Paying for fieldtrips for children in need in MCPS

[Anonymous]

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.

My family could not afford field trips and thus have not yet seen the Louisiana State House and the bullet holes in the stairway among others. That one sticks in my mind as hurting the most. At 16 I started working so I could go on my senior trip to Disney World.

I would have loved to have gone on field trips in school and am still miffed about the state house.

Examine your soul poster.

[Anonymous]

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.

My family could not afford field trips and thus have not yet seen the Louisiana State House and the bullet holes in the stairway among others. That one sticks in my mind as hurting the most. At 16 I started working so I could go on my senior trip to Disney World.

I would have loved to have gone on field trips in school and am still miffed about the state house.

Examine your soul poster.

Oh lord, now we're going to have people saying that it was actually good for you to miss that trip because it lit a fire under your butt to start working.

Sorry you missed your trip--I was not able to go on ski trips at my school (I know, not educational) and it was very painful to be left behind. Then the next day listening to all the fun things that happened...

Examine your soul indeed.

[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.

Not pp, but I think that poster is saying generally society is giving more hand outs. For instance, there was no backpack program or free breakfast in school growing up. So my food stamps amount may have been higher than SNAP, but these other support programs didn't exist. And I'm speaking anecdotally here.

[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.)

Fair point… while doing so takes away from the intent of the original post and discussion, I thinks it’s reasonable to offer a more detailed reply.
Two good reference points I like to use is:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
http://www.cbo.gov/topics/poverty-and-income-security/food-and-nutrition-programs

Both non-partisan. Now admittedly they can be fact dense sites but let me post two lead sentences from the CBOs first two topics;
“During the past 40 years, federal spending for major means-tested programs and tax credits for low-income households more than tripled as a share of gross domestic product. In 2012, such spending totaled $588 billion.”
“One in seven U.S. residents received benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2011, at a total cost of $78 billion. Spending on SNAP benefits more than doubled between 2007 and 2011.”

I could post more but I don’t want to link hundreds of graphs and charts nor is it necessary, for those interested they can peruse the sites and materials and parse the various data points out. Doing so reveals a macroscopic view over the past 30 years showing number of welfare programs have increased, spending has increased, and more beneficiaries have received from these programs. Thus I’ll stick to my original comment that since I was a child (which was admittedly longer than 30 years ago), welfare has expanded in size, scope and breadth. (I picked 30 years as we have fair balance of Executives from both sides of the aisle, I’m offering a non-partisan opinion).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Disagree, overall welfare benefits are more generous.
See my reply to 07:36 just above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. A car is not a luxury if you want to be able to get to work. A cell phone is not a luxury if you want people to be able to communicate with you. And if air conditioning is a luxury, it's a luxury that the vast majority of households in the US have, and that people die if they don't have.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2013/5/will-ac-put-a-chill-on-the-global-energy-supply
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/443213in.html/

Also, you can get a flat-screen TV for $100.

There's an awful lot of anxiety about all of those poor people who are getting away with having nice stuff at taxpayer expense. It kind of reminds me of "welfare queens", 40 years ago. And of Carol Gaither:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p,35922/#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
“One in seven U.S. residents received benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2011, at a total cost of $78 billion. Spending on SNAP benefits more than doubled between 2007 and 2011.”

Total SNAP spending more than doubled between 2007 and 2011 because the economy collapsed and lots of people lost their jobs. That doesn't mean that spending is more generous. It just means that more people needed SNAP.

[Anonymous]

Feds also raised the food stamp threshold so more people qualified. More costly program, no question.

As for field trips, those are subsidized by pta fees and the school collections.

[Anonymous]

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're an awful person.

Instead of resorting to pejorative, can you explain why the poster is wrong??

I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were awful. And I'll add- lacking empathy, compassion, and goodwill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. A car is not a luxury if you want to be able to get to work. A cell phone is not a luxury if you want people to be able to communicate with you. And if air conditioning is a luxury, it's a luxury that the vast majority of households in the US have, and that people die if they don't have.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2013/5/will-ac-put-a-chill-on-the-global-energy-supply
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/443213in.html/

Also, you can get a flat-screen TV for $100.

There's an awful lot of anxiety about all of those poor people who are getting away with having nice stuff at taxpayer expense. It kind of reminds me of "welfare queens", 40 years ago. And of Carol Gaither:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p,35922/#

That is what is wrong with society today. Since most people have it, I deserve it too!!

I am not working my butt off and not spending money on luxuries so my taxes go to people who mismanage money and "deserve" what most have. Seriously, is there no reason to work hard and save anymore. Geez

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. A car is not a luxury if you want to be able to get to work. A cell phone is not a luxury if you want people to be able to communicate with you. And if air conditioning is a luxury, it's a luxury that the vast majority of households in the US have, and that people die if they don't have.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2013/5/will-ac-put-a-chill-on-the-global-energy-supply
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/443213in.html/

Also, you can get a flat-screen TV for $100.

There's an awful lot of anxiety about all of those poor people who are getting away with having nice stuff at taxpayer expense. It kind of reminds me of "welfare queens", 40 years ago. And of Carol Gaither:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p,35922/#

A car is a luxury. There is public transportation to get to work. Car costs money and you must always put money in for gas, repairs and insurance. Who pays for that if you are poor?
Air conditioning is a luxury - you CAN survive without it. I barely turn mine on because I can't afford high electricity bills. If you are poor and have air-conditioning how do you pay the bill? Is it subsidized?
A TV is indeed a luxury especially a brand new flat screen TV. I don't care if it is $10. That should be going towards the field trip instead. Sadly most people would buy the TV and send in a note they can't afford the field trip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A car is a luxury. There is public transportation to get to work. Car costs money and you must always put money in for gas, repairs and insurance. Who pays for that if you are poor?
Air conditioning is a luxury - you CAN survive without it. I barely turn mine on because I can't afford high electricity bills. If you are poor and have air-conditioning how do you pay the bill? Is it subsidized?
A TV is indeed a luxury especially a brand new flat screen TV. I don't care if it is $10. That should be going towards the field trip instead. Sadly most people would buy the TV and send in a note they can't afford the field trip.

Yes, there is public transportation to get to work, except for where and when there isn't. Which is why, in very many places in the US, if you are a poor person looking for work, you have to have a car. You can't get to the job without a car. If you don't have a car, you can't work. And if your car breaks down, you lose your job.

I think that when you say "poor", you mean "destitute". And you seem to have a lot of ideas about how poor people do things. Where do you get these ideas from?

[Anonymous]

I would pay extra for using a comfortable private bus instead of using the MCPS buses.

I chaperoned one field trip and felt sick on the MCPS bus. I have no idea how my kids love to ride the bus to school.

[Anonymous]

If you want to donate, give whatever amount you can afford.

It does not have to be the cost of the trip for 1 child or more. Even 1 or 2 dollars can make a difference.

[Anonymous]

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're an awful person.

Instead of resorting to pejorative, can you explain why the poster is wrong??

I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were awful. And I'll add- lacking empathy, compassion, and goodwill.

PP (one who labeled another as an awful person), you need to make a better argument rather than name calling. It takes away from your stance. I am a person who always pay extra for the field-trip fund, yet I have no beef with those who do not want to donate.

You have to realize that this is a kind of charity. People should give charity because it makes them feel good. They should not be forced to give charity. This is like extortion. People who feel self-righteous about telling others to donate or volunteer and feel angry if others don't, are no better than those they are angry at.

PP would be an awful person only if they stole money from field trip fund or prevented others from donating to the fund.