Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that no application is necessary is evidence that meals will be given to ANY child, needy or not.
Don’t many of these “needy” students have families that get food subsidies as well?

Yes. And you will see that most are illegal.

If the kids are illegal they don't get any SNAP.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that no application is necessary is evidence that meals will be given to ANY child, needy or not.
Don’t many of these “needy” students have families that get food subsidies as well?

Yes. And you will see that most are illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I think this is a great idea: Nothing good comes from hunger. If the children are hungry, behavior will suffer, and they will do anything they need to do to get fed.

It is much cheaper to educate and feed kids than to incarcerate them.


Also, no child should have to suffer hunger. Anywhere. You so called christians (I am an atheist) are supposed to have the moral high ground, yet you want kids to go hungry. I do not understand that moral position.

+1. You won't get a response to this right now, because they are all in church nodding at the sermon. It won't be until the get home from church that they log onto DCUM and start attacking programs to feed the hungry among the most vulnerable members of our society. (And if one of the moms of one of these kids had wanted an abortion because she could not afford to care for it, they would be on here yelling about protecting vulnerable children). This is why I became a lapse Catholic. They hypocrisy is just appalling.

I have several Muslim friends. They are just finish Ramadam, where they fasted for a month from Sunrise to sunset, so that they could feel compassion for the less fortunate. One of them used this time to volunteer in a soup kitchen while fasting. That is religion in action.

You know, I am a regular church going Christian AND.a conservstive and I have been on both threads infavor of feeding the kids. I am th the one who ppinted out the complete poverty of some of these areas, specifically Hybla Valley, which many of you were unaware existed due to your rich NOVA bubble.

You do not know the religions of any of these posters, and who is volunteering where (many churches have very active food pantries and poverty ministries) so it is really awful of you to eo smugly and incorrectly paint so many people who likely do just as much if not more than you with such a broad brush, just because some posters feep the government is the worst choice to administer charity and churches, community groups, non profits and neighbors helping neighbors is a much better and more effective way to take care of the humblest among us.

Except that data shows that churches, community groups, non profits, etc., historically either don't have enough resources to take care of everyone who is in need, or are unwilling to do so. Private support for the poor has been a long-time platform of conservatives, but it just hasn't been broadly effective. That's why the government, at many levels, steps in.

Some of the school's mentioned above, including Baileys, qualify for the community waiver that feeds the whole school free. However, no schools in Fairfax County have taken advantage of it.

Anonymous wrote:First, FCPS sponsors the program-- that is, they provide the food service facilities because they are there and not in use. They do not spend FCPS funds. This is paid for by the USDA.

Second, they feed everyone, because the programs are only in very high FARMS areas. These are Title I schools that do not require paperwork and feed all kids for free during the school year to, brcause the administrative costs of dealing with all the paperwork outweigh the costs of feeding the kids who aren't eligible.

Third, SNAP benefits were slashed this year. The money is not there for many families to feed kids lunch when the normally get it for free during the school year.

And lastly, I bet some of ya'll call yourselves Christisn too?

Where are you getting the information that these school feed all kids for free year round? They absolutely do not feed all kids for free during the school year at Bailey's, which is one of the schools with the summer BBQ program. Please stop spreading misinformation because it makes these programs more subject to attack by people who have no empathy for the poor. My kids go to Bailey's and there was a child in DS's second grade class who didn't qualify for free or reduced meals, but whose parents were just above the cut off. DS said the cafeteria people were always getting upset with the child because his account was in the hole, and even made the kid cry. I told DS he could pay for the kids' lunch from DS's account. I also get notices if my kids' lunch accounts get below a certain point. You are right about the summer because the administrative costs to keep track in the summer probably would be too high relative to the number of nonFARMS families who would make a special trip to the school just to get a free meal.

Ok. I understand there may be a USDA sponsored free breakfast/lunch site nearby (I don't know where, but I'll take your word for it), but in my last post I did separate FEEDS from the breakfast program during the school year. I was simply wondering what that 6% does for food if the FEEDS site isn't nearby.

If there is "food available everywhere, even for the 6%...in the richer areas" not located near a FEEDS site, then is the FEEDS program not necessary?

There are food pantries (and many have volunteers that deliver food . . . I have done that). There are churches and other community sites that are involved with food for the hungry. The gap that I see (where the FEEDS program can help) is in the preparation of balanced meals for children who are home alone during the day. Many young children and teens would not prepare themselves a proper balanced meal. The meals through FEEDS are nutritionally balanced and the school environment provides a safe place and social contact for the children. These are important side benefits IMO. Children from low income homes also need structure (these homes are often sorely lacking that). Even going to school at a certain time to get a meal provides a routine for them. Believe me, it's not enough, but it's something. I just can't believe these people who are against it. If you ever worked with low income families, this would be a no brainer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I think this is a great idea: Nothing good comes from hunger. If the children are hungry, behavior will suffer, and they will do anything they need to do to get fed.

It is much cheaper to educate and feed kids than to incarcerate them.


Also, no child should have to suffer hunger. Anywhere. You so called christians (I am an atheist) are supposed to have the moral high ground, yet you want kids to go hungry. I do not understand that moral position.

+1. You won't get a response to this right now, because they are all in church nodding at the sermon. It won't be until the get home from church that they log onto DCUM and start attacking programs to feed the hungry among the most vulnerable members of our society. (And if one of the moms of one of these kids had wanted an abortion because she could not afford to care for it, they would be on here yelling about protecting vulnerable children). This is why I became a lapse Catholic. They hypocrisy is just appalling.

I have several Muslim friends. They are just finish Ramadam, where they fasted for a month from Sunrise to sunset, so that they could feel compassion for the less fortunate. One of them used this time to volunteer in a soup kitchen while fasting. That is religion in action.

You know, I am a regular church going Christian AND.a conservstive and I have been on both threads infavor of feeding the kids. I am th the one who ppinted out the complete poverty of some of these areas, specifically Hybla Valley, which many of you were unaware existed due to your rich NOVA bubble.

You do not know the religions of any of these posters, and who is volunteering where (many churches have very active food pantries and poverty ministries) so it is really awful of you to eo smugly and incorrectly paint so many people who likely do just as much if not more than you with such a broad brush, just because some posters feep the government is the worst choice to administer charity and churches, community groups, non profits and neighbors helping neighbors is a much better and more effective way to take care of the humblest among us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So by this premise should all kids receive "free" food throughout the school year? That way nobody is missed. What about schools where breakfast isn't served at all?

Who isn't serving breakfasts in FCPS?

As an aside, there is a federal program where all students in a district, regardless of need, can receive free breakfasts and lunches, but those are very high poverty communities. This is a great idea for a number of reasons.

There are schools in FCPS that don't serve breakfast. My DS's school doesn't.

The vast majority do. Only 20 in the entire county don't (and I highly doubt those are in high FARMS areas.)

Right. So it is accurate to say that there are schools that don't serve breakfast.

So if the idea is to make sure that all students receive a healthy meal, why not serve breakfast at all schools? Our elementary has ~6% FARMS. Why do they have to go without?

I agree with you, and I think all FARMS kids at the very least should have access to free breakfast, but I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with the FEEDS program. Breakfast should absolutely be offered at all schools, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean the lunch program is a sham. Six percent FARMS is incredibly low.

What it has to do with the FEEDS program is the students who make up that 6% are nowhere near a school with the summer program. Perhaps the program should be expanded to all areas of the county so that it reaches all FARMS students.

There are actually USDA sponsored free breakfast and lunch sites all over the place. In low income areas they tend to require no proof of hardship, in the richer areas they are for low income families only. Expanding the barbecue program is probably not practical or cost effective, but rest assured there IS food available everywhere, even for the 6% in your school. You're still conflating apples and oranges, though. The issue of not having a breakfast program at your school is a separate issue from a FEEDS site nearby. The FEEDS sites are limited and aren't based on where a breakfast program exists, or there would be 176 of them.

Ok. I understand there may be a USDA sponsored free breakfast/lunch site nearby (I don't know where, but I'll take your word for it), but in my last post I did separate FEEDS from the breakfast program during the school year. I was simply wondering what that 6% does for food if the FEEDS site isn't nearby.

If there is "food available everywhere, even for the 6%...in the richer areas" not located near a FEEDS site, then is the FEEDS program not necessary?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So by this premise should all kids receive "free" food throughout the school year? That way nobody is missed. What about schools where breakfast isn't served at all?

Who isn't serving breakfasts in FCPS?

As an aside, there is a federal program where all students in a district, regardless of need, can receive free breakfasts and lunches, but those are very high poverty communities. This is a great idea for a number of reasons.

There are schools in FCPS that don't serve breakfast. My DS's school doesn't.

The vast majority do. Only 20 in the entire county don't (and I highly doubt those are in high FARMS areas.)

Right. So it is accurate to say that there are schools that don't serve breakfast.

So if the idea is to make sure that all students receive a healthy meal, why not serve breakfast at all schools? Our elementary has ~6% FARMS. Why do they have to go without?

I agree with you, and I think all FARMS kids at the very least should have access to free breakfast, but I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with the FEEDS program. Breakfast should absolutely be offered at all schools, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean the lunch program is a sham. Six percent FARMS is incredibly low.

What it has to do with the FEEDS program is the students who make up that 6% are nowhere near a school with the summer program. Perhaps the program should be expanded to all areas of the county so that it reaches all FARMS students.

There are actually USDA sponsored free breakfast and lunch sites all over the place. In low income areas they tend to require no proof of hardship, in the richer areas they are for low income families only. Expanding the barbecue program is probably not practical or cost effective, but rest assured there IS food available everywhere, even for the 6% in your school. You're still conflating apples and oranges, though. The issue of not having a breakfast program at your school is a separate issue from a FEEDS site nearby. The FEEDS sites are limited and aren't based on where a breakfast program exists, or there would be 176 of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So by this premise should all kids receive "free" food throughout the school year? That way nobody is missed. What about schools where breakfast isn't served at all?

Who isn't serving breakfasts in FCPS?

As an aside, there is a federal program where all students in a district, regardless of need, can receive free breakfasts and lunches, but those are very high poverty communities. This is a great idea for a number of reasons.

There are schools in FCPS that don't serve breakfast. My DS's school doesn't.

The vast majority do. Only 20 in the entire county don't (and I highly doubt those are in high FARMS areas.)

Right. So it is accurate to say that there are schools that don't serve breakfast.

So if the idea is to make sure that all students receive a healthy meal, why not serve breakfast at all schools? Our elementary has ~6% FARMS. Why do they have to go without?

I agree with you, and I think all FARMS kids at the very least should have access to free breakfast, but I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with the FEEDS program. Breakfast should absolutely be offered at all schools, but just because it isn't, doesn't mean the lunch program is a sham. Six percent FARMS is incredibly low.

What it has to do with the FEEDS program is the students who make up that 6% are nowhere near a school with the summer program. Perhaps the program should be expanded to all areas of the county so that it reaches all FARMS students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I think this is a great idea: Nothing good comes from hunger. If the children are hungry, behavior will suffer, and they will do anything they need to do to get fed.

It is much cheaper to educate and feed kids than to incarcerate them.


Also, no child should have to suffer hunger. Anywhere. You so called christians (I am an atheist) are supposed to have the moral high ground, yet you want kids to go hungry. I do not understand that moral position.

+1. You won't get a response to this right now, because they are all in church nodding at the sermon. It won't be until the get home from church that they log onto DCUM and start attacking programs to feed the hungry among the most vulnerable members of our society. (And if one of the moms of one of these kids had wanted an abortion because she could not afford to care for it, they would be on here yelling about protecting vulnerable children). This is why I became a lapse Catholic. They hypocrisy is just appalling.

I have several Muslim friends. They are just finish Ramadam, where they fasted for a month from Sunrise to sunset, so that they could feel compassion for the less fortunate. One of them used this time to volunteer in a soup kitchen while fasting. That is religion in action.

Well, I'm a Christian who is back from church this morning and I've been posting on the other thread in favor of this program. My church is involved with a lot of programs to help the poor to which I donate regularly and do what I can to help out. Most of the Christians I know believe in helping the poor and are supportive of this program.

Not sure if someone else posted this, but the food backpack program in which both our church and our scout group participate is run by the charity Food for Others and I'm sure they would be delighted to have as many churches, scout groups and others participate as possible. Look them up. Or contact your schools' counselors and ask how you can help-- the counseling offices play a key role in most schools, identifying the neediest kids whose families have trouble feeding them over the weekends when school lunch and breakfast aren't available.

Food for Others' student food backpack program (called Power Packs) runs through the summer as well.

Anonymous wrote:Here is why I think this is a great idea: Nothing good comes from hunger. If the children are hungry, behavior will suffer, and they will do anything they need to do to get fed.

It is much cheaper to educate and feed kids than to incarcerate them.


Also, no child should have to suffer hunger. Anywhere. You so called christians (I am an atheist) are supposed to have the moral high ground, yet you want kids to go hungry. I do not understand that moral position.

+1. You won't get a response to this right now, because they are all in church nodding at the sermon. It won't be until the get home from church that they log onto DCUM and start attacking programs to feed the hungry among the most vulnerable members of our society. (And if one of the moms of one of these kids had wanted an abortion because she could not afford to care for it, they would be on here yelling about protecting vulnerable children). This is why I became a lapse Catholic. They hypocrisy is just appalling.

I have several Muslim friends. They are just finish Ramadam, where they fasted for a month from Sunrise to sunset, so that they could feel compassion for the less fortunate. One of them used this time to volunteer in a soup kitchen while fasting. That is religion in action.

Here is why I think this is a great idea: Nothing good comes from hunger. If the children are hungry, behavior will suffer, and they will do anything they need to do to get fed.

It is much cheaper to educate and feed kids than to incarcerate them.


Also, no child should have to suffer hunger. Anywhere. You so called christians (I am an atheist) are supposed to have the moral high ground, yet you want kids to go hungry. I do not understand that moral position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, FCPS sponsors the program-- that is, they provide the food service facilities because they are there and not in use. They do not spend FCPS funds. This is paid for by the USDA.

Second, they feed everyone, because the programs are only in very high FARMS areas. These are Title I schools that do not require paperwork and feed all kids for free during the school year to, brcause the administrative costs of dealing with all the paperwork outweigh the costs of feeding the kids who aren't eligible.

Third, SNAP benefits were slashed this year. The money is not there for many families to feed kids lunch when the normally get it for free during the school year.

And lastly, I bet some of ya'll call yourselves Christisn too?

I'm a Christian who believes school funds and sponsorships should go toward education. Do you feel nice and sanctimonious for bringing up Christianity? I bet you do.

You're a sad excuse for a Christian. Jesus is ashamed of you.

+1. It seems like Jesus said pretty clearly that you should feed the hungry. Since you seemed to have missed those parts of the Bible, here you go: http://biblereasons.com/feeding-the-hungry/