poor parenting. Teach the kids from early years that you have to go
>> to sleep at this time to get up at that time and be able to do what
>> needs to be done, including breakfast.
>>
>> No, I'm not turning away a 6 or 8 year old that is hungry, but by junior
>> year in HS, you should know better. Stop by the fridge and grab
>> something.
>>
>>
>>
> Dammit Ed. How dare you suggest the use of common sense and expect
> people to demonstrate personal responsibility.
>
>
Shocking it is!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 10:32:25 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Additionally, while the menu may read like it's some sort of gourmet
>> > food - it's not. It is cooked off site and reheated, if the school
>> > has the equipment to do it. The truth is that in most school
>> > districts, it's more like prison food than home cooking. Think of the
>> > worst cafeteria food you've ever eaten. It's worse.
>>
>> That's not true at all where I am. There are very few schools that don't
>> have kitchens and the food is prepared daily. When I worked at the
>> transport
>> school, we did prepare and make 1200 or so lunches early in the morning
>> that
>> were transported to some of the other schools in the district that didn't
>> have kitchens for lunch, plus snacks for the latchkey kids, and most of
>> it
>> was tasty. Also, in the past couple of years, the menus have improved
>> greatly with a lot of choices that kids didn't used to have, including
>> salad
>> and soup bars.
>>
>
> Lucky you and lucky kids. The food is exactly how I described it in
> the district where I live. You won't eat free food unless there is a
> real need to.

That's really a shame and I imagine in the Bay Area with more population the
districts are also large? Here there is a fairly small district. There were
times in the early 90's that I thought the food was not all that great, but
it continued to improve and these days it pretty darned good according to
some students.


Cheri

Ed Pawlowski wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 9/6/2014 8:04 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > Agree. Some people might consider me lazy too because I don't
> > work. I also don't cook breakfast for my kid. She is 16 now and I
> > generally leave breakfast and lunch up to her. She's old enough.
> > When she was younger, she had no interest in cooked breakfasts. I
> > might make pancakes once in a while for a snack or dinner. There
> > was no time in the morning to do that. I would sometimes make
> > things like bagels or muffins and put them in the freezer. But she
> > really didn't even want those either. For the longest time, all I
> > could get her to eat in the morning was baby carrots. So... Fine!
>
> First, a stay at home mom is more important than working outside the
> home. That is far from lazy. Taking care of your kid(s) is a
> difficult job.
>
> At 16 she is old enough to make her own breakfast. Also, at 16 she
> is more knowledgeable in everything in the world compared to than a
> parent.
>
> What I don't understand is school starting at 7:20. Our first class
> was 8:30 IIRC. Maybe things just started later in the city.

Hi Ed,

Here they use the same bus drivers in 3 rounds to save money on busses
and provide real hours of income to the bus drivers. The grades start
at staggard hours to accomodate for that. There is a set of elementary,
Middle school and High school.

If I remember right, the HS leaves earliest, middle next then
elementary. The hours per day are not the same so they come back in
reverse order except the middle school and HS come back on the same bus.



--

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 1:58:24 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>
> It is likely because of transportation issues. The school boards double
>
> on the buses to help cut costs. Rather than having 100 buses and 100
>
> drivers each doing a single route, they have them do double runs,
>
> cutting the number of buses in half and giving the drivers enough hours
>
> to make it worth while. Around here the high schools start early and
>
> get out early. The buses do the high school runs and after dropping
>
> those students off they do the elementary school runs. Then in the
>
> afternoon they pick up the high school kids around 2:15 and drop them
>
> off then go to the elementary schools for dismissal around 3:30.

Here, they do it the sensible way. The elementary school (2-6th) starts
and ends earlier, and the early childhood (pre-K-1st) and middle/high
(7-12th) start later.