Thanks, SuperDave.

:)

Thank you for the posts, SuperDave. I have gathered a lot of info from them. I guess I let my heart control my thinking most of the time. You seem to be very intelligient. Thank you again.

scooter: More government handouts => more taxes => worse economy => less jobs, less pay => more hungry kids. Government CANNOT solve all social problems. The math just doesn't add up. Eventually, we will be like Greece, and there will be a heck of a lot more hungry people than there are now.
But forget Greece, let's look at a successful country. Hong Kong is known as being one of the purest capitalist societies in the world. It has very low taxation, and few social programs. Because of this, it enjoys a very high standard of living and long life expectancy. There are essentially no poor people, since opportunites to support oneself are abundant. This can only be attributed to freedom and capitalism, although in the future I expect it will be slowly destroyed by mainland China, which is a socialist/communist country.

SuperDave, the private sector can try to do this, but in this economy, I ask..HOW? Sure, parents, grandparents, PTA can donate all the items but eventually the funds will run out. If we had a good economy right now, it would be no problem, I am sure. But for now, the government needs to handle these programs so people in the United States are not dying because of malnutrition like in third world countries. Some say it can't happen here, I disagree.

scooter: It hurts me too! The difference between us is that you want the government to meet needs such as this one, I want the private sector to do it. You read all my posts, but you haven't commented on anything I said, you've only expressed your feelings from a gut, emotional level. Sometimes you have to set aside feelings, and instead use reason.

SuperDave, I have read everyone of your posts. So what if it is a government program, kids still need to eat. Whether it be provided by the government or the private sector. I am sorry, I get emotional with this subject because when I was a single parent of 3, some of these programs really helped me out. Back then there was welfare, but $600 didn't go too far with 3 children. I was poor, yet when my kids brought friends home who were hungry, guess what? I fed them with the little we had. I guess I have a lot of feeling towards this issue. It may not be logic in your eyes or anyone else's, but to me it hurts deep down to know there are children who have no food, no bed, no suitable clothing.

supermom - love the moniker :)

scooter says "SuperDave, think seriously about what you are implying. Mankind has helped each other since the beginning of time".
Well all I can say to that is....DUH!
No one would disagree with your statement, but again, we're not talking about people helping people, we're talking about a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
Really scooter, if you're going to address my comments, you really need to read them first.

How hard is it to have food around the house? HARD for low income people. Some have a choice, pay rent or eat. I know that is a dramatic example but it rings true. Some over qualify by dollars for food help and Echo can only serve so many people a day. Salvation Army does also, BUT sometimes people cannot even get there to apply. It is a vicious circle with no end in sight.

I agree with some about how to cover this cost after the grant money runs out. I am not against kids getting a nutritious meal, but how hard is it to have fruit, veggies, granola bars, etc around the house for a child.

I haven't run out of comments! SuperDave, think seriously about what you are implying. Mankind has helped each other since the beginning of time. If I knew a child was hungry and I needed gas, what do you think I would do? I would split the money between both and make sure that child was fed. Serving a meal to some kids before school is pointless to argue about, it is human nature. Next thing you will complain about are the senior meals offered in this community. What about Meals On Wheels? Any complaints on those programs?

Thanks Moo. I guess when you run out of arguments you just attack the messenger. Nice.

mommyopes: I am still LOL from your post! HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! You used the words "bashing", and "bashers", and then one of my personal favorites, "complaining"! LOL!! You simply must be pulling my leg :)
Seriously, NO ONE is against anyone forming a "breakfast club" LOL! It's just that some of us feel that it is inappropriate (please read prior posts) for the GOVERNMENT to take over breakfast.
Next thing you know, the government will take over dinner too!

frogger: Thanks for the reminder about "Precious", been meaning to see that :) so I just added it to the queue.
RU: "Why does needing help always equate to unworthy people?" It doesn't! That what makes this complicated! We all want to help the worthy, but the devil is in the details.

I would like to know how many of you bashing breakfast clubs have kids? How many of you have the luxury of being home to be able to fix your kids breakfast and then get them to school before you have to be to work? How many of you bashing breakfast clubs give your kids a poptart and consider it breakfast? I can keep going!!!! At least at breakfast club a child can get a nutritious breakfast that will help them to concentrate on learning in school. Isn't feeding a hungry child and giving kids the best opportunity to learn what is important? For all you bashers, pack up and find somewhere else to live so those of us that actually see the positive benefit of kids being cared for don't have to listen to your complaints. This post is JMO!!!!

RU- I have a problem when a program is started with a grant without a good plan to cover the costs later. A grant has to come from somewhere (fed or state)and means that there is a onetime influx of other tax funds given to an entity (school district in this case). Once the program is in place and the grant is used up....what then? I like parks and libraries as well as the next person but just think that we are not in a good place economically to ignore spiraling governmental budgets. Is it fair to get ourselves so far in the hole providing services that we chain the same kids we try to help with massive debt?

Why don't you go to the home of every child who uses this program and interrogate the parents or guardians? Inspect the home, look at the finances, question the relatives and neighbors and see if the parents are spending their money the way you citizens see fit. While you're trying to determine if each kid is worthy of breakfast, don't let them have any and let the kid watch you argue the why-of-it-all while they stand there with their stomach growling. Ridiculous.

ruserious- not sure what you mean. Met before?


This must be the lady in the Escalade.

Yes these people need help and she will, I am sure, get back on her feet.
These are not the people I am talking about.

The movie Precious- watch it and you will see who we are talking about. The attitude of Precious's mother I mean. Not the needs of Precious and her children.

Frogger (haven't we met somewhere before?), What about the woman who worked at a support company for GM for 15 years, had a small percentage of her weekly checks going to United Way, lost her job, found one at 62% of her previous wages after 5 weeks because she didn't want to fall into the unemployment trap and now makes a small amount more, makes $46 too much a month to get food stamps (but didn't want to get them anyway), reluctantly started using a food pantry many months after she needed one (and receives limited food from it because that's what's available to her), lost her husband when they were newlyweds of 22 when there was barely enough insurance to bury him, their union produced one son, now 14? Never smoked a day in her life, doesn't drink, has a date about twice a year, and paid for childcare up until she lost her job. Savings? Reasonable for her situation, now used to keep up since she lost her "good" job.
What about the little old couple whose retired breadwinner lost his hard-earned pension due to budget cuts, had raised 2 children who help in whatever way they can, but have similar scenarios to the woman above?
I could go on....
Why does needing help always equate to unworthy people? Let's "throw them under the bus" because some less than desirable unemployed (or underemployed) citizens fit your stereotype?

Super Dave- have you seen Precious?

I understand what you mean by "normal" the cycle will never end!!

This movie made my cry even after it was over.

Her kids by the father who raped her should get to eat breakfast. Precious's mother is the one who should STARVE to death!!!!!

luvorleav
Aug 19, 2010 at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal Or how about the people that claim poverty when smoking that cigarette and displaying their many tattoos and piercings. Feeding your kids should be priority #1.

I have asked this MANY times.

I have seen people at ECHO filling their cars up with more food than I can afford at the store with cigs hanging out of their mouths. I have seen peoples car re-poed and they could make the payment IF they gave up the smokes!!

Okay one more question. If these people cannot afford breakfast WHAT are they buying with the FOOD stamps?????

I also agree with if you brought them in this world FEED them. But as we all know lots of these people should heave never brought them into the world at all. They still need to eat. Hopefully most can pay if they would like to eat before class instead of at home.

scooter- I agree this is a good program.

" and looking dirty"
NO excuse for this. A bar of soap doesn't cost much.

Well, BunBun, I did not see where something had to be cut to fund this program; I thought it was a grant from available funds, and usually receiving a grant means the money was already available, and someone will get it regardless. Our cost would be the same with or without this program.
But-I would think, if it would ever come to an emergency situation where things had to be slashed, (I mean a drastic and scary scenario) I would expect we should start by eliminating any non essential, non-life sustaining "niche" programs and their upkeep, like parks, recreation, (pools, sports facilities).
Please understand, I believe these things are a wonderful part of a city's character, and good for the moral and physical fitness of it's citizens, but non-essential if unaffordable. People can get their exercise on their own. And, like many private or volunteer run social programs, this would be a perfect place for volunteers in an emergency or just plain to show people's pride in their city.
I guess (to me) our priorities are mixed up if, when funding is in question, we leave the health of children to chance (volunteerism and donations), but "mandate" sustaining our aesthetics and fun stuff.
I agree with your " there is a basic problem in message board posting" and understand why Eyster does his CAPITALIZATION. It's hard to try to convey points in this monotone.

RU: Thank you. To answer your question, in general I disagree with anything amounting to "transfer payments" or "entitlements". This program in particular would be a wonderful idea if it was done voluntarily, without government coercion. A funny thing happens when charity is voluntary. Politics is out, accountability is in. And accountability means that more of the money donated ends up helping those meant to be helped, and isn't that really what the goal is?
People keep confusing private charity with government handouts. The latter is anathema to the former. We see taxes go up a little bit, we see people being helped and think, well gee I guess I can pay a little more as long as it's helping people. What we don't see is the political appointees and government workers making six figures and doing little or no work. We don't see the insider contracts being signed in back rooms. We don't see the waste of resources. If you ever served in the military (I did) you should have a real good idea of the scope of government waste. It is truly shocking. And yet, government continues to expand social programs, using our very love and concern for our fellow citizens (especially the children!!) against us.

RU- I think that there is a basic problem in message board postings in that peoples writing styles cause the messages to be somewhat out of phase with each other. So I will be blunt:
1)Our economy sucks and our state is in debt. With job losses and pay cuts -the taxpayer cannot afford to spend more.
2)creating a program for school breakfast might be ok if the schools cut spending elsewhere to pay for it.
3)parks, pools, etc. are not essential services. they are nice to have things when the economy is good.

4)- yes you can have an opinion of where your tax money is spent. So what do you wish to cut to pay for this program?

Ok SuperDave, we disagree. That's ok-it happens. I respect and understand your opinion and your reasons, please respect my right to have my own.
I didn't call you names that I remember(?)
Simply-of all the places that your (and our) money goes, in most cases, I agree with consideration of IN SCHOOL non-recreational programs to benefit our future adult citizens, especially when it could very likely impact their learning process (and our futures as well). (For example, not being hungry while learning.) It's wonderful when these needs are voluntarily met, and many are. Not all.
Do you question recreational use (or consideration) of your money when the subject arises? Ice rinks, pools...?

One more comment then I am done. My niece and her husband make good money but need help, she works full time and so does he, my daughter and her husband need help, she is a store manager and he sells cars. My youngest daughter needs help, her fiance works 2 jobs and they need help with 3 kids (and don't say they don't need 3 kids, 2 were brought into my daughters life because they were abandoned, only one child is biological). That is just within my family, we parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents can only do so much to help without going without ourselves. These programs such as this, Echo giving out school supplies and food, Salvation Army helping with food, etc, etc, will ALWAYS be needed UNLESS people get better wages, better benefits and more jobs available.

You are completely right, SuperDave, it will never end. This subject of people helping people has been around since the beginning of time. We don't know when it will end. In Janesville, probably never. All cities have some sort of free needs to offer their community. I guess I was just raised that way, to help others IF I can. I try by helping my own grandchildren and sometimes even their friends. Walk into an elementary school once and the first classroom you come to you will see atleast 2 to 3 children if not more, in raggy clothes and looking dirty. This is life, this is this economy, this is Janesville.

SuperDave, you answered it yourself with this comment....."No matter what we do, it's never enough."

RU: Again, you don't get it. You change the subject and go off on a tangent. Your "logic" seems to follow the old, well if X is allowed, what is wrong with Y? You don't want to give up X, do you??? So, as long as you don't want to give up X, then you can't oppose Y.
Sorry, that doesn't work for me. What I am asking, again, is this: when can we stop creating yet more new social programs to transfer yet more wealth from some people to others? WHERE DOES IT END?
I don't "demand" anything - it is you who is demanding yet more tribute. Interesting use of the language btw. Like the misuse of the word "selfish" (see previous comments).
I have not suggested taking away anything. I only ask - when will it be that you will stop approving of taking more from the supposed "haves" to redistribute to the supposed "have-nots"?
You can throw out all the red herrings you'd like - you can call me names, change the subject, mischaracterize what I have already said - it doesn't matter. You (predictably) still have not answered my question. And that is because there is no answer - nothing will ever satisfy the gaping piehole of wealth redistribution. There is no end.

No Super..Dave, it is you who are not comprehending my reply, so, as a wise man once said: "Let me rephrase one more time for you".
What I meant by "all needs" was once you (and everyone else), takes care of all of your own sanitation needs, fire protection... (thereby eliminating the need for many city/county services), food provisions (thereby eliminating such government agencies as the FDA), your education needs (thereby eliminating the needs for schools)and on and on....
However, I won't talk to you like you are a nitwit as you talk to those who don't share your opinion.
Exactly when that will be (when all can take care of their own needs), you demand? I sure don't know. (But I'm sure it starts with this generation of students whose welfare we're speaking of). What are you doing to make it happen? Are you using any of these services? Don't need any help? Just continue the services you use?
I don't want a welfare society any more than you do, but how far should we go to eliminate THAT? Or what do you deem appropriate to prevent it and still have us be considered "civilized"? Would you prefer to take-away instead of giveaway? What should we take away?
I don't use the wading pools (are they considered a give-away or what?), I can't imagine what important function they serve considering what they must cost to maintain, and I don't need them, can we bulldoze them? Who'll pay? I have a PO box, can we fire all the mail carriers? I realize these are things 99% of the population uses, so we should keep them, right? What about the 1%, especially children, who aren't as perfect as you, and need a hand? Not your problem? Neither is your house fire to me, so I say, no more fire protection. I have a sprinkler system.

TJ: Good one! LOL!!
RU: "That's where it will end SDave, when everyone can always provide for himself 100%".
You are not comprehending my question, or (as I predicted), you cannot answer it. Let me rephrase one more time for you.
What program will be the last one? What criteria can we use to determine when everyone's cradle-to-grave needs and wants are reasonably satisfied?
Any reasonable person must conclude that it is impossible for government to satisfy everyone's needs and wants. Has never happened, and it never will. So at what point will those of you who support giveaway programs be satisfied? Your answer "when everyone can always provide for himself 100%" is a utopian hallucination. The very programs themselves encourage more dependency, thus everyone will never provide 100%, particularly when high taxation further discourages productivity.

Superdave you're awfully rude to other posters in this blog. State your point without putting people down and you might feel a little better about yourself.

Ok BunBun, I am forced to do a SuperDave: "Please read my previous posts, and let it sink in."
Please don't talk down to me, re: "...if you can give it the dignity of refering to it as an argument...". Just as my SuperDave quote above-it is no way to discuss. I see what you are saying, and agree in part. But as you yourself asked " I can have no opinion on the use of my tax money?"
My comment: "For example, are parks and pool availability more important than milk and fruit?" was asking if priorities should be set by how important they are to life itself, rather than to quality of life? It was just a thought.
And my questions about "who gets to decide" are just asking if only the services used and needed by Absolutely EVERYONE should be the government subsidized ones affecting our taxes, and the other services should be individually paid for by whoever needs them?
Of course, then there would be no school buses, no parks or pools, no trash pick-up, no plowing, no fire protection....because there are people who actually don't use those services. Yet.
You questioned my "Who gets to decide." I just meant, which individual should get to say ""I don't need it, so let's not provide it."? (Or....which things have merit, and which ones don't...is all I want to know. The ones you need? The ones I need?)
That's where it will end SDave, when everyone can always provide for himself 100%.
Case closed (Just kidding)

as an aside -just wait till the grant money runs out. Then the fee for the "paying" students gets raised to cover the costs for the "free" students. When fewer "paying" student families can afford the cost, they will tack overages into the school budget and try to run through a tax increace to pay for the program.

so since no one is able to decide what the limits are, I should be hit up for more taxes everytime someone comes up with what they think is a great idea? The service arguments don't hold water as I pay for all of these "free" benifets even if I don't use them. Sometimes my kids ride the bus to school, so that means I can have no opinion on the use of my tax money? Suppose I drive my kids every day to school, are the rest of you going to insist that I get reimbursed for the service I did not use?
I particularly enjoy the "who decides what are priorities" arguments when they are used to spend even more money. This argument (if you can give it the dignity of refering to it as an argument), can justify everything without making any logical argument. If the school district wants school uniforms I guess you people are just going to go with it as you have concluded "who are we to decide"...maybe we need school dinner and a place to sleep as well - who are you to decide what the priorities are? I will admit, It makes life simpler if you don't have to make any decisions.

SuperDave: Ditto.
Please don't be part of that "If you don't concede to my point and change your mind, you must be dense" syndrome.
I considered points on both "sides" to have merit, I just happen to believe the program to be a worthy one. I am just pleased you haven't said "case closed" as some do, suggesting that they were awarded the final say.

And scooter, you said "SuperDave, NO, this program will not end the need of a lot of homeless & poor people". I never asked if this program will end the need of a lot of homeless & poor people!!
I asked "WHERE DOES IT END? Which new giveaway program will be the last one? Please tell me Sarah, or anyone else that thinks this is a good thing.
Will it be this one? Will we never, ever have to hear about another new program to give away more to those deemed to be in need? Will this program satisfy everyone?"
Get the difference? I'm not asking if anyone's total life "needs" will ever be met (they won't).
I am asking when is enough, enough? WHERE DOES IT END? And I repeat, anyone that supports this type of program will not answer that question. No matter what we do, it's never enough.

RU and scooter: Please read my previous posts, and let it sink in.

RUSerious, I agree totally. There will always be a need for these programs. Not all parents are the same as BunBun and SuperDave think they are. The ones I know who use these services wish they could make their home life better, but just don't have the funds to do so in this economy.

SuperDave, NO, this program will not end the need of a lot of homeless & poor people. I hope not anyways. What is so wrong with feeding a child breakfast? I still do not understand your so-called logic. You know as well as I do that there are parents and families who cannot afford to eat 3 squares a day, not in this economy anyways. I would rather see dollars going towards feeding hungry children than going elsewhere in the school system. As was stated before, some parents go to work before their children leave the house, do you think those kids will make their own breakfast when they can pay a dollar and go to school and eat with their peers? Not everyone gets these meals for free. Only the ones who qualify for free/reduced lunches. I have even seen parents bring boxes of cereal, loafs of bread and donuts to the school for this free/reduced breakfast. The world needs more compassionate people, NOT selfish people like yourself and the other negative posters. The need for this program and other social service programs are only going to get worse before it gets better. Think about it in terms of that child, who through no fault of their own, want to eat but have nothing to eat at home. Have you ever went to bed hungry? Only to wake up in the morning and still have no food and still be hungry. It is sad, but true. It even happens in this good old town we call Janesville.

BunBun: " red herring with the services argument..I don't use most of what you list..."
Not a red herring at all. That was my point, actually. How do you decide which of these things we all help pay for are worthy? What are, and who sets, the priorities? For example, are parks and pool availability more important than milk and fruit? But I would venture to guess you do use some of those services. If not, I applaud you for your self-sufficiency.
SuperDave: "WHERE DOES IT END?" Good question, but another one is -Who gets to decide? and maybe -Which funded subjects are worthy and which ones are not? As I already asked "What are, and who sets, the priorities?"
And one more time; does anyone really assume that ALL parents who seek/need/avail themselves of help right now are unfit, unworthy, uncaring drug-crazed lazy slobs who will forever be a drain on the system and these programs will never pay off in the long run? ("... being forced to support (and encourage) those lifestyles...")

SarahB1: Those are some great examples, and in particular your family feeding lunch to the boy who had none. They are great examples of how we all can get involved in our communities, and help out those in need. The churches in particular are often able to help feed and clothe the needy. These are great examples because all of the solutions lie in voluntary action by members of the community, the key word of course being "voluntary". This is how we demonstrate compassion as a community, this is the right way.
But that's not what this article is all about. This is about yet another government program, truly the antithesis of compassion. Taking money from some (ultimately with the threat of property confiscation, imprisonment, or worse), to give to others, with all the inherent waste, fraud and abuse, is just wrong. You would be hard-pressed to show me one government wealth transfer program that is administered fairly, efficiently, with even a modicum of fiscal integrity.
The latest abuses of the government education system seem to have the goal of enriching the various government unions and their members. It always starts out the same - we've found yet another unmet need everyone! Just give us a little more money and we'll fix this problem for you. Or don't you care about little Johnny or Janey? What kind of selfish cretin are you?
(program gets passed). Waste, fraud and abuse ensue. It's an endless cycle, and some of us are just sick and tired of the game.
WHERE DOES IT END? Which new giveaway program will be the last one? Please tell me Sarah, or anyone else that thinks this is a good thing.
Will it be this one? Will we never, ever have to hear about another new program to give away more to those deemed to be in need? Will this program satisfy everyone?

Hate to dissappoint you BunBun but.....I do work two jobs and we support our own family. The breaksfast program is open to everyone...so it is not just for people to get free food it is run just like the lunch program. Thank you RUserious I believe my taxes go to good use when used for the up and coming next generation for they some day might take care of me. I do believe it all comes around one way or another.

others lifestyles don't anger me. What does anger me is being forced to support (and encourage) those lifestyles. If people need help, there are myriad programs available so why should we add to the mission of the schools to fulfill what is a basic parental responsibility? Nice red herring with the services argument..I don't use most of what you list but that is irrelevant as I pay for everything on your list as a taxpayer even when I don't use them.

wow bunbun, I thought my *comments were stretches, though I was being facetious. But I think you were serious in your 9:20 PM view of parents who accept help for their children when they need it and it's available, and have no concept of how variable people's circumstances (and the reasons)can be.
It seems you've either lived a very sheltered life (and think no one should need help), or know the "wrong" kind of people(and are angered by their lifestyles).
By the way, do you avail yourself of any of the services in my 8:43 post?

..or put another way. This is what used to be called "mission creep".
what is the goal of school? - give children a basic education. How far from that original mission are we going to go? I don't believe that kids are dumber than in the past so all of these add on services which are supposed to enhance learning are not being reflected in the final product.

Fine, lets be even more "compassionate" and have all the kids taken from home to live in a state run boarding school. You know, there are some kids who's lives are so wretched that the only compassionate thing to do is raise them away from the neglect and bad influences of their so-called "families". Yes sir, sure is much better to reward bad parenting by taking over the duties of parent, then mom or dad can get back to their crack, booze, facebook, xbox, or reality tv show without those responsibilities interfering. We welcome Big Brother with open arms, all in the name of compassion, of course.

Please, wcm4life, don't worry about what some say. It's surprising and even shocking that there could be any that don't think this is a worthwhile program, but you can be sure that more than enough do support it or it wouldn't be in place. I am happy that it is an option for you. I can't understand why others joke about "Then I want free lunch, too" etc. If he/she was in the school system/grade where it was offered, he/she could have it. It isn't being offered to the entire population of the country-that WOULD be a bit excessive. It's being offered to students in need of it, for whatever reason, in their formative years.
Why do they think this is so terrible, yet they might enjoy a Saturday afternoon in a mowed, maintained city or county park while their child plays on the swing set or in the wading pool without paying admittance and think nothing of it? *(Can't they afford their own backyard playground or pool, or don't care enough for their kids to put one in?) Or watch as the trash collector picks up their "stuff" instead of having to pay at the city dump. *(Too lazy to dig a hole?) Or they might put little SuzieQ on the bus for school without paying a dime to the driver. * (What? They're too lazy to drive her?) They can take a book from the library-even have one delivered to their library if theirs doesn't have a copy, or even have books delivered to the JAIL if they need it-*(obviously can't afford to buy a book or don't love their kids enough to buy them one), and no one complains about having those services offered. But when someone wants to feed some kids before school (for many reasons-but they complain about them ALL!), it must not pertain to their little one.
In other words, "if I don't need/want it, no one should have it!"
*silly accusations were to illustrate a point, not to be taken literally.

A grant:
where the Gov't takes money from me under threat of imprisonment and gives it to someone else who is not expected to repay.
.
nice job, if you can get it.

as far as using the money for more important things....If you knew what a grant was which I am guessing not.....you would know it is money put aside for what you apply for. the money for the breaksfast program is for just that. If Milton did not receive it someone else would. We do not just get it someone works very hard writting and applying for these grants....Jobs yes that is what all these grants help....along with the children getting a benefit sorry you see it your way and you do not see with a open mind. I pay for my children to eat breakfast and lunch it is not free.

!LOL :loof

I think the people of Milton need to make breakfast for me. If I'm hungry when I'm at work I'll be in a bad mood when I get home. Thus I will be unable to help my kids with their homework, therefore leading to degradation of my kids learning experience.

!evaDrepuS, em ot lacigol yltcefrep sdnuos efil4mcw ??tahW

Because Superdave it is OK to steal from people who have more than you. It is even more OK if you are a Robin Hood type that steals from people that have more and give it (called redistribution of wealth) to those who have less. It is morally justified in their eyes.

One more comment, re: the word "selfish". When another new program such as this is proposed, why is it that those who want it are never called "selfish", while those of us that question it are? Seems to me that those who want to take a larger and larger share of our incomes are the selfish ones. It's not "selfish" to choose to take care of your own family with your own money.

Great example of the type of poster I am talking about. I give you "wcm4life". Textbook! :O)

SuperDave
Aug 20, 2010 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal Seriously, we need to take these children away from their parents. Obviously they cannot care of them.
That statement is my issue. It really won't make much difference what you say after a statement like that.

Is there anything else that the taxpayers could provide to compliment these parents' lifestyles? Maybe we could furnish dinner, grooming, etc......for their (or dare I say "our") chldren? Yeah, I guess it does take a village to raise a child with today's values...sure was different when I was younger.

In all that emotion I think you missed our point.

wcm4life,
Well thank you! We are in the incredible business! Glad we could impress and surprise you today. I juggle as well?

Why does the Fontana program cost 40% more? In order to try the program teachers will give coupons to those who can afford and eat a nutritional breakfast at home as a reward? I thought this was needed?

If this is a program that is needed why offer free breakfast coupons to entice people to try it?

You people are incrediable!!! Unbelieveable in fact. Are you so blind that you can not see the reason for the program. Are you so selfish as to think that every kid that goes to the program is neglected. WOW...just WOW. Wake up Wisconsin and look to the real world and realize that life does not always revolve around you. That there are needs for people and kids in this state. Quite blaming every issue on the parents. The program is a wonderful way to start the day regardless if you need it or not. It is a well know fact that the most important meal of the day is breakfast. Go eat kids your deserve it. I have 2 in the program in Milton and they use it not because they don't have food at home. It's not because mom says they have to eat before they leave the house which most often they do. It's because they like what the school has to offer! Turn me over to CPS and they will laugh at you about me being a bad parent. People really think before you talk about something you don't understand!

Very well said, SuperDave!

SuperDave, If I gave you the impression I was calling names, I didn't mean to. And I certainly agreed with you and others re: parents and attitudes of entitlement. I am fully aware of that "syndrome" and am equally bothered by it. I think, after making sure that children are taken care of, parents must be held accountable. If they're truly doing everything they can (and you are certainly aware that some are having a difficult time now for reasons other than sloth) that children should be taken care of through whatever means available. We are provided with city parks, playgrounds, plowing, police and fire protection....and certainly we don't believe in "every man for himself" wild-west fashion. I feel the same way about children.
I'm not sure why it popped into my head, but why isn't school transportation thought of in the same way? (I think it's 2 miles), and transportation is provided. Shouldn't it then also be a parent's responsibility to get their child to school?
Anyway, I see both points of view as understandable, but, because of what (or who) is at stake, I am not against this "extra" help when it benefits the "helpless" child.

We can try SuperDave, but in the end you are right. Most people in the world respond to emotion not rational thought.

You're on the right track! It's frustrating when you state your position in plain English, then someone who seems not to have read it says something as ignorant as "you people are so selfish and you won't help these hungry kids who NEED this program" or other such nonsense.
Hard to have a rational conversation with those that resort to name-calling and raw appeals to emotion. We ALL care about kids! But the GOVERNMENT cannot provide cradle-to-grave care for all your earthly wants and needs.

SuperDave - I kept thinking that exact same thing while reading the comments here. I see two factors involved.

The first factor is this growing national trend to subsidize failure, negligence, incompetence and greed. From car companies to banks to foreign governments, the growing list of subsidized failures these days seems endless. (Before somebody jumps on me for accusing hungry schoolkids of failure, keep in mind that none of us here knows for a fact the underlying cause behind each and every starving kid. I'll give first hand testimony that, at least in one particular case, the kid is hungry by choice.) Except in cases where individuals directly help one another, it's unlikely the underlying cause of the failure will be known. The hungry kid might be an unfortunate victim of system failure, the child of greedy parents or simply lazy. We just don't know with any certainty.

Second, while it is commendable to voluntarily share your own success and good fortune with deserving less fortunate folks, government funds aren't voluntary contributions; they are taken by threat of force. There is nothing commendable or moral about putting a gun to your successful neighbor's head and forcing them to subsidize your other neighbor's failures. In doing so, you are making a social value judgment that isn't morally yours to make. It might be "legal" but it sure ain't moral and no one should ever feel good about doing it. Doing it becomes especially despicable if the neighbor most likely to end up paying for "your" subsidy of failure hasn't even been born yet.

Is this close to what you're saying, SuperDave?

scooter and RU: Either you are not reading my previous posts or you are not understanding or accepting them. If you have questions, please ask, but you just don't seem to be getting it.
Compassion and charity are great! I have absolutely no problem with that, and in fact I have great compassion for the needy and I personally donate to charity, a far greater percentage of my income than most. But that is NOT what we are talking about here. We're talking about a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. That has implications going far beyond compassion or charity!

If that's what you need to do Sarah go right ahead! It will be educational.

Dang, ladulce, where do you work in social work that pays you enough to afford an Escalade and its gas? I'm in the social work field and I don't have an Escalade... of course, I wouldn't want a gas-guzzling Chevy, either.

One last thing. WIC is not just for the poor, it is designed to keep pregnant mom and children healthy with checks for milk, cheese, cereal, etc.

Just give it up posters! There is a dire need for these kinds of programs. Madison School has one and even Lincoln School had a summer program providing meals. What is so wrong with this? We are now just seeing the effects of good ole Tommy Thompson on this one. HE cut out a lot of services such as welfare for the poor and these kids are the end result. These children need to eat, no matter if it is a school breakfast program or free/reduced lunches. Have you ever ate a school lunch? They are nasty and DO NOT give our kids a good meal. For instance, my granddaughter is lactose intolerant and not once is she ever able to get water or juice, just milk (and her and my other two grandkids that go to Madison get free lunches). Last year the teacher finally gave her a plastic cup for water that she keeps in her locker. Seeing the commercials on television for these poor, poor kids in other countries make me sick! There is a need here in the United States for our own kids to get fed and clothed. It is a shame that people think as they do, kids deserve help not from just their parents but also the society surrounding them.

RUSerious, I have no problems with those points and feel the same way about children's physical needs. We know from recent times there are many reasons people do not have food. That being said, I will always disagree with programs that have no requirements and remove a responsibility, without proper determination of need, from a grown adult like the breakfast program.

Ladulce, I was not given a description of the person but from the reports I have it is more than one person who rolls up in a luxury automobile, and no they are not bringing clients.

Perhaps it is I that you have seen "rolling up to WIC" in an Escalade. I drive an Escalade and I take clients that don't have a means of transportation to WIC. It is my vehicle, though, not theirs. Assuming that it is their car is silly. We (in the social work field) cart clients to WIC, the Jobcenter, and other places throughout Rock County. And, of course, if you see me getting out of the Escalade to go in with a client, you would probably say that I am "dressed to the nines" because I am in my career clothing.... BUT, I am not the recipient of these services. Sit a bit longer and see who else gets out of my car....

jv92: "but a decent needs analysis must be done first"
No doubt about it, otherwise it's not really helping the child in the long run, and even a poor parent can "learn" the rewards of being self-sufficient. Sometimes the hard way, and, of course, if it's going to work at all. I just mean the "physical" needs of the child should come first while we're at it.
And a poor parent is just not always the problem.

Superdave, you can rest easy about me. Think of "everything we can do" in universal terms (but I also don't mean passing the buck.) I am not naive enough to think that I am not doing all I can to help unless I have spent every available personal penny to feed a starving child, nor do I scrape together all available funds whenever I see an ad on tv telling me about a starving child overseas.
But you CAN be sure that I do everything I personally can for both causes, often in conjunction with others. I can do very little of anything from the poor house, so my "help" would be less affective. Though I, personally have much more in common with Mother Teresa than Bill Gates, but not for the same reasons. <---(tongue in cheek). I can do more if I'm personally "reasonably-equipped" enough to do it. No one said you had to take a vow of poverty to do good, nor is cash the only means by which to do good.
The "entitlement attitude": I too want to and try to avoid causing it, but NOT to the detriment of the child. You just do the best you can.
If everyone does something, something gets done; if everyone does little or nothing, little or nothing gets done.

RUserious,
I'm OK with all you said but a decent needs analysis must be done first otherwise like Superdave says there will never be enough to go around. Even if you tax a 100% somebody will not receive the benefit.

Well Sarah, I've known more than one person who worked there. You want sworn testimony? I sound like Scrooge? You know what maybe...but I'd rather look like Scrooge than a sucker who is contributing to the problem by providing to a large number of people who could provide for their own kids, or who could learn to provide but would rather get you to do it for them.

Superdave/ I suggest you read comments by bellagio and luvorleav and THEN tell me what I have made up. Wake up!

There are adults and parents that take advantage of every "free" program there is, I've seen it and I know of them. However, the program organizers quickly identify and disqualify these opportunists when it becomes evident they're abusing the system. It happens more than you know and eventually the abuser has no choice but to get a job and start taking care of themselves.

RU said "When we're talking about children, I believe we can never go too far to help them. Don't you?" No, I don't believe that at all! We CAN go too far, and this program is yet another example. Now if you're talking about private individuals and organizations, well that's great. (And on a personal note, for those that keep trying to portray the fiscally sane amongst us as uncaring, I do my part for children each and every month, so your baseless accusations are ridiculous). But if you're talking about yet another new government handout (read: give me your money at the barrel of a gun) - we reached the point of "too far" long ago. As others have observed, this "it takes a village" mentality is responsibie for creating still more individuals whose "need" is fueled by their sense of "entitlement".
And I ask you (no one will answer this), for those that think we can never raise taxes high enough, or give away too much to those "less fortunate", are you personally destitute? If not, you are not giving away enough - since there will always be those less fortunate than you, why are you still not broke? This of course logically leads to the next question - when everyone is ultmately taxed at virtually 100% of their income and assets, who will pay for the massive entitlements being promised to all?

Well, jv92, I sure can't disagree with you about "people pulling up in their Escalades", and, sad as that reality is, those children still must be fed. (I'm thinking we're in positions where we've seen many of the same things.) Let's do something about the people buying Escalades for themselves instead of eggs for their children by all means, but not at the expense of the children. I mean, let's REALLY do something. But what? There are those who do what they can to prevent it. Meantime, let's not let their children's well-being be sacrificed while we wait for their parents to man-up, either willingly or because they've been caught.
But it seems to me that some of those commenting just plain don't want to be bothered with someone else's problems if it doesn't involve them, not so much that they're otherwise thinking about those Escalade drivers being held accountable.
Don't you know there really are parents who feed their children first, then eat what's left over, and there STILL isn't enough for those children to have even 2 or 3 very basic meals a day 7 days a week? Do we sweep them under the rug because someone else less "worthy" might benefit, too?

But this program does not ask the great questions you do. It blanketly provides. I agree and wholeheartedly support the ideas you express however this must be handled on a case by case basis. This program and many like it do not do that. When you across the board take an action, there will be unforeseen consequences. Look at WIC for example. People roll up there in Escalades dressed to the nines demanding their baby formula. They will never provide for their kids because they know they can hold their own children's welfare hostage to get other people to pick up the slack. In other words, "I ain't gonna do it because those suckers will feel bad for my kid and they will do it!" These programs often times do this. These parents are using your caring and compassion against you. Caring and compassion make up good character traits but must be applied carefully.

If you're addressing me, jv92, I was just illustrating the severity of some people's attitudes toward helping children, no matter why they need the help. That's why I asked whether it seemed a stretch. Someone wondered how far it would go (or words to that affect). He/she probably meant how far could it go related to people being expected to help other people. I was illustrating how far it could go in the other direction with some attitudes of "every man for himself" I've seen here. When we're talking about children, I believe we can never go too far to help them. Don't you?
By all means, find out WHY children are going hungry, and if it is uncaring parents shirking their responsibilties, lets try to do something about them. If it's because the parents are having a hard time through no fault of their own, let's do what we can to help if we can. But lets make sure the children are fed first and foremost. Or not?
And, you ask, are children starving like concentration camp survivors? (Well, what about the ones who didn't survive?) Generally in the United States, we don't let it get that bad, but don't you think a large part of that is due to people such as those who want programs such as these?

Oh my gosh! Are the children starving like concentration camp survivors? Just illustrating the severity of your own analogy. I think you confuse helping with enabling.

People helping people as they have for centuries in the United States. What a concept for losers, isn't that right ,you "every man (child) for himself" citizens?
I hope you have enough cash sticking out of your pocket at all times so first responders will know if you are worthy of being helped if you run into trouble. If not, should they consider you "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" status? They might not have time to check what your insurance covers, if you have it.
A stretch? Apparently not with some of the attitudes found here.

I would quit felix but I am tired of reading stories of neglectful behavior by parents or bad behavior by adolescents and then have posters on here all shout in unison, "where were the parents?" The answer is? They weren't there, didn't care, or didn't know how to be parents because gradually over time programs such as this took away their role, their responsibilities, and the expectations that they, the parents should fulfill. You can't expect current or future generations of parents to fulfill a role or display a behavior if the society at large says "don't worry, we'll take over that for you." This is an unwise direction to go and we will regret it.

Quit complaining....be happy for what you have. There is always someone worse of than you are.

SuperDave,
I couldn't have written it any better than what you wrote on 8/21 at 3:21. It never will end. There will always be some need created and in the end a small minority will be supporting a huge majority. How dare we? How dare we question the wisdom of such a program? This will be the mantra as we march toward our eventual reliance on government supplied food, housing, and healthcare. At that point freedom will be a memory. But we'll feel good about ourselves because we provided for "everybody." The result will be a disgusting twisted impoverished version, but we'll have provided it to all.

TJ: Rather than making things up about what others supposedly think or said, why not just read the comments below?

So, every person with a tatoo, and piercing can afford food for their child? Every person who can't afford food for their child uses the money to buy cigarettes and alcohol instead? Do you have any idea how ignorant you all sound? What about a family who can only afford one meal a day because that is the hand life has dealt them? Why does it even matter WHY a child goes hungry? Do you have to analyze and assume? Isn't it good that a plan is in place to feed a hungry child? If a child stood at your door and said he was hungry, wouldn't you offer him what you have? We are here for a very short time on earth, let's help each other wherever and whenever we can.

Parker" Thanks, I am very thankful!
Just to clarify, the "where does it all end" statement refers to taking from some to give to others. There is no answer if you think this is a good idea. There will indeed ALWAYS be more places for new giveaways. How many new programs do we need? The Great Society has failed, long ago. It has created an underclass of multi-generational welfare recipients. That is their "normal". Yet another program, this time to supply free/subsidized breakfasts to students, is only piling on to the enormous welfare society we are already dealing with.
Let me answer my own question. It will ultimately end with the economic collapse of the United States, which could easily happen within the lifetimes of some of you who are reading this. We simply cannot pay for everything that some people would like, no matter how noble the cause might seem. And whatever you subsidize, you get more of. In this instance, this type of program will only encourage more people to "need" a free breakfast - how do I qualify?

SuperDave...Where does it end?... It wont, ever, there will always be the "haves" and the "have-nots" that is what makes the world go round. Give where you want, do what you can and be thankful you are who you are. Things can always be worse. Have a Great Weekend!

SuperDave: I get your point, on "where does it end?" I dont see this breakfast program as geared to people who dont/ cant feed their children, I see it as availability of a healthy start to the day of learning. If there were evening classes at school, I would also support a dinner program. and if I saw any "nekkid" kids coming to school, well then I would have to be questioning the parenting skills!
I pay for the breakfast, and I leave it up to the school to be the businessmen, charging enough to at least break even, Its not a handout, its just provided, and for the low income, just like the lunch program, they will get it free I'm sure filling out the appropriate papers, as they have for the lunch program. stating their income limitations.

NO ONE IS "unwilling to help feed a hungry child" PuhLEEEEEAAAAAAZE!!! Stop it!!!
Answer my questions - where does it end?
yeah_and: Apparently you are Mother Teresa, pledging a vow of poverty. How do I know? Because if you have not given away all of your earthly possessions to feed the (actual) starving children of the world, then you don't have any credibility here. Or are you just one of the lazy parents?

How sad the number of people who are unwilling to help feed a hungry child. You all drive me insane. Now i dont wonder why our foster care system is the way it is! Where have all of the kind hearted individuals gone? Not very many here, I feel bad for the day your child needs help, or moreover you need help, cause i will be the first one to say to your face exactly what you have said to all the others who needed help in tough times.

parker: I'll ask you the same questions I asked PJ. why not provide dinner also? What about clothing? WHERE DOES IT END???
If you answer, you'll undoubtably use the word "only", and/or attack those of us heartless people that detest children. Right.

I agree 100%...some people should not have children. And it's the people that shouldn't have them have more. It upsets me because most of them get assistance and here I am working my A** off. I have 2 children one is 19, now on his own, and the other is 3. Would love to have more but finacially can not afford to so I have the brains to stop. I had to get a 2nd job because my spouse was laid off in March 2009. With that took away a large part of our income. So I do understand that things can happen to people that are out of their control. He was picking up any side job he could. Thank God above was called back Monday!!! The bills keep coming in and I still have to feed my family. I don't want to lose my house that I worked so hard for. I also never asked for any assistance from anyone. The thought did go thru my head but got a part time job as a cashier to make ends meet. I was lucky enough to have a good man that did what he had to to provide for his family and lucky enough to get a 2nd job.

All these negative comments are pathetic! The kids that benefit the most may be kids who would otherwise not get breakfast at home, but how about the ones that have been on the bus for the past hour, that already got up at 5:30, and werent hungry right out of bed, its a nice thing to have the breakfast available to them when they are hungry, after they have woken up a bit more, two hours later. Its not a poor parenting thing for all. Or am I a bad mom for not getting him up at 4:30a.m.??

The program will cost 40K PLUS $1 per meal and its free to the poor.

So it REALLY is a program to subsidize meals for teachers and for students disguised as a program to feed the poor? Is this what Miton wants to do? Subsidize meals or educate students?

The "meal" is a glass of milk and/or 4oz of fruit juice and a choice of bread product. Where is the protein? What about those who are lactose intolerant? What about those who are vegans? IF the district wishes to earn income selling breakfast items and then charging confiscatory prices to students and teachers who fail to eat before school I support this 100%. Next we will learn that schools need more money to subsidize its food programs because the demand outstrips the supply. Why eat at home on your own dime when you can eat at school for half the price?

I would suggest that this program be required to feed students and teachers in the summer. Breakfast is just as important when children and teachers are not in school.

I think people are just tired of subsidizing everything. Everyone wants to see happy, fed children. $1.00 won't even begin to cover the cost of the breakfast, and the subsidies received for kids who are on free and reduced will not cover the cost of their breakfast. So it is yet another program they are pushing onto the school districts that eventually will trickle down to the middle class taxpayer. That is why the DPI has had such a hard time getting school districts in WI to start breakfast programs-they are basically money pits. I agree there are parents that shouldn't be parents. Staff have paid for kids lunches when they know the kid is hungry. We have had high school kids living in their vehicles rather than go home. Elem teachers keep extra clothes, soap, towels and toothbrushes for kids whose parents send them to school dirty or in clothes too small. It is sad to see and it makes me angry that there are parents that don't give a rat's *** about their kids.

And RUserious...very well said.

TCB-- You might want to reread this artical...
~
The meal will cost $1 for most students and will cost nothing for students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, he said. The program also will be open to staff members, he said.

This program is for ALL students of all classes. I just hope one day none of you negative posters ever need a little help. You never know what can happen to you, a spouse that could make you the needy one.

Lets assume every cent is spent on food. It will not. There are 3200 children in the entire district. How many require breakfast? It is 1000? is it 75? If its 100, that is 400 per child per school year. I guess the district does not care if these children go hungry during summer?

$70 per day for 195 days for 3 schools. 353 Per week. Every week.

Maybe the district "needs" 120K per year to fully fund breakfast?

Again, why leave the teachers out of the free breakfast? They need a good breakfast to teach I cannot understand why the teachers union is not demanding this....

PJ - Read the comments. No lack of humanity, no support of tax subsidies for banks, auto industry, road construction. And yes, some sarcasm, parody and other humour.
Questions for you PJ - why not provide dinner also? What about clothing? You can't have these kids running around nekkid, especially in the winter!!! Or are you lacking in humanity?

RUserious,
thank you for eloquently saying what I was not able to convey earlier.

I am embarrassed by the lack of humanity shown by many of these posters who would continue to gripe about providing food to a hungry child, and not even blink an eye at tax subsidies for banks, auto industry, road construction.

Seriously, we need to take these children away from their parents. Obviously they cannot care of them.

TCB-teachers are old enough to buy food and feed themselves; some of these children are not. (Although some teachers get a meal prepared for them towards the end of the school year-and they deserve it!) I bet the teachers you mention might have jobs, no?
How about if you have the children, then financial hardship strikes? Loss of a job (or2), loss of a parent due to death, desertion, any number of things. You've lived a charmed life (or a fairytale) if you think every single family goes from honeymoon to 2nd child without any setbacks.
I guess those families could give those children away if they could not avert personal disaster or did not foresee future hardship and decide not have children just in case something might happen.
Should we also shut down all food pantries, community aid groups, etc because these people shouldn't be eating (or shouldn't have been born?!) if they can't afford it?
Do you know how many cities in our county (and undoubtedly our country) are putting together school bags for needy children whose families are having a hard time right now? It would be very difficult without community support-and happily most community members (unlike grandy, etc) are only too happy to help (or I suppose these children should be kept out of school!?) Even the schools/students/parents themselves arrange large food drives for food pantries, but they should not benefit when the need is their own? I'm glad grandy, tcb and others are obviously not from Milton.

Perhaps the teachers will be feed as well? Tough to teach on an empty stomach let alone learn. The teachers should demand a catered lunch as well.

I'm sure everyone knows that there are people who's budgets have been sliced, and that if they can save a few dollars a month by taking advantage of this generous offering, then who can begrudge them the opportunity?
Maybe that extra few dollars can go to week-end meals, that extra pair of socks, or the ever-expanding list of required school supplies.
Why assume that this opportunity equates to poor parenting in every single case? If it's the case in some instances, wouldn't you want someone to feed those children? Growing numbers of families in Milton (and beyond) are needing to look for help with groceries (etc), people who would have never dreamed they'd need this help. Probably some of your friends, family or neighbors. Could they possibly all be bad, uncaring parents? The really uncaring parents are the ones who don't care if their child is fed, not the ones who encourage them to get breakfast at school.
You know the old line: "It's the economy, stupid."

How can some people be so cruel? Evidently your parents fed you breakfast but didn’t hug you enough. Some parents suck, plain and simple, but that does not mean their kids should not eat. Now please go find your children, hug them, let them know how lucky they are, and remind them that not all families are as blessed as yours.

Wow...way to turn a good deed into a bad thing! These are kids we are talking about. They all don't have a perfect home like the rest of you and no I don't have kids that will be part of the program so you can keep the mean comments to yourselves. Have a nice day.

NVgrf- you;re right. I am totally just as ticked off at you at the PARENTS that deny their children food.

If kids are coming to school without breakfast, the parents should get CPS called on their butt. if the parents are on food stamps and still not feeding the kids, they should get arrested for fraud, since food stamps =free lunch and breakfast at school.

Nvgrf,
Can you be a little more histrionic? Nobody is denying children food. Just saying parents should be feeding kids breakfast at home before school.

There are some very sick individuals on this site who would deny children food. The far right in our nation is out of control. Those who are true Americans, who care about the well-being of those fellow Americans who are unable to stand up for themselves, have to have the courage to respond to such individuals. If you remain silent, you are part of the problem.

Furthermore, I would like to point out, that there is no registration for these breakfasts, and, there is no paperwork or income requirements. So, at our school, sometimes a parent that is regularly home but has a meeting or something can drop off her child at school to eat breakfast at 7:45. FYI: at our school we don't have the state-supported breakfast program. We are completely independently financed, with a church group donating time and the school families donating all of the foods that are served.

OntheEside- Perhaps I mistyped. MY children don't participate in the program. I am at home with them in the mornings, and, yes, sometimes they aren't hungry, but, they wait until snack time at school. I parent them in such a manner that natural consequences are observed. However, many children don't get to make that choice because a parent must work to pay the bills. We support the program with donations, as, hungry children simply should not be. Just as we donate to Echo and my daughters know how to buy food for friends that don't have money in their lunch accounts. It is about helping those in need - and a hungry child should be at the top of that list.

PJGnyc - well said. Feed the children breakfast. The couple of dollars extra on our tax bill - who gives a sh*t? It's worth every penny if it puts food in the stomach of a hungry child.

I'm sorry but we have 2 kids of our own that we trying to raise and pay for. We shouldn't have to be responsible to help raise and feed other peoples kids. There are too many people out there that say they can't afford to feed their kids but they sure have enough money to smoke and drink. Aren't our kids suppose to be our priority before our wants and needs? Just my thoughts.

This program clearly doesn't go far enough. How are kids supposed to study effectively after school without a decent dinner in their little bellies? For that matter, how are they to sleep without a guaranteed warm, clean bed? Just take them at age five and give 'em back after they graduate high school, just in time to start working and paying the huge taxes to cover the payments on all of the debt we're running up in the name of our kids. No, wait...

PJ,
I understand your point but so do the parents that refuse to feed their kids because they know somebody like you will!

Or how about the people that claim poverty when smoking that cigarette and displaying their many tattoos and piercings. Feeding your kids should be priority #1.

Don't foster the sins of the parent upon the child.

So easy for you to stand in judgement of others. Seriously? complaining about a program that will provided food to a hungry child? Now that, my friends, is the really sad thing about our our 'society'.

Here we go with more enabling. If the grant is used at all, the "free" money of $41,000.+ would be better used to sit the parents down in a class and educate them that they need to feed the children they brought into this world and to be responsible citizens and not depend on someone else to look after the responsibilities that are theirs alone.
This is yet another example of "do gooders" thinking with their hearts instead of their heads.

What a waste of $41,000. Really, feed your kids at home. If they're "not hungry that early" they'll learn to eat after going to school a few times without. It's about choices. Either they choose to eat when it's served or they'll be hungry. If the parent's not home to serve it that early in the morning, someone responsible should be. If you choose to have 4 kids then feed them.

Don't worry Milton voted like 22-10 to increase their levy by 10.5% they should have no problem feeding all the kids! Now that there's only about 32 people in Milton that shouldn't be a problem!

It is not the community's responsibility to feed your kid breakfast. It is your responsibility. The breakfast programs are and always have been a sad testimonial to the state of our society.

Isn't the point that sometimes the parents have already left for work and the child wakes up and dress himself and chooses not to eat? School starts at 8:15 here, and, I know a lot of people have to be at work at 7:30 or 8 Am. Also, as a mother of 4, sometimes kids simply aren't hungry when they awaken. We support our local breakfast program and drop off items weekly. Regardless of WHY the children aren't eating breakfast, they deserve breakfast. Whether or not the parents are at fault is moot. The kids need to eat.