[Bob Seger]

Favor or Oppose?

http://www.ksba.org/news/article/all-pik...ree-meals/

[Hoot Gibson]

Oppose. Strongly.

This is the kind of spending that is bankrupting this country. Only a liberal could have dreamed up such an expensive way to avoid stigmatizing students who qualify for free and reduced lunch by simply paying for everybody's food.

A simple, and much cheaper way of addressing this concern would have been to require students to purchase a rechargeable lunch card and stop collecting cash for meals. Poor kids' cards would look the same as those from wealthier families and nobody would need to know who paid for the food credits on the card.

[Wildcatk23]

Favor.

Although some families make 100k+ a year that doesnt mean the child is being treated the way they should be at home. I have had many friends that had to pay for lunch at school not have the money , there parents had gambling problems, or they just wouldnt give them any money to buy lunch with.

Tax cuts to the Rich, Unpaid wars is what broke the country. This is the kind of spending that shouldn't be cut.

[Stardust]

^ I'm assuming that the state is providing the finding, thus if there becomes a % of students that makes it unfair not to provide lunches for the exceptional few (middle income and above), then I can see how this is justified.

[Hoot Gibson]

You have no right to require me to pay for your child's food whether you are rich or poor but the fact that my tax dollars will be paying for millionaires' children to eat in Pike County schools is outrageous. There is absolutely no justification for this decision.

[Wildcatk23]

You have no right to require me to pay for your child's food whether you are rich or poor but the fact that my tax dollars will be paying for millionaires' children to eat in Pike County schools is outrageous. There is absolutely no justification for this decision.

I also shouldn't have to pay taxes on a lot of things i do. But if im going to pay taxes on something this is one thing worth paying it on. And just think if that big millionaire didnt have so many tax cuts he would be paying for his daughter to eat! WHAT!

[Hoot Gibson]

I also shouldn't have to pay taxes on a lot of things i do. But if im going to pay taxes on something this is one thing worth paying it on. And just think if that big millionaire didnt have so many tax cuts he would be paying for his daughter to eat! WHAT!

Do you pay federal income taxes? I am not asking if you have taxes withheld on your check, I am asking if your refund is less than the amount that is withheld, or are you among the 53 percent of top wage earners who actually pay federal income taxes?

[Wildcatk23]

Do you pay federal income taxes? I am not asking if you have taxes withheld on your check, I am asking if your refund is less than the amount that is withheld, or are you among the 53 percent of top wage earners who actually pay federal income taxes?

I received more back last year that i payed in. No i'm not int he top 53% of the country. If i was i would still have no opposition to feeding children.

I'm guessing you are?

[Hoot Gibson]

I received more back last year that i payed in. No i'm not int he top 53% of the country. If i was i would still have no opposition to feeding children.

I'm guessing you are?

You said that you shouldn't have to pay taxes on a lot of things but you do, which implied that you are a net federal taxpayer (because this program is federally funded). I just wanted to check to see if you really have a dog in this fight or not. Let me remind you that those rich people that you and your liberal friends villify pay way more than their fair share of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent of wage earners earn 20 percent of all income but pay 38 percent of all federal income taxes paid in this country. They deserve your gratitude, not your scorn.

BTW, I commend you on your honesty. My children are all in their 20s and none of them are net federal taxpayers either but I hope that they, like you, will become taxpayers in the not too distant future.

I am not opposed to paying taxes to feed the children of the truly needy. However, if parents are squandering their income on lottery tickets, beer, and drugs, then I would also like to be financing prosecutions for child neglect.

My point is that paying for all students' food to avoid embarrassing a dew indigent children is an extremely wasteful way of addressing an issue that could be addressed in a better and cheaper way. I agree with the objectives of this program but program's method is a typical federal boondoggle.

To answer your question, yes I am among the top 53 percent of wage earners who pay federal income taxes but I am not even close to being in the top 1 percent. However, I am currently laid off from my job because of the incompetence of the federal government and I am driving around the eastern US interviewing for a new job. I was in Charlotte yesterday, I am in Morehead today, and will probably be in Harrisburg, PA next week for another interview, before returning to the DC for hopefully a few more interviews.

Jobs are available in this country to most people who are willing to relocate. And if I don't find something, I will probably be offered a chance to resume work for the Army after their contract management group gets around to soliciting proposals for a new contract. Their inaction will cause the loss of highly trained software developers and support staff, and my department will in turn be required to train new people to perform the jobs of the people who could not afford to wait. This is government waste in action.

[LWC]

I like the idea of free lunches. What does it cost? $1.50 to feed a kid? Very worth it. If we have problems funding it, why don't we cut some of the Decisions makers salaries, free health insurance benefits, etc... to fund it

SOOOOOOOOOOOO many times, I have known of kids, just like Wildcat mentioned that, ON PAPER, their parent/guardian has money, but the kid never sees a penny. Those are very sad situations. Kids that their "family" doesn't care enough to give them lunch money, get them proper school clothes (aka not dirty, 1960's hand-me-downs), etc....

I honestly could care less about the class conflict, it will always be there. Even some schools that have went to uniforms, kids will buy uniforms with a certain logo on the shirt, wear an expensive piece of jewelry, have an expensive purse, etc... It doesn't matter what is done, unfortunately, there will always be the have and have not.

I told my wife and in-laws the other day. We were talking about the budget stuff and I told them that as long as I can survive, I don't care what I have to pay in taxes, and I honestly mean it. (I say none of this to gloat, just to make the point that I will give whatever it takes to help the less fortunate) I made the challenge to my churches to be faithful with their tithing (Giving 10%, etc...)I told them that a good leader, leads by example, so I am giving 20% off the top (I didn't tell about the 20%, as far as anyone other than the treasurer knows, all I do it tithe).

Also, as a Pastor, I am considered by the IRS as a self-employer, so I do have to pay taxes on my income AND the parsonage I live in (for some reason the value of the home provided to me is considered income, and they tax it as well.) HOWEVER, I have never once complained about the taxes, I just pray when I fill the check out that it will help those less fortunate.

Unlike some, however, I understand that rich people do either work hard or have studied hard to get to where they are. I would never try to demand, or make a law that forced money out of their pocket. I hope we would have faith enough to give generously to organizations like the local church, A.R.C., Feed the children, etc...

[Old School]

According to the article Bob posted around 100 schools across Kentucky are eligible for this program. The article below said three states are testing the program this year with more states involved next year and this program will be available to all states by 2014-2015.


http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/PressRelease...S-0001.htm

[Hoot Gibson]

I like the idea of free lunches. What does it cost? $1.50 to feed a kid? Very worth it. If we have problems funding it, why don't we cut some of the Decisions makers salaries, free health insurance benefits, etc... to fund it

I don't know the exact answer to your question but I seriously doubt that it only costs $1.50/day to feed a child in a school cafeteria, even if that is the price charged to the student. To calculate the cost, you would need to include the cost of the facility; wages and benefits of the cooks, administrators, and custodians who clean the building; as well as the cost of a share of the overhead in the central district office. If the total cost of a school lunch is only $1.50 per child per day, then I say that district is being managed extremely well.

I also question why the Pikeville Independent District does not qualify for the program. I am going to assume because the program targets the poorest school districts - but if that is true, then wouldn't the smaller percentage of kids eligible for free and reduced cost lunches be more stigmatized than those in the poorer districts, where such kids often constitute the majority of the students?

[LWC]

I don't know the exact answer to your question but I seriously doubt that it only costs $1.50/day to feed a child in a school cafeteria, even if that is the price charged to the student. To calculate the cost, you would need to include the cost of the facility; wages and benefits of the cooks, administrators, and custodians who clean the building; as well as the cost of a share of the overhead in the central district office. If the total cost of a school lunch is only $1.50 per child per day, then I say that district is being managed extremely well.

I also question why the Pikeville Independent District does not qualify for the program. I am going to assume because the program targets the poorest school districts - but if that is true, then wouldn't the smaller percentage of kids eligible for free and reduced cost lunches be more stigmatized than those in the poorer districts, where such kids often constitute the majority of the students?

If the $1.50 was all that was charged to parent, isn't that the difference that is being made up? Someone was already paying the rest of the cost, right?

[Old School]

Just think 23 your tax dollars that are going to help fund this program will aslo be paying for the lunches of the semi wealthy and the wealthy.

[Wildcatk23]

Just think 23 your tax dollars that are going to help fund this program will aslo be paying for the lunches of the semi wealthy and the wealthy.

Semi Wealthy or Wealthy PARENTS<

[Hoot Gibson]

If the $1.50 was all that was charged to parent, isn't that the difference that is being made up? Someone was already paying the rest of the cost, right?

That is true but what I am pointing out is that there are almost always hidden costs that these mandated federal programs do not cover. Somebody will almost certainly be required to administer the program at the state level and either somebody's work load will increase at the district level, or additional staff will be required to administer the program.

There is no justification to take money from taxpayers who are fully capable of paying for their own children's lunches, sending it to Washington through a few bureaucrats' hands, back through a few hands in Frankfort, and then back to the districts. The main objective of creating this kind of program at the federal level is to create federal and state jobs in education. It is an inefficient way to address a real problem.

[Old School]

Semi Wealthy or Wealthy PARENTS<

Unless the kid has a trust fund set up for him/her I would assume it would be the parents.

Doesn't it make you feel good to help pay for little Johnny or Janes lunch while mommy and daddy are driving around in their BMW?

[Wildcatk23]

Unless the kid has a trust fund set up for him/her I would assume it would be the parents.

Doesn't it make you feel good to help pay for little Johnny or Janes lunch while mommy and daddy are driving around in their BMW?

Yes, When there parents have drug habits, Gambling habits, Or just plain out greedy.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

You all are so focused on pennies and dollars you are failing to see the actual content of this program.

The program is not to provide children with "free" lunch. The idea is to give them healtier meals. Each meal now will go by a particular food schedule to provide student with fresh fruits, vegtables etc. Will be more hearty meals which some schools have been lacking.

[Spud6]

I believe Floyd Co. did this as well.

[Bob Seger]

You all are so focused on pennies and dollars you are failing to see the actual content of this program.

The program is not to provide children with "free" lunch. The idea is to give them healtier meals. Each meal now will go by a particular food schedule to provide student with fresh fruits, vegtables etc. Will be more hearty meals which some schools have been lacking.

Do what?????:please:

Did you even read the article? It says absolutely nothing about what you just said. If that was the issue it would be a standard to all districts, and not just chosen ones.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

Do what?????:please:

Did you even read the article? It says absolutely nothing about what you just said. If that was the issue it would be a standard to all districts, and not just chosen ones.

I've read the grant not just the article and part of the grant says each meal will include fresh fruits and vegtables it is apart of a program that hopes to fight childhood obesity. Also I have talked to Wagner and Sabrina Thompson, more to most things than just what you read in a news release.

[Hoot Gibson]

Do what?????:please:

Did you even read the article? It says absolutely nothing about what you just said. If that was the issue it would be a standard to all districts, and not just chosen ones.

Check the Democratic talking points, I am sure it is in there somewhere. Just ask one of our young liberal friends to forward a copy to you.

[Hoot Gibson]

I've read the grant not just the article and part of the grant says each meal will include fresh fruits and vegtables it is apart of a program that hopes to fight childhood obesity. Also I have talked to Wagner and Sabrina Thompson, more to most things than just what you read in a news release.

Our focus is where it should be, on the dollars that our federal government wastes. This is part of Michelle Obama's pet project and she is an unelected Marxist who has no mandate from the American people.

Language like you mentioned is often inserted into boondoggle bills such as this one so that Democrats can use Republican "No" votes on the campaign trail. This law is all about the Benjamins. Anytime a large federal spending program is created, some high paying jobs are created in the Washington, DC area. Lower paying jobs are created in the 50 state capitals and still more government jobs are created in large school districts. Then there are the relatively high paid contractors like me who are hired to create custom software to administer the new program.

Most of these people will vote for Democrats out of gratitude for a job that was unnecessary in the first place. You won't read these effects in the legislation or news releases either but political considerations drive all discretionary federal spending and if you spend some time around our nation's capital or any state capital that fact would be more obvious to you.

[Bob Seger]

I've read the grant not just the article and part of the grant says each meal will include fresh fruits and vegtables it is apart of a program that hopes to fight childhood obesity. Also I have talked to Wagner and Sabrina Thompson, more to most things than just what you read in a news release.

Seeing that my occupation involves around this whole issue, I can assure you that there is not more than meets the eye that gets printed in this news release. You dont want to admit (or possibly dont know what you are talking about) that it is a mandate that all school lunch programs have to all follow the SAME federal nutritional guidelines. By using your line of thinking you are saying that it's OK for Pikeville Independent to serve their kids junk, while Pike County will now be serving healthy foods. The reward for Pike Co. families is that they get their lunches free while Pikeville Independent families will be penalized and have to pay for them. Again Slamma Bamma all school districts have to follow the same nutritional guidlines. Hoot is absolutely right in how this whole thing came about. This is Michelle Obama's pet project. Just another socialist's plan to get our people hooked on yet another social handout program. In just a few years it will be thought of as another right of passage in this country. What a child does or does not do physically is just as much to blame for obesity than what they eat. I dont see that being addressed, do you?

[VHSL-helper]

You have no right to require me to pay for your child's food whether you are rich or poor but the fact that my tax dollars will be paying for millionaires' children to eat in Pike County schools is outrageous. There is absolutely no justification for this decision.

Your tax dollars have been paying for millionaires' children to LEARN in Pike County schools for decades, what's wrong with feedin' 'em, too?

If schools are "free" to the students, AND the transportation, and they are REQUIRED to go, why shouldn't their required food be free?

[Hoot Gibson]

Your tax dollars have been paying for millionaires' children to LEARN in Pike County schools for decades, what's wrong with feedin' 'em, too?

If schools are "free" to the students, AND the transportation, and they are REQUIRED to go, why shouldn't their required food be free?

Please forgive me if your response was sarcasm but I am going to respond to it under the assumption that you really see nothing wrong with the federal government wasting tax dollars on feeding the children of wealthy people in the public schools.

One could make the argument that "millionaires" pay far more property taxes and federal income taxes than other parents, and in by so doing, their children should be entitled to more of the benefits for which they paid.

However, the real question is whether our country will benefit more from allowing taxpayers who can afford to feed their own children to do so or whether it is better to pay a string of new federal bureaucrats stretching from Washington, DC, to Frankfort, to Pike County, Kentucky to do so.

Expenditures made by private individuals always benefits our economy more than expenditures made by government. That is why stimulus spending has not made a dent in the unemployment rate and public spending is why the recovery from the recession has been so painfully slow.

The government sucks wealth out of our economy and redistributes it very inefficiently. This law is a wealth sucker of gargantuan proportions.

[BillyB]

This is Michelle Obama's pet project. Just another socialist's plan to get our people hooked on yet another social handout program. In just a few years it will be thought of as another right of passage in this country. What a child does or does not do physically is just as much to blame for obesity than what they eat. I dont see that being addressed, do you?

No need to worry about this. Pike County went Republican in the last election. When the small gov't, fiscal conservatives in Pike County realize that they are part of a socialist plan to ruin America, surely they will refuse this program. Someone just needs to tell them.

[charlie22]

I like the idea of free lunches. What does it cost? $1.50 to feed a kid? Very worth it. If we have problems funding it, why don't we cut some of the Decisions makers salaries, free health insurance benefits, etc... to fund it

SOOOOOOOOOOOO many times, I have known of kids, just like Wildcat mentioned that, ON PAPER, their parent/guardian has money, but the kid never sees a penny. Those are very sad situations. Kids that their "family" doesn't care enough to give them lunch money, get them proper school clothes (aka not dirty, 1960's hand-me-downs), etc....

I honestly could care less about the class conflict, it will always be there. Even some schools that have went to uniforms, kids will buy uniforms with a certain logo on the shirt, wear an expensive piece of jewelry, have an expensive purse, etc... It doesn't matter what is done, unfortunately, there will always be the have and have not.

I told my wife and in-laws the other day. We were talking about the budget stuff and I told them that as long as I can survive, I don't care what I have to pay in taxes, and I honestly mean it. (I say none of this to gloat, just to make the point that I will give whatever it takes to help the less fortunate) I made the challenge to my churches to be faithful with their tithing (Giving 10%, etc...)I told them that a good leader, leads by example, so I am giving 20% off the top (I didn't tell about the 20%, as far as anyone other than the treasurer knows, all I do it tithe).

Also, as a Pastor, I am considered by the IRS as a self-employer, so I do have to pay taxes on my income AND the parsonage I live in (for some reason the value of the home provided to me is considered income, and they tax it as well.) HOWEVER, I have never once complained about the taxes, I just pray when I fill the check out that it will help those less fortunate.

Unlike some, however, I understand that rich people do either work hard or have studied hard to get to where they are. I would never try to demand, or make a law that forced money out of their pocket. I hope we would have faith enough to give generously to organizations like the local church, A.R.C., Feed the children, etc...

I have to agree with the bolded; and I likewise agree with Hoot's position on this matter. At what point does taking from the wealthy to take care of the poor end? Does the concept of free will mean that the good Lord should not want us to be forced by the govt to help the poor, but rather do so on own own iniative and by our own free choice? At what point does the taking actually become such a disincentive to working hard that people say "the heck with working hard to get ahead because the govt is going to take a large share of what I worked hard and risked to earn to give to those not willing to work hard or take the risks that I'm willing to take"? At what point does the safety net of entitlements become so plush that people don't bother to work; rather they live off the govt and let other poor smucks work their tail ends off to pay for it? Is this country at a point that a majority of folks have lost the value of self reliance and responsibility? My father and his father would have never accepted a $ in govt handouts as a result of the shame they would have felt. Is that prevalent sentiment around today? Do we risk becoming the next Greece or Spain where the people have become so addicted to entitlements to the point where they riot when faced with a reduction of entitlements with the knowledge that if entitlements aren't cut back severely their entire economy and govt will collapse? Are we that far gone?

LWC, in your capacity as a Pastor, I have a question for you. I believe that the growth of the govt safety net has had an adverse and negative effect on the strength of the family and the church. Just a generation ago, people had to have a strong family bond because in times of need it was the family members that took care of one of their own when times were tough. It wasn't the govt. Because that person was living off his/her family members, he or she looked hard to become self sufficient as fast as he or she could. Likewise, people belonged to and were active in their churches. Churches often were a safety net for help in addition to families. But as the govt has become the safety net, the need for a close and tight family has diminished as has the need to be actively involved in the church. Furthermore, that safety net is some faceless govt program that users have no problem milking for as long as they can. Much like all the employee protection laws passed by the state legislature and Congress has gutted the need for strong unions (and thus driven union membership in this country downward), I believe the govt safety net has hurt the need for strong families and strong church relationships. Have you ever thought about that issue? In your experience as a Pastor, is my theory all wet or do you see some truth in it?

[charlie22]

Another thought: for those that agree that the govt should take from the wealthy because they can obviously afford to pay higher taxes and redistribute that money to the poor in the form of welfare because they need it, I want to remind you that it was Karl Marx who coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Mr. Marx, as hopefully all know, was the father of the socialism/communism theory.

I agree with a limited form of the social compact theory, but when a majority of Americans are paying no amount of federal income taxes and the minority are paying the load (and some people like our president want the minority to pay even more), we have moved beyond limited social compact and are on our way to socialism.