tosie (anonymous) says...

I'm really tired of hearing about all the free lunches, etc being provided. It's frustrating that people like me and my family work hard & our hard earned money is what ends up paying for all that free stuff. If you can't afford for your child to eat then don't have children! It's as easy as that.

May 23, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Absolute (anonymous) says...

And what do you suppose we do with the children who are born to these parents? Just let them go hungry because their parents can't afford to feed them?

May 23, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

No - it's not the kids fault, I am just saying that the parents need to wise up and if they can't afford to feed a child then stop having them....

May 23, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hartford (anonymous) says...

Where does it say only low income kids eat for free? The article says ALL children 18 years and younger eat free. And I agree with Absolute, this is for the kids. They should have the opportunity to eat regardless of their income status. I think the purpose for this is to give all the kids the chance to eat. Some kids will be all alone most of the day while their parents are working. Daycare is expensive, but I assume most kids that are not able to fend for themselves will be watched by someone, I hope!
And tosie, it is easy to say quit having kids. But this is providing for the kids that are here already. And I know a few wealthy people who shouldn't have had kids either. It doesn't take money to make a good parent.

May 23, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

I'm just an old-fashioned retired geezer who remembers "the good days" when it was the parent's responsibility to feed and clothe their children, not the state, or school district, or federal government. That was back before liberalism became so popular and bearing children out of wedlock became the accepted norm subsidized by billions of taxpayer dollars.

I have no major problem with the program, however. Children should not be made to suffer for the mistakes and ignorance of their irresponsible parents. Of course, I would like to know what this program costs, where the funds come from, and be assured the meals are fed oonly to legal residents of Kansas and the U.S. Otherwise, sounds good.

May 23, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

If we can't feed our children, we should all just give up now.

Who cares what the cost is? Does your job & income affect what a child has for breakfast? No. Should it? No. You go hungry for a week & tell me how acceptable it is for you.

No child should ever go hungry....last I checked, not a single one (regardless of income) asked to be here. They just get to live with our circumstances.

Pathetic that people question feeding children.

Melissa

May 23, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Parent(usually just one) buy chips beer and other crap with $$$ and use food stamps to feed the kids. They should be tared and feathered!

May 23, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slipandslide (anonymous) says...

the lunchs are not income based, any kid under 18 can eat. my neighbor kids go to the school for lunch during the summer and why? both parents are at work.

May 23, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Absolute (anonymous) says...

Only children who have a legal resident status should be fed?? That is the most bizarre thing I have heard today!

A child is a child, no matter what mistakes their parents have made or what their resident status is.

No child deserves to go hungry. Shame on you Bj!

May 23, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Absolute: You are right. Shame on me. I take that part back. An innocent child should not suffer even if it's parents are illegal alien criminals feeding off of our social services and government handouts like fat kids on free donuts. The children are innocent and need to be taken care of. I stand corrected.

May 24, 2008 at 12:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mylife (anonymous) says...

I don't comment much, but this conversation is ticking me off a little. When I was born my mother had plenty of money to take care of us. Because of some life circumstances, our family fell on some very hard times and my brother and I ate those lunches in the summertime for a while. As an adult, I am very thankful looking back at these programs and what they did for us. I am very upset that some of these posts are stating that you are "tired" of paying for all this. Don't punish the children. And don't punish the parents who are trying...some people just fall on hard times. That's why these programs exist. Even if the parent is a "deadbeat" IT IS NOT THE CHILD'S FAULT!!! Shame on some of these comments. I hope you never have to fall on hard times like this.

May 24, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

You are right. Take care of the kids and "fallen on hardtimes parents". But what about the parent who sits at home eating chips and beer while playing a lottery ticket. Put 'em in jail?

May 24, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

equalrights (anonymous) says...

wow. These comments make me ashamed to be a human. I can't believe some of the statements. Greedy people. Judgemental people. Wow.

May 24, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Some of you people should be embarassed to call yourselves American.

The federal government created this program for ALL children because it recognizes how a good breakfast can provide a good jump start to the day, especially in young ones who are learning. So much more is involved than just calories. Ever think of that?

Some are not eating breakfast for whatever the reason, but some are not eating because they live in homes hit hard by poverty. Notice that the federal government does not determine who can eat and who can't. EVERY CHILD GETS TO EAT.

We should be celebrating this good idea to feed all the children. I'm glad to see my tax dollars put to this good use. BUY BREAD, NOT BOMBS AND BULLETS!!!

May 24, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

equalrights (anonymous) says...

create- I agree 100%. I'm glad to see my tax dollars put to this use as well. This is an investment into our future, unlike bombs and bullets!!!

May 24, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slipandslide (anonymous) says...

there are alot more kids going to summer school because of nclb so this gives them breakfast and lunch when they have summer school and helps the ones who have working parents. the lunches are not only for poor kids, if that were the case, the lunches would be income based not age based. ever try to find daycare in the summer for school aged kids who are not old enough to cook for themselves? it very difficult to find daycare and that providing that the family can afford it.

May 24, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Children should be taken care of. Free lunch/breakfast is fine but if parent is a "sit on your ass" person they should be held accountable.

May 24, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

"Buy bread, not bombs and bullets?" Had our past generations believed that, we would either still be paying tribute to the King or speaking Japanese or German. Bread won't keep our nation free and safe. Bombs and bullets will. I remember when charity was a good thing and Socialism was bad. Times do change.

May 25, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

equalrights (anonymous) says...

It just blows my mind that there are people who truly believe that they are 'more deserving' then others. As if working harder, having more money, etc can mean that you are a better human and are entitled to certain things. That is what is wrong with the human race. No person should go hungry; especially a child.

May 25, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Bj, my point is that we pay big bucks for armament, yet squawk about buying breakfast for American kids. That is absurd! If we are willing to fund a war in a country thousands of miles away, shouldn't we at least be willing to buy breakfast for our own kids? Why can't we do both?

I am a nationalist, and just because I support buying breakfast for our kids does not make me a socialist, mister, and I resent that you implied that I am one!!!

We spent billions on bombs and bullets + 58,000 lives in Vietnam before we pulled out. I'm still speaking English so I don't buy your German/Japanese stance.

I would like to think that America is a country that can cherish its place in the world BECAUSE of our willingness to be charitable. I can't believe we would stoop to denying a child something to eat.

Yes, charity is a good thing, but charity falls short -- who or what is going to take up the slack? Don't be absurd; charity couldn't possibly support a breakfast program of this immensity, not even for one tiny town like Emporia. Look at the big picture! Again I say that I am happy that my tax dollars are funding this program so that American children can study on a full stomach.

May 25, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

UserName (anonymous) says...

I wonder how many of the kids who are going to participate in this program actually come from homes where the parents are "sit on your ass" kinda people.

I also wonder how many of the kids who are going to participate in this program come from homes who also "work hard & our hard earned money is what ends up paying for all that free stuff".

There are lots of reasons someone may need to participate in this program, and not all of those reasons are due to laziness.

May 25, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hartford (anonymous) says...

equalrights:

Well said! I agree 100%

May 25, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I think the question of real need has to be asked.

I think the program is very appropriate for the needy, and there are a lot of very needy people here in Emporia. We have a responsibility to help them.

But I can't tell from the original piece whether or not this is a program targeted toward the needy or if it is program open to all Emporia families.

I suppose it could be argued that we all need something to eat, but I'm not sure that it means that we have a collective obligation to feed the children of those who make more than $100K per year. For example, I think that Matt Zimmerman is a nice guy. I think he's doing a good job. But, if he has children, I don't feel that it is the public's duty to give them two meals a day.

As I said I think it's entirely appropriate to help those in need. I just don't think that every child in this city fits into that category. If the program is targeted to need, then I'm fine with it. If it isn't, I think it would be best to modify it to meet the real need.

May 25, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

net, you said it better than I. Have another donut.

May 25, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, I'm not disagreeing with you about the basis of need; however, sit in a school setting for a minute where a bunch of kids are standing in the cafeteria line. How will you distinguish the child in need from the child who isn't? Are we now tagging kids? Who makes that decision? Is the school system going to have to look at payroll stubs?

I remember when my granddaughter was fed a peanut butter sandwich for lunch because her stupid father kept forgetting to send in money to pay for her lunch ticket. You think she didn't feel bad? You think the other kids didn't tease her? You think I didn't come unglued about singling kids out like that? That school doesn't do that anymore.

I still approve of this breakfast program, something ALL children need. Regardless of financial status, a lot of kids run off to school without breakfast anyway. This gives every kid a chance to eat the breakfast they need.

May 25, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Create

I disagree

These types of programs can be means tested. I fully support helping those without the financial means to do so. But I cannot fully support a program that amounts to governmnet or the school district becoming the Nanny for the entire city. If people have the financial means to feed their children it is their responsibility to do so.

Let's take the Matt Zimmerman hypotethical. Everyone, including low income families pay taxes. I don't think it should be the responsibility of a familty with limited income to support families with more than adequate means to take care of their families. I think at some point, those with the means to pay for these meals could easily pay for them. All it would take is a means test. In such a case I would assume that a family with over $100K in income could find it in their hearts to send their kids with the money to pay for the meal.

If that makes me a hearltess brute, so be it. I just think it would be much wiser for the program to support those with real need.

May 25, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Create: Well said, my friend. I don't agree with anything you said, but you said it well. I would much prefer to see my considerable tax contributions used to create jobs and job training programs that would enable parents to earn enough money to provide meals for their own children. Having the masses share the wealth is socialism. This program reeks of socialism. I don't believe the liberal theory that "it takes a village to raise a child." It doesn't. It takes caring, loving, responsible parents to raise a child and we have far too few of them in our society.

May 25, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

equalrights (anonymous) says...

well said kstrebuchet!

May 26, 2008 at 12:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Well said, Tre.

Here's where you and I part company, Netloafer. "If people have the financial means to feed their children it is their responsibility to do so." And BJ, "It takes caring, loving, responsible parents to raise a child and we have far too few of them in our society." You know what? In theory, you are both correct. In reality, it just doesn't happen that way.

When my kids were still teens, my husband had already passed on so we were a one-parent family. I was always feeding someone else's kids. Always! Rare was the evening when we sat down to only three dinner plates. I just always cooked for more and stretched. I NEVER ONCE complained about what it cost me, or that those kids should go home to eat. I was always happy that at least my own kids were at my table, and not out going hungry at suppertime. I was happy to share what we had. And you know what? Those kids always used to help clean up the supper dishes too. They could have gone home I suppose, but they didn't . Most of them came from average to above average homes, howcum their parents weren't feeding them?

Not long ago, my granddaughter was visiting and one of her friends was with her. "Can Janie stay for supper?" she asked. Sure. I didn't ask if Janie's folks could afford to feed the kid, or why Janie's folks didn't seem to care that she was out at suppertime. I just set out another plate. That's the microcosm. The macrocosm is breakfast for millions, and like I said before, I don't mind my tax dollars being spent for that.

May 26, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Create, my dear, you are so right! You just totally confirmed what I said in my earlier posts above. I said "charity is a good thing" and "charity begins at home". That's exactly what you just said and have so generously demonstrated in the past. I am all for that, support it, and do it. Good for you. What I don't condone are government handouts using our tax money, especially wide-ranging ones that smack of socialism. Our society is rich in private charities that fulfull the needs of those hungry or needy. Leave charity to the private sector. I don't even condone, and would eliminate, our national welfare system except for those confirmed as medically incapable of earning a living. We are now entering our fourth generation of welfare families in the US---entire families that have never worked a day in their lives. They grew up on welfare, had more kids (each by a different father) to earn more welfare money, and when those kids reached puberty they perpetuated the cycle by going on welfare and having more illegitimate kids. Welfare doesn't subsidize poverty; it creates it! I would cut that scam off tomorrow and the deadbeat abusers could go to work, starve, or call the Salvation Army. Hardcore and heartless? Perhaps: but "politically correct" and socially right are often two different things.

May 26, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

BJ...very very well said! More of the same will not put people back on their feet with pride

May 26, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Create

I've done the very things you talk about. Our home is often filled with guests and we're glad to have them. But there's a difference here. I could only imagine the chaos if people, particularly those with more than adeuqate means, started showing up at my house saying, "The city commission or USD 253 sent me to your place and told me that I've got to feed you."

There's not much else I can say other than the fact that my every day life is filled with at least as much charity as any person on this forum.

May 26, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

equalrights (anonymous) says...

Bjnemp, your argument has many biased stereotypes. I mean no disrespect but you take the fun out of an educated argument when you throw around stereotypes. Poverty has many factors to be considered. Welfare isn't perfect, but it's an attempt by the government to fix it. "Getting a job" is definitely in option but it's not that simple. Lack of insurance, minimum wage, lack of daycare services, domestic violence, drug/alcohol use, generational child abuse, etc are also factors that lead to poverty. Until we can 'fix' those issues, there will be poverty with or without welfare.

May 26, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Kstrebuchet

I never said you weren't paying your "fair share."

I would be more than happy to help those who are in need, including those who are in this program. I've said that before as well.

I don't worry much about social security. As to how much I get out of the program vs how much I put in, my break even point is age 86. If I live past that point I will have gotten more out of the program than I put in. My concern with the program is actually for younger workers who are going to possibly inherit a bankrupt program, because the Feds are using the SS trust fund to pay for other government projects, like bridges to nowwhere.

I did take advantage of the GI Bill, but like hundreds of thousands of other Americans I earned every penny I got trudging the roads from Tan Son Nhut to Danang, and I never gamed the system.

I never said I was paying for everyone else. I never said the program should be shut down. I said that I think it would be best to means test this program and give to those in need. In fact, I think it might even be better to take the money spent on meals for familes who can really afford them (my first example of the $100K+ family) and give that money to those in need.

I've spent many a day working in soup kitchens, and will continue to do so. I'm also a member of a civic organization that works with economically disadvantaged children. I've worked with Habitat for Humanity here in town. I worked on the Peter Pan project. I've worked with those incarcerated, especially those close to release, trying to find work and a decent jump start to a life that has gone astray. My wife and I have hosted, and will continue to host, young students from third world countries trying to get a start in life.

Others on this forum are perfectly capable of expressing themsleves about whether or not the things they believe stem from a caring heart. I can say this about myself. The things I do and speak out about stem from a caring heart, including this program. I think you may even know that, but I think there may be some kind of personal animosity that's clouding your better judgement.

May 26, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Kstrebuchet

About all I can say is that your assumptions about me are wrong. I'll leave it at that.

May 26, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Krstrebuchet: I appreciate hearing of your service to our nation and to our community. Thank you for both.

May 26, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

WHOOPS! I meant my last post to be addressed to Netloafter, not Krstrebuchet.

May 26, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

K--netloafer is a politician. Don't be too surprised. :)

On to the topic, let me address my average workday/schoolday so people can understand that breakfast & lunch is actually a necessity:

5:00am Wake up, get ready for work.

5:45am Wake up kids, get them dressed.

6:00am-6:15am Drive to daycare, drop off kids.

**after 6:15 am, I am no longer in control. I *hope* they have a good breakfast, I pay for it in the weekly fee. I don't always approve of the breakfast but I'm grateful that someone is serving it.

Fast-forward to lunch time for them: They usually eat a school lunch (as much as I disagree with the "nutritional standards" that most schools have). I do pack their lunches if they decide that the school lunch is yucky or if there's a special something happening that day.

Fast-forward again to after school, when my daycare picks them up from school--they get a snack at daycare around 4pm.

I finally get to pick them up around 5:45. My day at work begins at 7am and ends at 5pm. My children are literally away from me from 6:15am until 5:45pm. 11 hours and 30 minutes per day....2 meals & 1 snack that I don't get to oversee but I'm grateful they're fed...all while I pay for it.

And I consider myself lucky that I can actually afford daycare (over $11k per year for 1 full time (he's in pre-k) and one part-time (he's in 3rd grade) ).

How many families in Emporia can afford and/or do pay $11k per year for 2 kids in daycare? Probably not too many since wages are cheap and jobs are scarce....but my real point is that, although we are NOT a "needy" family, we need help feeding our children because we are at work during those specific feeding times.

And I'm totally fine paying an increased fee if it means my son's best friend can eat with him because his family can't afford to feed him that one meal.

Not to mention, there is scientific proof that kids who eat a good breakfast and/or lunch have improved scores...so all the NCLB advocates should rethink "feeding those who don't need help" because, in reality, it helps all sides.

Melissa

May 26, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hartford (anonymous) says...

Melissa:

Thanks for sharing your agenda with us!
I am glad you can afford daycare.

However, I don't see your point.

There are kids out here who's parents can not afford 11,ooo a year for day care. Once again, I am gald you can.

The whole point a lot are missing is this:
Kids get a chance to eat 2 meals a day they may not have otherwise eaten regardless of their parents income. Bottom line, kids are eating atleast 2 square meals a day! Who wants to argue about that! I am glad this service is provided! And knowone has yet to say if there is an icome guidline. I don't think there is. I am sure when these kids show up to eat they are not turned away for their parents ability to pay.

This is a government program. Yes, I am sure we are all paying for it somewhere along the line but you know what? I am fine with that!

May 29, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hartford (anonymous) says...

Melissa:

I apologize because I didn't read the last few critical lines of your input. You kinda had my blood boiling for awhile, so I didn't finish reading what you wrote. I do apologize and sorry for what I said about you. Everything else still stands.

May 29, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

MelissaE: Your posting broke my heart to the point of tears. You wake your children before dawn and take them to a stranger. They are with someone else for 12 hours each day. If their bedtime is 9:00 PM, they spend 3 hours each day with you. My heart aches for your children and society in general for creating an environment where such a situation is necessary, or even possible.

May 29, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I'm with you, Bj. This breaks my heart too. I was one of the lucky stay-at-home Moms until my two were out of school before I went to college myself. However, it occurs to me that it was my generation of women who burned their bras. Now we are equal; now we go to work; now we have to pay others to watch our children.

Sorry, that was off topic, but what Bj said touched me deeply.

May 30, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

Hartford, I totally agree with you & I think our points were similar (although I took the long way to get there, LOL).

Bj & Create: I refuse to feel bad for being a working mom & you can criticize as much as you wish. To each their own, no? It feels as if Bj's comment was just a *bit* smarmy (judging from his/her other posts) and Create, I suggest that, instead of worrying about those who "pay others to watch our children" you think of it another way: I consider myself lucky to be able to work instead of staying at home.

There's a stigma either way.

Melissa

May 30, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

It would be good to keep my thoughts to myself on this, but I just can't. I certainly don't want a kid to go hungry, and I agree food is pretty cheap in the whole scheme of things. But I see firsthand the truth in some of the comments with regard to people having kids who can't take care of them, what is even worse is people having kids who don't want to take care of them. There is a limit to what taxpayers can do, and there is some abuse of the welfare system. Like several have said, I get tired of paying taxes to support people who cannot or will not work, yet continue to have children, and I am not talking one or two kids, or one or two people. My wife and I have waited a very long time to have children so that we can afford to provide for them, I am not bragging or asking for a pat on the back, I am simply stating a fact. It is discouraging, to say the least,to see kids running around unkempt with empty stomachs because their parents are not responsible....I am not talking about the genuine cases of hardship, all of us know that there are truly some needy people through no fault of their own...I am talking about a segment of the population that is simply irresponsible. Fine, feed everybodies child this summer, I don't have a problem with that, but how about some matching funds to teach personal responsibility in schools this fall.

June 1, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

"sit on your ass" parents should be jailed if they do not take care of their kids. Those who make a real effort should be helped!!!!!!

June 1, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Melissa, I was simply stating a truth. Look here lady, I believe very firmly in the rights of women, and in fact my hackles have been raised many times by those who spoke out against the movement over the years.

I'm glad you LIKE being a working mom. But I don't care how great you feel about being a working mom, girl, the truth is, the women in my generation are the ones who campaigned for you younger ones to be able to command the wages you are making today so you CAN afford to pay child care, so you CAN feel good about being a part of the working world, so you CAN feel good about making a contribution, so you CAN be both a working woman and a mom all at the same time. Thank me, don't criticize me just because I wanted to stay at home and felt lucky to do so.

As I said, I was lucky to be able to stay at home. So many of my counterparts were not so lucky. They HAD to work and believe me, the jobs for women at that time did not pay worth a damn. There was no equality in the workplace like there is now.

I was widowed at only 33 years old, but I was fortunate enough to be able to finish raising my two young children alone because my husband left me with enough financial stability to do so. I felt that I belonged at home with them under the circumstances of having lost one parent. They needed me to be at home where I could give them both quality and quantity.

Once my children left the nest, I went to college. I sat in my first college class at 7:30 one morning at the age of 39! I was 43 when I graduated as a teacher.

I was lucky because I was availed the opportunity to not only be a stay-at-home mom to be with my children, but to also become a working professional for a 22 year career. Part luck, part good planning, ALL desire.

Sorry to bore everyone with my life story, but I don't believe I deserve to be criticized by a young woman who likes to work outside the home, has a fine job and can command a good wage today. Girl, my generation of women screamed in the streets for what you have today.

June 2, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )