Tennessee getting ready to throw poor students under the bus.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's no HA HA left in my HAW HAW

Plenty of HEE HAW, though.

Nothing but HEE HAW, as far as the eye can see.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/

A group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.

Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.

School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.


Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.

"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."

Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/

A group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.

Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.

School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.


Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.

"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."

Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.

D: I can completely see that happening. Food theft, zero tolerance!

[Cain]

It's a good thing food isn't necessary for concentration or anything, and learning on an empty stomach just makes you more hungry for knowledge and not, like, unable to concentrate or anything.

[Junkenstein]

It's a good thing food isn't necessary for concentration or anything, and learning on an empty stomach just makes you more hungry for knowledge and not, like, unable to concentrate or anything.

I'm certain there have been no studies whatsoever demonstrating the above.

It's also well known that malnourished workers are harder workers. That's why all these emerging economies are doing so well.

[Juana]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/

A group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.

Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.

School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.


Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.

"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."

Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.

This makes me kind of want to hurl.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/

A group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.

Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.

School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.


Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.

"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."

Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.

D: I can completely see that happening. Food theft, zero tolerance!

SCHOOLS MUST BUDGET FOR FOOD SNIFFING DOGS NOT FREE LUNCH

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Related note:  http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17616402-boehner-obama-holding-entitlement-reform-hostage-for-tax-hikes?lite

Apparently, Obama is holding "entitlement reform" hostage, meaning that the GOP cannot force old people to live under bridges, unless they agree to raise taxes.

That bastard!

[Banned User 1]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

[Salty]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers

[Banned User 1]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers

I always rationalised aid programs under the notion that one is providing aid in order to allow a person not to starve to death while they try to become independent, productive individuals. Naturally, for the permanently disabled, this is not the case, but for "poor assistance", isn't "give them a crutch until they're productive" kinda the point?

If it isn't, and this "aid is aid" attitude is how things "should be", then I'm kinda seeing the whole aid system as being kinda full of fail and AIDS in its entirety. This sort of thinking leads to an unfeasible aid system, wherein there is no incentive to contribute productively, and all the incentive in the world to leech from aid...'least that's how I've been seeing it...

[Cainad (dec.)]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

Because that's a completely facetious connection, built on prejudice against the poor.

Because it can only lead to doing more damage to "productivity," by creating a positive feedback loop of undernourishment and poor academic performance. Despite the availability of cheap calories in America, it's extremely difficult for the poor to maintain a healthy diet.

Because it rests on the assumption that the best way to enforce good behavior in the populace is to hit them in their wallets (which is, of course, an act of communist oppression if you do the same thing to the wealthy).

Because it's goddamn evil.



Requiring drug tests in order to receive welfare is also based on prejudice against the poor, but at least it's only stupidly counterproductive and merely an act of typical corruption on the part of the firms the administer the drug tests. Threatening a child with hunger for underachieving and having parents who can't or won't get involved in their kid's education is actually evil.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers

I always rationalised aid programs under the notion that one is providing aid in order to allow a person not to starve to death while they try to become independent, productive individuals. Naturally, for the permanently disabled, this is not the case, but for "poor assistance", isn't "give them a crutch until they're productive" kinda the point?

If it isn't, and this "aid is aid" attitude is how things "should be", then I'm kinda seeing the whole aid system as being kinda full of fail and AIDS in its entirety. This sort of thinking leads to an unfeasible aid system, wherein there is no incentive to contribute productively, and all the incentive in the world to leech from aid...'least that's how I've been seeing it...

Taking aid away as penalty for failing to live up to some standard of productivity will never lead to a more prosperous society. The pitiful amount of money it takes to keep a human being from complete destitution is far less than the cost of having a class of people living in complete desperation.

But y'know, gotta punish those lazy fuckers for daring to have a low standard of living, right? Especially their brats.

[Banned User 1]

I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?

Because that's a completely facetious connection, built on prejudice against the poor.

Because it can only lead to doing more damage to "productivity," by creating a positive feedback loop of undernourishment and poor academic performance. Despite the availability of cheap calories in America, it's extremely difficult for the poor to maintain a healthy diet.

Because it rests on the assumption that the best way to enforce good behavior in the populace is to hit them in their wallets (which is, of course, an act of communist oppression if you do the same thing to the wealthy).

Because it's goddamn evil.



Requiring drug tests in order to receive welfare is also based on prejudice against the poor, but at least it's only stupidly counterproductive and merely an act of typical corruption on the part of the firms the administer the drug tests. Threatening a child with hunger for underachieving and having parents who can't or won't get involved in their kid's education is actually evil.

Hmm, Ok, I can follow you with the feedback loop idea... I'm reading it as essentially, hunger=less productivity. This makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with you on this.

When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"? This seems more of "oppressing" drug addicts more than anything. Although I can rationalise that being poor could technically arise simply due to poor market conidtions (i.e. my parents live in dirt-poverty and debt literally because my father worked in a industry that collapsed with the housing market), which are totally uncontrollable by the individual, drug use is wholly voluntary.

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

[Junkenstein]

By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.

The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.

Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.


The problem is covered in perfectly here:

I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.

In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?