• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Rep Suggests Kids Clean Schools In Exchange For Lunch

An inconvenient truth that's difficult to take..As I read from those like you, I'm sure glad I'm retired..And I pray for the current kids and their teachers .

I hire personal instructors specialized in a particular subject. Its makes a huge difference in performance, and retention. People who enjoy what ever subject they specialize in tend to spread their enthusiasm which helps in learning.
 
Licensing and training is only as good the licensing process and training course. There are night and day differences between various courses and licensing procedures of all sorts of professions including the teaching profession. Just because one is licensed or took a course doesn't make them competent to instruct others. By the way I used to be an driving instructor. A very good one IMHO. If you want to learn take a vehicle to its absolute limits you come to the likes of me.

Granted, however, if you are comparing guy without any experience whatsoever besides being the "consumer" vs. he/she who actually taught, which would probably seem a great deal more likely to carry any weight (especially on a comment like this on homework)?
 
I just responded to Mycroft with my brilliant strategy. So, has this been useful to you, did your kids gain the extra lessons?

Money management is a very important skill (IMHO).

It works well, with the carrot AND stick approach. There has to be a corresponding negative pressure to further help motivate. The negative pressure I exert is rent and tax. Used in combination with opportunities to earn quite effective. It also forces them to excel so they can save so they can get what they want or do what they want to. I keep the levels of rent and tax such that by doing their chores and earning a 70% average in their grades they break even. If they want the video game or the fashion accessory or some nice clothes then they have to step up their earning and save. Their birthday and Christmas presents are usually clothes and a small trinket. Toys they buy. At least after they are about 10.
 
Granted, however, if you are comparing guy without any experience whatsoever besides being the "consumer" vs. he/she who actually taught, which would probably seem a great deal more likely to carry any weight (especially on a comment like this on homework)?

Weight wise I would tend to an instructor unless they obviously incompetent. I would listen to a "consumer" if it seemed compeling enough. It would depend largely on their practical experience. I have had guys and gals come in from farms or the military or were hot-rodder's who were already quite skilled in the basics of driving and all I had to do was teach the more advanced and sophisticated lessons and teach the underlying theory behind the skill sets, both of which they seemed to pick up much faster by and large. The slow part was just correcting habits they came in with. I have had people come into my classroom and teach me a thing or two about specific maneuvers or some theory on mechanical issues. Rarely but still I have had that happen. I used them as a way to add to my knowledge base. So really its a combination of instructor skill and knowledge vs. the practical skill and knowledge the student has. Background is important. I would say probability dictates the instructor would most likely be correct a majority of the time. I would say that somebody who is related or worked as an assistant or some other close affiliation to a instructor probably will have greater knowledge of the subject of instruction than the common layperson. If you are student long enough you will have a grasp on instruction though osmosis.
 
As a general policy for public schools, I support such things (all students doing classrooms choirs). I also support a national service requirement in adulthood. Rather odd considering that I tend to lean towards libertarian viewpoints in general. But I think it instills pride and a personal stake into the institutions under question
 
As a general policy for public schools, I support such things (all students doing classrooms choirs). I also support a national service requirement in adulthood. Rather odd considering that I tend to lean towards libertarian viewpoints in general. But I think it instills pride and a personal stake into the institutions under question

When you make such things a "requirement", that's where you are going wrong. Pride and a personal stake in an institution isn't something that can be instilled into a person by force.
 
it is not hard to see three generations that live or lived in the projects or other types of government housing

How often to you go to government housing, like the projects and see this? I just don't see you going within a 5 mile radius of one yet you say you see it.
 
And shaming a 2nd or 3rd grader by having them sweep a floor in front of their friends is not going to fix that. It is not the kids fault that they are poor or that their parents may have not made the best of decisions in life. They are just there to go to school so that the hopefully get a good education and do better themselves.



I agree, but it doesn't fix that by shaming their kids.



Of course, but the kid that comes from an upper middle class family has no idea what its like to be truly poor yet someone feels like they should pass blanket judgment on them. For example, I grew up quite poor. My kids grow up in an what would be considered demographically an upper middle class home. I am certainly happy that they get a lot more opportunities than I had when I was their age because of that. However, they have no idea what its like to be poor. It's a "free lunch" to them because they show up at school and the lunch money way pay for is in their account. I hope they all grow up to be successful. I also hope they do not grow up as sanctimonious as this congressman is.

I am all for teaching kids the value of hard work. I just think what the congressman is proposing is a despicable way of doing so. If you don't think most kids living in poverty don't know the value of a dollar, then you don't know anything about being poor.

I never found anything where the Congressman suggested an age as you did stating 2nd-3rd graders. I didn't see anything that stated it had to be during school hours in front of their classmates either. Truth be in some of these school districts where welfare has become a way of life for the community, the majority of the kids are on subsidized lunch programs. I did find where he stated instead of subsidizing the entire lunch, at least having the child pay something....a dime....so that he learns the lunch wasn't free. Today most schools not only provide a free lunch but they provide breakfast too. And add to that they have after school programs which amount to babysitting services till the parents can pick the kids up from school. All these programs come with a price tag. I pay through real estate taxes. My property taxes make up almost half of the total of my house payment. The one living in subsidized housing doesn't pay a dime. It is because of all these welfare programs that people are being taught that there is no personal responsibility for their life choices because government will provide. They take away the incentive of many not to strive to be all they can. This cycle of taught dependency promoted by the government has to be stopped.
 
You hit the nail on the head with that. When you grow up poor, the last thing you want is for your friends to know you are poor. At least with me, that is why I was always looking to make money anyway I could. Mow lawns, haul hay, anything I could do to make some money for myself before I was old enough to get an actual job. I wanted the money so I could have the things that my friends had. That said, I don't think further shaming kids like this guy is basically saying we should do is the best way to teach kids a work ethic.

Since when was work shameful? Frankly, I think all the kids should have to help clean up the school, not just the ones getting a free lunch.
 
When you make such things a "requirement", that's where you are going wrong. Pride and a personal stake in an institution isn't something that can be instilled into a person by force.

But there is a difference between "duty" and "force." ;)
 
Whether you agree with this representative's ideas or not, you all better start coming up with something that will start to instill in the youth the value of good work ethics and personal responsibility because most of their parents aren't going to step up to the challenge. And because of all these generous programs mainly implemented by Democrats over decades and have been allowed to grow out of control, we are facing a debt crisis. If ever there was a time to teach people to be self sufficient it would be now.

Funny, but when welfare reform took place a decade or so, the number of births to single moms dropped as well. When the programs are not so readily available, seems folks tend to make better life choices. But since Obama, those reforms have been removed and increases in these programs have soared as well as the births to single mothers.

The 2013 Index of Dependence on Government
 
I never found anything where the Congressman suggested an age as you did stating 2nd-3rd graders. I didn't see anything that stated it had to be during school hours in front of their classmates either.

He stated the school free and reduced lunch program. That applies to all kids in school from kindergarten through 12th grade. If they don't do it during school hours when are going to go do it? Kids these days get homework every night from kindergarten on. It was not uncommon for our kids to get as much as 2 hours of homework in that we would be helping them with in 1st and 2nd grade some nights.


Truth be in some of these school districts where welfare has become a way of life for the community, the majority of the kids are on subsidized lunch programs. I did find where he stated instead of subsidizing the entire lunch, at least having the child pay something....a dime....so that he learns the lunch wasn't free. Today most schools not only provide a free lunch but they provide breakfast too. And add to that they have after school programs which amount to babysitting services till the parents can pick the kids up from school. All these programs come with a price tag. I pay through real estate taxes. My property taxes make up almost half of the total of my house payment. The one living in subsidized housing doesn't pay a dime. It is because of all these welfare programs that people are being taught that there is no personal responsibility for their life choices because government will provide. They take away the incentive of many not to strive to be all they can. This cycle of taught dependency promoted by the government has to be stopped.

Do you not understand there is a difference between all the programs their parents may get like SNAP, Section 8, the EIC, and WIC, and the free and reduced lunch program that their kids might qualify for at school? Kids do not carry lunch money to school anymore. You put money in a school lunch account, they just get in line and get their lunch regardless of whether they are on free or reduced lunches, or their parents pay for their lunch.

Moreover, many of the kids on free or reduced lunches have parents that do work. The income guidelines go up to 185% of the federal poverty level. If the kids parents work full time doing most low skilled labor, their kids qualify for free or reduced lunches.

Finally, it is a fairly small program in the scheme of things, and a federal program, thus its not paid out of your property taxes. Its paid out of general federal revenues. The cost for it to the average taxpayer is a total of $1.50 a week or so. It is costing you all of a dollar or two a week to make sure that a kid of poor or working poor parents gets a lunch when they go to school.

I am all for having work requirements on various grants and aid programs that help poor kids go to college or technical schools. I just don't think we should have kids working for a lunch at school. Especially considering we all benefit from them being there getting an education in the first place.
 
When you make such things a "requirement", that's where you are going wrong. Pride and a personal stake in an institution isn't something that can be instilled into a person by force.

When I look at Israel I have to disagree. I see the amount of civil involvement and political concern being a direct outgrowth of such programs, being that everyone has skin on the line
 
Funny, but when welfare reform took place a decade or so, the number of births to single moms dropped as well. When the programs are not so readily available, seems folks tend to make better life choices. But since Obama, those reforms have been removed and increases in these programs have soared as well as the births to single mothers.

The 2013 Index of Dependence on Government

That is absolutely absurd. There is greater dependence on federal programs today because of the depressed state of the economy since the great recession. If it is Obama's fault, then its a failure of his macro economic policies, not the fictional destruction of welfare reform. Unfortunately, history has shown time and time again, as well what is observable in various poor nations around the world, that poor people have kids they cannot afford to support regardless of whether there are any welfare programs or not. There is no correlation at all between welfare states and the poor having kids they cannot afford. In fact, in much of western europe the opposite seems to be true. The birth rate today in the USA is less than half what it was before we had any social safety nets in place. The best way to keep people from having kids they cannot afford is to encourage family planning and contraceptive use as much as possible. Sign up for SNAP, ok, but you also have to attend these family planning classes. You need Section 8, sure, but you have to attend these classes on contraceptive use and so on. If anything, we ought to have a free and reduced contraceptive program. Would probably pay back in dividends.
 
He stated the school free and reduced lunch program. That applies to all kids in school from kindergarten through 12th grade. If they don't do it during school hours when are going to go do it? Kids these days get homework every night from kindergarten on. It was not uncommon for our kids to get as much as 2 hours of homework in that we would be helping them with in 1st and 2nd grade some nights.
Do you not understand there is a difference between all the programs their parents may get like SNAP, Section 8, the EIC, and WIC, and the free and reduced lunch program that their kids might qualify for at school? Kids do not carry lunch money to school anymore. You put money in a school lunch account, they just get in line and get their lunch regardless of whether they are on free or reduced lunches, or their parents pay for their lunch.
Yes I am aware of it. But the one that doesn't have to pay anything knows his is free. At a young age he is taught he is a 'victim',
Moreover, many of the kids on free or reduced lunches have parents that do work. The income guidelines go up to 185% of the federal poverty level. If the kids parents work full time doing most low skilled labor, their kids qualify for free or reduced lunches.
The requirements have been lowered to allow more to qualify. When you make it available for those who surely can provide a lunch for their child even if it is a packed lunch makes no sense.
Finally, it is a fairly small program in the scheme of things, and a federal program, thus its not paid out of your property taxes. Its paid out of general federal revenues. The cost for it to the average taxpayer is a total of $1.50 a week or so. It is costing you all of a dollar or two a week to make sure that a kid of poor or working poor parents gets a lunch when they go to school.
Like all federally subsidized programs, they NEVER reimburse the full amount of the cost. Someone else picks up the tab and in my case it is through property taxes. And the program has been extended to include breakfasts and after school snacks not just lunch
I am all for having work requirements on various grants and aid programs that help poor kids go to college or technical schools. I just don't think we should have kids working for a lunch at school. Especially considering we all benefit from them being there getting an education in the first place.

Well you better start coming up with some ideas you do like that will instill good work ethics and personal responsibility in children that are not being shown by example at home. Because we can no longer continue paying for it all.
 
Last edited:
When I look at Israel I have to disagree. I see the amount of civil involvement and political concern being a direct outgrowth of such programs, being that everyone has skin on the line

Except that most of the skin in the game is a myth. Did you notice the big right wing uproar over 'forcing' the ultra-religious folks to skin-up? Even as more social unrest occurs pushing for a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian 'question' because mothers are tired of burying their sons and daughters the government- led by a man who never put his own skin in the game but used his dead brother's as a political tool- still pushed settlements into the West Bank.

Now ending the draft in this country might be a better example. Since the Middle Class doesn't have to worry about their kid being scooped up for service in a war, the questioning of any new war is slow to develop.

Having skin in the game doesn't seem to be as big a factor as not having that skin in there. :peace
 
How often to you go to government housing, like the projects and see this? I just don't see you going within a 5 mile radius of one yet you say you see it.

I suggest you do some reading, if capable, and then your comment may mean something
 
Yes I am aware of it. But the one that doesn't have to pay anything knows his is free. At a young age he is taught he is a 'victim',

Oh for crying out loud. Hardly any kids know who pays for their lunch. Most of them could not even tell you how much it costs. You have a pretty abstract view of what the perspective of being poor is. As I stated earlier, I grew up quite poor, and though we could have qualified for free or reduced lunches we did not take them, but I can't say I ever felt like a victim. If you want to see a kid with a sense of entitlement, look no further than a child of privilege.

The requirements have been lowered to allow more to qualify. When you make it available for those who surely can provide a lunch for their child even if it is a packed lunch makes no sense.

The requirements are 185% of the federal poverty level. That has not changed in God knows how long. For example, if a single mother has 2 kids, then she can earn up to $36,000 to qualify for free or reduced lunches. Now lets do the math:

She works 40 hours a week at 10 dollars an hour. That gets her to 20,000 dollars a year. She then works nights waiting tables which gets up her to say, $35,000 a year. That qualifies her kids for reduced lunches, not free. Just the same, you say, well why not just have her kids pack their lunch. Well, lets do the math again:

She takes home about 2500 dollars a month.

Rent is 1200 dollars a month minimum.
Car payment for an inexpensive vehicle is another 300 dollars a month.
Food, well thats around 600 dollars a month these days. If she applied at that household size and income level she could qualify for 150 dollars in snap benefits or so. So lets put her food budget at 400 dollars a month out of pocket.
Gas money, another 100 dollars a month minimum.
Utilities, even if some are included in rent, its still going to be a minimum of another 100 dollars a month.
Not leaving much left at this point, and we are not even getting into clothes, incidentals, and all the other costs we all face in our day to day lives.

But hey, lets make her kids sweep floors because we want them to learn the value of work. You obviously have no idea what its like to grow up in poverty or to be a single mother trying earn enough to raise your kids, but just like this congressman, you want to tell them what is wrong with them anyway.
 
Last edited:
How often to you go to government housing, like the projects and see this? I just don't see you going within a 5 mile radius of one yet you say you see it.

here is just one of many examples:

The lanky patriarch said that even if he won the lottery he wouldn’t leave Queensbridge. Four generations of Alstons live there, including Chick’s 83-year old mother, Virgie, the first Alston to step foot in Queensbridge.

Housing Generations | Life in the Projects: Meet the Alston Family - WNYC
 
I would also point out that single mother I profiled in my post above then gets to listen to people that make much more than she does tell her how she could be managing her money better or other things she is doing wrong. Nothing like a single mom that works 2 jobs, 60 hours a week or more, getting told by a stay at home mom what she should be doing.
 
I suggest you do some reading, if capable, and then your comment may mean something



You responded to this:

I am not against giving older kids the opportunity to earn money at school. I remember we used to get paid to clean the gym after games. I am against a guy that at minimum came out of an upper middle class childhood saying that kids should have to work for the free lunch program as if its some 2nd graders fault his parents are poor. His implication of course is that if we allow a poor kid to get a free lunch at school, it will lead to a lifetime of laziness.

with this:

it is not hard to see three generations that live or lived in the projects or other types of government housing

SD made the point that giving free kids free lunch will not lead to a lifetime of laziness and you countered it's not hard to see three generations living or have lived in the projects, thus implying a lifetime of laziness. I asked how you see that personally because based on reading ( which I can do thank you very much) what you post, you don't seem the type to hang out or really know people who actually live in the projects and be able to see first hand three generations living in the projects or government housing. Besides your assertion or one or two anecdotes, can you provide some statistics that back up your claim?



And nice attempt to deflect without answering. I'll give it a C for effort because you threw in a personal attack to take away from your inability to back up what you say.
 
here is just one of many examples:

The lanky patriarch said that even if he won the lottery he wouldn’t leave Queensbridge. Four generations of Alstons live there, including Chick’s 83-year old mother, Virgie, the first Alston to step foot in Queensbridge.

Housing Generations | Life in the Projects: Meet the Alston Family - WNYC




OMG - ONE story, must be an epidemic!!! Please share the many other examples. Or even five will work and I will conceed that while you don't personally see it, it happens.


EDIT: I just had to highlight this from your link:

But the Alstons are an anomaly to public housing experts; most families that moved into public housing during the mid-1950s are long gone.

More than 400,000 New Yorkers now live in public housing. Of those, 6,732 call Queensbridge home. Queensbridge is mostly black and Hispanic with an average gross income for residents between $21,000 to 24,000. Most residents stay an average of 17 to 18 years
 
Last edited:
it is not hard to see three generations that live or lived in the projects or other types of government housing
"But the Alstons are an anomaly to public housing experts; most families that moved into public housing during the mid-1950s are long gone."

To some....exceptions....are the rule
 
Back
Top Bottom