*sighs*

[conuly]

A quick run-down of some of the comments here....

Oh, I was soooo upset, my school gives out free food on weekends to poor families, and once when school was closed for the snow they sent out text messages and gave the food out anyway, and I can't believe these people can afford cell phones but not food, and they can come in for handouts but not school! LOL!

1. It's not as though the parents make the decision to close schools, you twit. In fact, I bet a lot of them were upset that they had to take an unpaid day off of work to stay with their kids, or else they had to scramble to find childcare because they couldn't take the day off.

2. If you don't make many calls, cell phones can be cheaper than landlines. And if you have to pick just one or the other, it makes sense to go with cell phones, especially if you're looking for work, because you can get that "Come in for an interview!" call wherever you are.

3. Also, you may be eligible for a free cell phone for just this reason.

Oh, gosh, if I only had $100 to spend for the month, you can bet that feeding my kid would be my priority!

Well, goody for you. Meanwhile, if you get kicked out because you didn't pay the rent, or you don't get that new job because you don't have a phone to answer calls, I hope you still have that $100 next month.

I mean, if I had only $100, and I had to feed kids and handle every other bill that had to be paid, yeah, I'd take advantage of free options here. Because I think there are a LOT of things kids need. Like a roof over their head, running water, heat, and clothes that fit.

These kids would be better off hungry than eating food that's been near plastic.

You're a loon. That is all.

These breakfasts suck! I'm going to talk to you about my wonderful breakfast! Why can't the schools serve my wonderful breakfast instead???

Because... we don't want... to pay more taxes to afford this? Or was that a rhetorical question?

This breakfast is unhealthy.

No argument here.

OMG, what sort of person has kids if they can't feed them? It never occurred to me that people might do that!

1. The sort of person who can't afford birth control.
2. The sort of person who doesn't realize how tight their budget is going to be after children.
3. The sort of person who realizes they'll never have much money, and wants kids anyway. Admittedly not the choice I'd make, but I'm not quite comfortable with telling people not to have kids.
4. Most commonly, the sort of person who could afford to feed their kids, and now can't. Apparently, in this person's perfect world, nobody ever loses their job or suffers catastrophic medical bills or loses their home to some sort of disaster.

Wow, can't they buy $25 worth of rolled oats? In bulk at Walmart, that's 25 pounds! Unless it's a lot to carry home on the bus...

Or unless they don't have $25 upfront, and have to pay twice as much (or more) over the course of several months instead, or unless their kids don't like oatmeal but will eat school breakfast (again, not necessarily the choice I'd make, but a valid one), or unless they have no place to store these oats, or unless they choose not to support Walmart because Walmart underpays its workers, thus contributing to the problem of poverty. They say beggars can't be choosers, but that's not actually true.

I can't believe people buy their kids new shoes! And cable! When they're poor!

Yes, heaven forbid your children have shoes that fit and don't have holes. As for cable, that can cost as little as $15 a month. Sure, it's an unnecessary expense, but really? That $15 a month is probably not going to provide breakfast for two children, for the whole month.

Now, I do have a question about free lunch/breakfast, which is why parents can't opt to just get the money that would've paid for their kids food, possibly in the form of food stamps. The government reimburses schools $2.76 for each free lunch bought... uh, served. Even if we count that some of that is the cost of trays and forks and lunch ladies and all, some of that money could go directly to the families instead, couldn't it, thus allowing more choices.

Comments

[siderea]

Cell phones are FREE for the indigent. They are provided for exactly this sort of purpose.

[conuly]

I knew there was a program like this! Thanks, I'll edit my post and also comment there with this information.

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawksdGuaNEqp78hJAL-W6CMVC13KargQxVw]

I liked "This is ridiculous and one of the reasons why I don't want to send my kid to a public school. My kid is one of those that WOULD get a breakfast at home -- and I really don't want him eating two breakfasts, like you said kids in your class do.

Because we wouldn't be recipients of free lunch, I have a different perspective that I don't see voiced a lot. I think if your kid refuses the free breakfast, says he eats at home, he sets himself apart from the rest of the class BY class. Is there no fear of the "rich kid" stigma?

What do kids who don't eat the free breakfast do during this time? Sit and watch the other kids? Nothing?"

I don't read comments on things unless I am directed to. I rely on you to do so for me. That should be your cutline, somewhere: Reading the regrettable since 19xx.

[conuly]

Wait, before we have any conversation here, just so we're on the same page:

When you say you like that comment, do you mean you agree with it, or that it's particularly appalling?

feebeeglee

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawksdGuaNEqp78hJAL-W6CMVC13KargQxVw]

Oh, I think it's repulsive.

Re: feebeeglee

[conuly]

That's a relief! Sometimes English can be so unclear.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

Now, I do have a question about free lunch/breakfast, which is why parents can't opt to just get the money that would've paid for their kids food, possibly in the form of food stamps.

Because then the government would be giving them money that they might spend on drugs! or alcohol! or cigarettes! or any other things that aren't FOOD!

The thinking is probably "If we do it this way, we guarantee the kids are getting fed. If we give money to their parents, the parents aren't required to spend that money buying food." (I don't know how food stamps work; we don't have them here.)

Sometimes, too, it's cheaper to pay the organization to provide the meals, because they can get the food in bulk (and have the means to transport it, too.) So more people are being fed for the same amount of money.

[conuly]

Food stamps are in the form of... like a debit card. It only works on approved items, not on anything else. So if you load your cart up with alcohol and three apples, the card will only pay for the apples and you'll have to get drunk off your own money, such as it is.

[strega42.livejournal.com]

Short answer: The kinds of people who are on food stamps have historically been poorly educated and unlikely to actually spend that money on their kids. Or are unlikely to get up and feed their kids any breakfast, let alone a healthy one.


Also, by having free breakfasts at school, the children (especially the older kids) are much more likely to actually show up, which decreases truancy.

Of course, I'm not saying this is true of all - or most - people on public assistance. The bureaucratic perception is that this is true, however, and it's true of *enough* people on assistance that having the policy in place is generally beneficial for the largest number of people.

Also, school breakfasts may be crap, but they're healthy when compared to PopTarts. There's a large enough segment of the welfare population that thinks that's a healthy or adequate breakfast for kids to justify the state wanting that kind of control.

...hope that makes sense. Still waking up. :-p

[conuly]

Also, school breakfasts may be crap, but they're healthy when compared to PopTarts.

Au contraire, many schools give Pop-Tarts for breakfast. Or (shudder) Froot Loops with Strawberry Milk.

[strega42.livejournal.com]

Wow. Then they've changed it significantly since my kids were on free breakfast - or there's a difference in state regulations about breakfast.

Yikes.

[conuly]

There may be a difference in state regulations, or your kids may have been going to a school with a great program.

Also, don't forget that national regulations are atrocious. Like, two different grains must be served at lunch... so kids will be given a burger with a cookie to make up that second grain, or beans with rice, and with bread on the side.

We've got to get the lobbyists out of the nutritional standards, and out of the goddamn school lunch menus.

[erisiansaint]

Food stamps money, as conuly said, is in the form of a debit card. It only pays for component food, cold food or frozen food. So, if you want hot food from the deli, like chicken strips, you're SOL, use your own money, but once those chicken strips get packed and put in a cold food case, they're fine. Some farmers' markets also take food stamps. (The local one does.) But they'll take however much off that card and give it to you in the form of chits that will ONLY pay for fruits and vegetables, no meals.

I will, however, agree that 2.76 will go a lot farther per person when you're making food in bulk.

[conuly]

Actually, a lot of people don't know this, but food stamps can also pay for vegetable seeds for your garden, or for spices.

I will, however, agree that 2.76 will go a lot farther per person when you're making food in bulk.

Indeed, but they cut corners all around at the same time.

[redbird]

Or because the only job the parent can find to pay the bills is a shift that means they have to wake the kids, say "I love you," and dash out the door.

Also, I think the school breakfast and lunch programs come in part from an observation that a lot of children just weren't eating at home, or bringing lunch with them: if the food is right there at a time they have to be at school, they're more likely to eat it. Nobody has to decide "do I get up ten minutes earlier to make my kids breakfast?" and it's one less thing to have to shop for. (One thing I've read about and approve of, which I gather isn't very common, is districts that dropped all eligibility rules. Everyone gets a free breakfast, the same way everyone gets taught to read. So, no lists or discount cards, and nobody visibly sorting students by whether they're poor enough to get free breakfasts. The purpose of such programs shouldn't be to create clerical jobs.)

[conuly]

Well, in most schools that still use the forms (and I agree, it just makes SENSE to assume all kids deserve to eat), they've come up with all sorts of ways to hide who is in what category, such as having parents prepay and kids just swipe a card which doesn't indicate to anybody whether they paid full, half, or nothing for their meal.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I would have loved that if they did that in high school during hoemroom. (Homeroom was after first period. I didn't go to first period, as you didn't have to if you didn't have a class, but you had to go to homeroom). I stopped eating breakfast in high school as my mom stopped being willing to wake up early to make it for me under the acceptable reasoning that I was old enough to do it myself, but I wasn't a good enough cook and I just plain didn't have the time. I was too sleep deprived. If someone had been willing to give me something I would eat, anything I would eat, on a regular basis it would have really helped. Even if it only were on some days of the week (I was a very picky eater). Our cafeteria had these not very good bagels with butter, which aren't great nutritionally, but I bet it was far better for me than eating nothing. Money was not the issue, but I went to school with no food a lot of the time, and my high school journal from the English classes that required we keep one is a constant, boring litany of me commenting on how tired and hungry I am (interspersed with other things, but when I reread it I was surprised at just how much of it is me talking about being tired and hungry). Any food, even empty calories would likely have been better.

It was really bad the semester or year (I forget) that I had no lunch period for scheduling reasons. And my study hall teacher wouldn't let me eat in study hall even if I brought food in. (Which I am still angry about, that was so stupid. On two counts. One that I couldn't eat in study hall during fourth period even though I told her I had no lunch period. Two that they made me take study hall because I had no class fourth period, but wouldn't let me leave school and go home for the period. Because lunch periods are only fifth, sixth, or seventh period. If you have any of those free you may leave school during them. If you have two of them free, you may leave school for more than one of them. Have fourth period free and no lunch period and you don't get to eat all day.) (I can hold a grudge for decades.)

But an in-school breakfast would have really helped. As a time issue. I'd have been okay paying for it. I could have gotten the money. But I had no way to get one that I knew of as I wasn't financially needy. Just tired and hungry.

[redbird]

I stay away from discussions like that because I'd just be posting "Why do you like hurting poor children?" and trying to keep my blood pressure down.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

If I had only $100 to spend for the month, my first priority would be not getting evicted, and my second priority would be having water and heat. You can get food at soup kitchens or food pantries or hell, dumpster-diving behind grocery stores if it comes to that. Can't find apartments or hot water in a dumpster.

As for unhealthy breakfasts, I suppose we could just have the schools cook up big pots of oatmeal every morning all Dickens-style, which would serve the intended purpose and also be completely humiliating.

[conuly]

1. Which is pretty much what I said on my comment there. No matter how much or little money you have, you gotta pay the rent. Let everything else slide, shiver all month if you must, but you gotta pay the rent. I don't know how some people don't get that.

2. Well, I'll have you know that *my* oatmeal I make in a big pot is darn yummy. And I really do act astonished that they dare ask for more! But that's not the oats talking, it's the fruit and sugar.

Hey, I *LIKE* oatmeal.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

(Why is it humiliating to be handed a bowl of oatmeal but not a cheeseburger?)

Can't find apartments or hot water in a dumpster.

We don't have hot water in our house either, we have to heat it on the stove.

Re the original post:

I can't believe these people can afford cell phones but not food

Conuly has it right--my phone cost me $29 to purchase and $10 a month. Can't buy much food for that, asshats.

As for cable, that can cost as little as $15 a month.

Not here. It's a minimum of $29 a month, which is why we don't have it. (I did, however, get a pair of NEW sneakers yesterday--for the first time since 2006--and anyone who tells me I'm not entitled to them since I'm poor is going to get one across the chops.)

Re: Hey, I *LIKE* oatmeal.

[conuly]

Yeah, $15 a month for basic cable sounded really cheap to me, but apparently it *is* an option in some areas. So says Google.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Pretty much word to all of this, yep!

[leora.livejournal.com]

With who has kids and can't afford them... watching this play out personally and being a bit worried and hoping things will improve financially for the person I know. I think part of it is her strong religious faith she's always had. I think she truly believes God will provide and won't put her in a situation that she can't handle. She's always had a faith in God.

It really worries me, but telling someone, "Stop believing in God, because it really seems like it's leading you into a problematic situation" never works. Also, at this point, it's too late and will make no difference. So, I just hope it will all work out well. At least she has family that will step in and make sure her kids are okay, so it's unlikely to get too bad. She's a very caring mom. They're just in a terrible financial situation. So, if they can get things working financially, it should be okay. It's just going to be very hard for them.

It also doesn't help that she was in a social situation where having children young and poor was what all her friends were doing. So, it seemed normal, and she did honestly want to have kids. She's a very loving, caring mom. It's hard to fight a strong biological urge to reproduce when it might be better to delay it when the people around you in your social group are reproducing and you want to do so.

Honestly, I wonder whether or not her path isn't better than mine. I wanted to have kids and put it off as I was told it was the right thing to do. Now I don't know if I'll ever get to. If I had done so when I was young, it'd have been difficult, but I'd likely have managed, and I'd have had kids. If you put things off for the future, sometimes you never get to do them. If it's really important to you, how long is it safe to delay?

And if I had had kids, I might even have run less risk of becoming disabled. *sighs* (Of course, it'd have meant doing so with a partner at the time, which isn't anyone I was going to end up wanting to stay with in the long-term, but I'm friends with all my exes, and you can raise a child with someone without needing to keep the romantic bond. I think that could have worked out okay. In fact, that ex is currently in a relationship where the biggest issue for whether it will last afaik is that she doesn't want to have kids and he's trying to decide if he's okay never having kids, so it might have been a better solution for both of us.)