Paying for fieldtrips for children in need in MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes but there need to be consequences for poverty too… if everything is provided for 'fairness' sake then what is the impetus to pul one out of poverty. We were not riches a child, I didn't get what the other children had, it was a motivation for me to work hard and now I'm much better off for it not only materially but as a person. If we 'reward' poverty then there is no impetus for others to improve their lives. Two important life's lesson is being denied these children when everything is being provided gratis. 1) That not everything is entitled, not everyone is equal, and that we can get along with others because they are richer or poorer because that's what Americans do.

All that said… I agree with us providing charitable support for children but I think its necessary children understand they are getting a charity.

Don't worry, there are plenty of consequences for poverty without telling poor children that they don't get to go on a field trip so that they will learn that it's lousy to be poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

How old are you? The current food stamp program goes back to 1964. Aid to Dependent Children goes back to 1935, became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (usually what people mean by "welfare") in 1962, and ended in 1996.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=54&articleid=298§ionid=1967

Yes yes but as I replied to another poster I'm referring to the current size scope and breadth of over welfare and food-stamps as compared to a generation or two past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

You are an idiot.

I grew up poor (especially right after my parents separated/divorced) and thank god people at my school were looking out for kids like me when it came to field trips, sports uniforms, etc. And it in no way created a dependence issue for me or for my mom, who eventually got back on her feet. Now let's say the poor kid's mom decides to go out and buy cigarettes with the money she could have given her kid for the field trip...so the kid should be punished?

People like you make my skin crawl.

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

You must be ancient if there was no welfare when you were a kid. Welfare was actually better before 1996 than it is now.

Ancient perhaps but not decrepit… of course there was welfare but it was not used in the breadth size and scope as we see it today. And there was also a stigma associated with it which IMHO was a good thing, not so today. Now it seems the stigma is upon those of us who feel welfare should be reserved for those in absolute need.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes but there need to be consequences for poverty too… if everything is provided for 'fairness' sake then what is the impetus to pul one out of poverty. We were not riches a child, I didn't get what the other children had, it was a motivation for me to work hard and now I'm much better off for it not only materially but as a person. If we 'reward' poverty then there is no impetus for others to improve their lives. Two important life's lesson is being denied these children when everything is being provided gratis. 1) That not everything is entitled, not everyone is equal, and that we can get along with others because they are richer or poorer because that's what Americans do.

All that said… I agree with us providing charitable support for children but I think its necessary children understand they are getting a charity.

Don't worry, there are plenty of consequences for poverty without telling poor children that they don't get to go on a field trip so that they will learn that it's lousy to be poor.

Absolutely agree but there is 'poor' and there is poor. Many many 'poor' today have a car, air conditioning, cell phones, multiple flat screen TVs, cable and items which I myself consider luxuries. We only have one TV in our house even though I can afford more. I think the 'poor' aught to provide for more themselves and that frees more resources for the truly poor. Catering to the 'poor' doesn't truly help these people, takes resources from others truly in need and is provided via heavy taxation which is an undue burned on many middle classes families which have to make sacrifices to pay those taxes. I appreciate the generosity and compassion of many posters here but to simply give everyone because a perception their life is more 'lousy' than their own is not sound policy and if you ask me awfully naive even if it makes you feel good about yourself (talking in general and not describing you in that way).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

You are an idiot.

I grew up poor (especially right after my parents separated/divorced) and thank god people at my school were looking out for kids like me when it came to field trips, sports uniforms, etc. And it in no way created a dependence issue for me or for my mom, who eventually got back on her feet. Now let's say the poor kid's mom decides to go out and buy cigarettes with the money she could have given her kid for the field trip...so the kid should be punished?

People like you make my skin crawl.

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

You must be ancient if there was no welfare when you were a kid. Welfare was actually better before 1996 than it is now.

Ancient perhaps but not decrepit… of course there was welfare but it was not used in the breadth size and scope as we see it today. And there was also a stigma associated with it which IMHO was a good thing, not so today. Now it seems the stigma is upon those of us who feel welfare should be reserved for those in absolute need.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Really?? Did you see the names some of the posters are being called for simply speaking their views?? You resort to snark in answering my honest discussion points?? I think you prove I'm right on target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

How old are you? The current food stamp program goes back to 1964. Aid to Dependent Children goes back to 1935, became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (usually what people mean by "welfare") in 1962, and ended in 1996.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=54&articleid=298§ionid=1967

Yes yes but as I replied to another poster I'm referring to the current size scope and breadth of over welfare and food-stamps as compared to a generation or two past.

First, there is no such thing as "welfare". It ended in 1996. There is now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Second, everybody agrees -- everybody -- that TANF provides less than AFDC. In fact, that was the whole point of TANF.

As for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, aka food stamps) providing more today than a generation or two in the past -- well, if you want to provide some evidence for this assertion, please do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ancient perhaps but not decrepit… of course there was welfare but it was not used in the breadth size and scope as we see it today. And there was also a stigma associated with it which IMHO was a good thing, not so today. Now it seems the stigma is upon those of us who feel welfare should be reserved for those in absolute need.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Really?? Did you see the names some of the posters are being called for simply speaking their views?? You resort to snark in answering my honest discussion points?? I think you prove I'm right on target.

They may be honest discussion points, but they are also uninformed discussion points. (I'm not the PP who said that you have no idea what you're talking about.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely agree but there is 'poor' and there is poor. Many many 'poor' today have a car, air conditioning, cell phones, multiple flat screen TVs, cable and items which I myself consider luxuries. We only have one TV in our house even though I can afford more. I think the 'poor' aught to provide for more themselves and that frees more resources for the truly poor. Catering to the 'poor' doesn't truly help these people, takes resources from others truly in need and is provided via heavy taxation which is an undue burned on many middle classes families which have to make sacrifices to pay those taxes. I appreciate the generosity and compassion of many posters here but to simply give everyone because a perception their life is more 'lousy' than their own is not sound policy and if you ask me awfully naive even if it makes you feel good about yourself (talking in general and not describing you in that way).

"Many many" poor? How many poor? And how do you know this?

(Do you also consider a refrigerator a luxury?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ancient perhaps but not decrepit… of course there was welfare but it was not used in the breadth size and scope as we see it today. And there was also a stigma associated with it which IMHO was a good thing, not so today. Now it seems the stigma is upon those of us who feel welfare should be reserved for those in absolute need.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Really?? Did you see the names some of the posters are being called for simply speaking their views?? You resort to snark in answering my honest discussion points?? I think you prove I'm right on target.

They may be honest discussion points, but they are also uninformed discussion points. (I'm not the PP who said that you have no idea what you're talking about.)

How do you know that? Is that the point of having discussions and why we have forums like DCUM? To educate, to learn, and also to disagree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

Go take a nap, Ebenezer.

Really I think the PP is on to something. Go to school during snack time or go on the fieldtrip and see how many of your kid's classmates bring in snacks-- hot cheetos, juice boxes, cookies, gatorade. I stopped donating to the field trip when I volunteered to go with the class. I was amazed that kids who didn't pay had several dollars worth of junky snacks, while I made my kid drink from a recycled water bottle and eat a sandwich bag of Kix cereal. I also was pissed off that a mother came who didn't pay, didn't pay for her kid, and brought a younger sibling who she didn't pay for and she had a nicer smart than I do (she had a smart phone with internet while i still have a flip phone).

Do you realize many parents are just on survival mode? Maybe they were not taught budgeting or healthy eating or maybe the parents are couponing and picking the cheapest stuff. We buy the cheapest cereal on coupons. I rarely will more than $1.50 for a box. Sure, I prefer Kix, but we get what is in our budget (usually I buy better stuff for the kids and the husband gets the crap). Same with juice boxes - husband gets what is cheap. Kids do get water. Sadly, that crap food is cheaper. Or, maybe they are getting it from a food pantry and that is what has been donated.

Do you realize how many parents aren't in survival mode when they should be? They don't even realize they need to be because anytime there is a problem they turn to a charity or the govt to pick up the slack. I live in Alex City and the situation here is generational. After a few years of witnessing this kind of thing at my child's elementary, I realize that one of the only ways to end generational poverty in this area is going to be to stop the freebies. Sadly, yes, some kids are going to go without but that's not my fault. It's the parents fault. A kid who grows up seeing their parent and grandparents and aunts and uncles pay for nothing, receiving handouts for everything - well the kid thinks thats the way it supposed to go.

Why are you on the Maryland Public Schools board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ancient perhaps but not decrepit… of course there was welfare but it was not used in the breadth size and scope as we see it today. And there was also a stigma associated with it which IMHO was a good thing, not so today. Now it seems the stigma is upon those of us who feel welfare should be reserved for those in absolute need.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Really?? Did you see the names some of the posters are being called for simply speaking their views?? You resort to snark in answering my honest discussion points?? I think you prove I'm right on target.

They may be honest discussion points, but they are also uninformed discussion points. (I'm not the PP who said that you have no idea what you're talking about.)

How do you know that? Is that the point of having discussions and why we have forums like DCUM? To educate, to learn, and also to disagree?

How do I know this? Because I am more informed. You are saying that "welfare" and food stamp benefits are more generous now than 20 or 40 years ago, and this is factually incorrect. Please educate yourself about Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

[Anonymous]

Let's look at an example of a specific child we've all heard of recently: Relisha Rudd. Living with her mom and brothers in a homeless shelter, and a pretty horrible one at that. Let's say Relisha goes to school and there's a field trip. Her mother has blown her TANF on name brand sneakers for the boys and Uggs for Relisha. Sorry Relisha, you can't go on the field trip, your mom hasn't sent in the money. You're poor, and poor people have to learn how to manage their money better so you'll need to learn this lesson now.

We really punish the child-and perhaps deprive her of an educational experience- because the parent is a total nitwit? (I'm not calling poor parents nitwits, but in this specific case I think even that name is a charitable one.) Do you think the parent (in this case) gives the slightest crap that her child can't go on the trip and will do better next time?

And to be honest, you have no idea where all that name brand stuff comes from. I work with the homeless and you'd be surprised how well-dressed some of the children can be due to donations, gifts, and other more nefarious means. Believe me, just because you're wearing Uggs doesn't mean that poverty doesn't absolutely suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

How old are you? The current food stamp program goes back to 1964. Aid to Dependent Children goes back to 1935, became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (usually what people mean by "welfare") in 1962, and ended in 1996.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=54&articleid=298§ionid=1967

Yes yes but as I replied to another poster I'm referring to the current size scope and breadth of over welfare and food-stamps as compared to a generation or two past.

First, there is no such thing as "welfare". It ended in 1996. There is now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Second, everybody agrees -- everybody -- that TANF provides less than AFDC. In fact, that was the whole point of TANF.

As for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, aka food stamps) providing more today than a generation or two in the past -- well, if you want to provide some evidence for this assertion, please do.

It seems you are being argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative. SNAP and TANF are 'welfare' programs, no??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely agree but there is 'poor' and there is poor. Many many 'poor' today have a car, air conditioning, cell phones, multiple flat screen TVs, cable and items which I myself consider luxuries. We only have one TV in our house even though I can afford more. I think the 'poor' aught to provide for more themselves and that frees more resources for the truly poor. Catering to the 'poor' doesn't truly help these people, takes resources from others truly in need and is provided via heavy taxation which is an undue burned on many middle classes families which have to make sacrifices to pay those taxes. I appreciate the generosity and compassion of many posters here but to simply give everyone because a perception their life is more 'lousy' than their own is not sound policy and if you ask me awfully naive even if it makes you feel good about yourself (talking in general and not describing you in that way).

"Many many" poor? How many poor? And how do you know this?

(Do you also consider a refrigerator a luxury?)

Not the PP but you are ridiculous. The things she posted above are ALL luxuries. You do realize that people up and up their debt and then claim they are poor and get on government assistance. People DO know how to work the system. Get paid under the table and only claim so much income. Use the food stamps for food and their undisclosed wages on luxuries. The fact is the people who truly need assistance get the stink eye because the system as a whole is flawed. But it is not a child's fault so they do deserve field trips. But you can not deny that it is being taught that "someone" will do it if Mom/Dad does not. If your parent doesn't show you how to manage money, save, be resourceful, only use what you need etc... then you will never learn. Most kids of all different wealth are not taught this which is why all kids have top of the line electronics, name brand clothes, parents have newer cars, etc... all while most people have NO money saved up at all. Everyone wants immediate gratification. The government will be there if I fail. It is HUGE issue in our country. It amazes me that a finance class is not mandatory in middle and high school. Kids graduate knowing Calculus but not how to balance a checkbook.

So I am not saying we shouldn't help but there has to be a sliding scale for people to encourage them to get back on their feet. And until then, yes they are NOT allowed to get whatever they want whenever they want. They should be held accountable to be resourceful and use their money wisely while other taxpayers are helping them out. Sorry, you just shouldn't get free range of my taxes while I save and you have a better phone, clothes and tv's than I have. If you think that is wrong so be it. I think it is wrong for people to abuse the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at an example of a specific child we've all heard of recently: Relisha Rudd. Living with her mom and brothers in a homeless shelter, and a pretty horrible one at that. Let's say Relisha goes to school and there's a field trip. Her mother has blown her TANF on name brand sneakers for the boys and Uggs for Relisha. Sorry Relisha, you can't go on the field trip, your mom hasn't sent in the money. You're poor, and poor people have to learn how to manage their money better so you'll need to learn this lesson now.

We really punish the child-and perhaps deprive her of an educational experience- because the parent is a total nitwit? (I'm not calling poor parents nitwits, but in this specific case I think even that name is a charitable one.) Do you think the parent (in this case) gives the slightest crap that her child can't go on the trip and will do better next time?

And to be honest, you have no idea where all that name brand stuff comes from. I work with the homeless and you'd be surprised how well-dressed some of the children can be due to donations, gifts, and other more nefarious means. Believe me, just because you're wearing Uggs doesn't mean that poverty doesn't absolutely suck.

I do get what you are saying but the cycle will forever continue unless they sterilize half of America.