Free lunch program views: agree or disagree?

Question

1st off, I am not making fun of or criticizing anybody who gets social services. I know many people who do and I am best friends with.

2nd here is what I think: when I was in elementary school, to be on free lunch was the most embarassing thing, it was a sign of being poor, and you were often called poor. Now I do not live in a rich or poor area, my town is right in the middle, but the free lunch rate at our high school is 58%. But what i wonder about is I see many kids on free lunch wearing $120 Air Force Ones or $80 basketball jerseys or sweaters. I am wondering what is happening. I am not criticizing anyone, but I believe soon, school lunches will be paid for by taxpayers, would you agree?

and does the expense from the free lunches come out of Local Taxes, State Taxes, or by raising the lunch cost for everybody else

I am doing a report in my economics class about the various social services, and why they need reforms.

Answer 1

They didn't have free lunches when I went to school. When it did start it was a horrible embarrassment to admit you needed the help. The requirements were much stricter then. It was 1 meal. Lunch. Now they have breakfast too. My mother worked in the cafeteria and was there through the changes. She said more food is thrown out by the people getting the free food. (Of course if it's as bad as it used to be I can't be too surprised. ) We all got the same thing. There wasn't choices, or salad bars ,or fix your own taco day etc. There are people that need it and there are plenty just taking it because it's free. I would never begrudge a child a meal so I'm glad they have the program.....I just hate to see it abused.

Answer 2

Peer pressure in school is so much worse than it was in my day. Today a kid may not have much but he absolutely has to have a nice pair of shoes. While my own children go through 3-6 pairs every year ; many of these kids only get the one. It is hard enough to be a poor kid in school and if a pair of shoes can give them some pride then why not let them have it. As for the meals ; if it weren't for the free lunch many of them wouldn't get a meal at all and that would happen with or without the name brand shoes. I frequently feed kids at my house on weekends and it is always shocking to me to hear how many of them never know when their next meal is going to come so they have to make whatever they get last as long as possible. What I hate are the ones that receive the social services but spend money on cigarettes. Which ultimately rolls over into the medicare arena.
Also, if you are a savvy shopper those same shoes you mentioned above can be purchased for less than a hundred dollars. I have personally bought Nike's , Reebox, Addidas, for less than 40 bucks at Hibbetts in 4 different states. FootLocker often has the buy one pair of "name brand" shoes and get the second free or 1/2 off. I make it a habit never to buy jerseys during the holiday season and to get them in February. The same shirts that cost 120- 160 bucks can be bought for 30- 40 dollars. The children sizes are even cheaper. I once bought 6 NBA jerseys for 20 dollars a piece. Anyway, you get the point. While many do "milk" the system; there are those that desperately need it . I for one am not willing to sacrifice the program because of it.

Answer 3

First, the free lunch program is administered by USDA, so it is neither local or state taxes, but federal.

Second, the reason for some kids having the outfits you describe could be because of being gifts from other than immediate family.

Third, your statement "... , school lunches will be paid for by taxpayers, would you agree?" If you are meaning ALL school lunches, no, because the program is geared toward responses from parents about their financial situation given at the beginning of the school year. Here is Virginia, their is a little form parents fill out, that is taken back in to school to be considered.

By the way, I don't see a problem if school lunches (or breakfasts) were provided free. It would take away the stigma that you admitted to being embarrassed about by being among those receiving free lunches.

The biggest drain on social services that I have seen comes from those who specifically request working fewer hours so they can maintain eligibility, and therefore pull money from those who truly need it just because they can get it by being lazy.

Answer 4

This goes on all the time not just for free lunches. Those that get help then take their money that they earn or from there welfare checks and use it for things that are not necessities like Nike shoes, alcohol, cigarettes, X-Box and such.
This is one reason I stopped providing Chirstmas gifts for a local headstart school. These were supposed to be poor kids. I would buy about 100 gifts and wrap them up and offer a party and the gifts would be for all the kids in the family. They would give me the ages and first names. Then on party day, the kids would open the gift and whine about the item they got or throw it on the floor or cry like a baby. I bought good items like dolls, trucks, Legos, and such. I would say only about 25% truly appreciated it. Even the parents were rude. After 15 years I quit. I could not stand to see this anymore.
The free lunches are given out of the school budget and then they get reimbursed from Federal Govt (tax money). They do have guidelines they must follow.

I think we should be helping the truly needy. I am sick and tired of parents getting drunk and smoking (costs big money) when the kids are starving and have no toys or necessities. How selfish.

Good Luck on your Project

Answer 5

As far as I know the free lunches are already paid by taxpayers and have been for years. I don't know if different school districts have different criteria for determining school lunch programs but I believe free/reduced lunches are paid for in part by state taxes and possibly local property taxes. Twenty years ago I qualified for free lunches and back then there was no stigma associated with it. As for the fancy schmany clothing, it's irritating as heck but unfortunately common. I had a friend in high school whose family qualified for free lunches/food stamps/and everything inbetween but every member of her family had a brand new leather trenchcoat for Christmas one year.
As an add: I have worked in various school districts contracting therapy services and have heard in every school that the lunch program is such a money maker....I could never figure out why but have never asked the specifics, would be interesting to find out.
Good luck on your report.

Answer 6

Yeah, even into high school, some kids are embarassed at having either reduced or free lunch meals. I think it's a good idea, but it needs tweaked a bit. People who can definetely afford the lunch, are getting by paying them free. The major problem I see is that the school likes that they're students get either free or reduced. Becaue the state gives them more money than the student would be paying for the actual meals.

Answer 7

Social programs are nothing more than an extension of slavery. The safety net given by the government -- by the tax payers actually fosters and encourages the belief that they deserver the assistance. Ultimately you end up with a huge generational trend of government aid. The aid you speak of, is paid out by the federal (and state) government. It kind of skirts the issue of "State's Rights."
Part of the social problem is that if you don't get these kids onto a program like the free lunch deal, they grow up bitter and angry. They tend to not go in a positive direction with society. So the answer is, if the parents "qualify," and want the assistance, they should be required to attend a money management seminar and then have their family finances scrutinized. Sounds kind of like the former Union Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't it? At what point do "We the People" tell the government (and our neighbors) to butt out of our personal lives? I don't feel that I should be required to assist someone who is not going to spend "his/her" money in a manner that I feel would be more productive. Should I need assistance, then I should also expect those with a proven track record of success to make suggestions, offe advice and teach me how to do it better. If you want my help, then you will get ALL of my help, not just the part that you think you want. There's nothing "Free" about free. It's supposed to be, give him a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Instead, it turns out to be, give a bum five dollars and he'll probably buy more alcohol. Hand him a meal and watch him get mad.

Answer 8

Yes, some people really need it. but I do see kids at my school wearing Hollister and Abercrombie getting a free DOUBLE lunch(that's twice the amount of food).And also, a boy in my grade has a large family and has always been on free lunch. He had five brothers and siters.Recently, his family is not up to their 7 child!!! After they were already recieving free lunches for al ltheir kids and free instruments and such. That is ridiculus! In situations like that...how many kids is too many for taxes to pay for?

Answer 9

our government handling money responsibly is like a one armed man trying to juggle. They suck! They throw money at anything and everything, and whine about not having any and then want more taxes. You should not try to figure this out you will just bust a blood vessel. Just know that it happens. I am really suprised our government has not folded long before now. If everyone here handled money the way the gov. does we would all be using rocks for currency, and it still wouldn't buy sh#t!

Answer 10

There are several people who need & deserve free or reduced lunches. But I do have a neighbor who is quite wealthy but boasts about the fact that she lied & gets free lunches for her kids. I think it's like the welfare system, some people really need help but there are others who don't & take advantage. I myself am eligable to recieve welfare but I have a great family who helps me so I would rather that the money that I could recieve to go to someone whose family can't help them.