facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

All Pittsburgh school students to get free lunch



Published: Wed, August 20, 2014 @ 5:19 p.m.

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Pittsburgh Public Schools officials say all 25,000 students in its 54 schools will receive free lunches when the new school year begins next week.

The district’s students will qualify under the Community Eligibility Provision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch and Breakfast programs.

The program lets school districts that serve mostly low-income areas to make all students eligible for the free meals without requiring individual students to file income eligibility applications.

All students in the district had already been receiving free breakfasts under the program.


Comments

1redeye1(4614 comments)posted 3 months ago

This is pure B.S. And people wonder why no one wants to work anymore. This is a prime example. We have to stop catering to the lazy arses and make them find jobs to take care of their own kids meals.

Suggest removal:

2JoeFromHubbard(1085 comments)posted 3 months ago

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

My tax dollars pay for these.

Suggest removal:

3MLC75(563 comments)posted 3 months ago

I think that is great,at least some children will get one hot meal.

@Joe why the hate,it is children getting a meal.Who cares if it is a few dollars out of your pocket.

Suggest removal:

4Ytownnative(1052 comments)posted 3 months ago

I would rather my tax money goes to something like this instead of bridges to nowhere or other pork projects.

Suggest removal:

5walter_sobchak(1949 comments)posted 3 months ago

Yes, it is the responsibility of a school system to feed children. This is not a parent's responsibility. We are from a different era, Joe. To think, this all started with USDA subsidized milk for children.

Suggest removal:

6JoeFromHubbard(1085 comments)posted 3 months ago

@MLC75:

It always amuses me when children are used to promote a position.

There is no hate involved except in your perception.

If you like taxes, donate a few extra dollars to the cause from your resources.

Suggest removal:

7JoeFromHubbard(1085 comments)posted 3 months ago

@ walter:

I must be some kind of dinosaur. I thought parents had some responsibilities such as feeding their children.

Maybe the governmental reduction other parental responsibilities has something to do with troubles like those in Jefferson City, MO.

Suggest removal:

8bunkpatrol(97 comments)posted 3 months ago

I hope your God puts you all a step further away from your heaven for every time you brought up your taxes when it came to something like providing a hot meal to children who might not have one otherwise.

Were you put here to hoard or help ?

Small minded, selfish, miserable wretches out to punish children for what their parents may(or may not) lack.

Suggest removal:

9steivo(540 comments)posted 3 months ago

This is great news, now the parents have more beer and drug money.

Suggest removal:

10cambridge(3046 comments)posted 3 months ago

It's funny how the same people that are against contributing for America's children are willing to spend countless trillions on endless wars.

Suggest removal:

11walter_sobchak(1949 comments)posted 3 months ago

For the 2013-2014, ALL students were receiving free breakfast. Now they will all be receiving a free lunch. Let's just give them all three meals and snacks. Wait, I have a better idea. Let's contract the education of the Pittsburgh students to Golden Corral and provide free chocolate fountains for dessert! We are already spending billions on food stamps, WIC, and other govt programs so why can't the little darlings be shown how to pack a lunch. I started doing it in second grade when I complained to my mother about what she packed! I was told I would do it from then on.

Suggest removal:

12DwightK(1285 comments)posted 3 months ago

I understand the criticism but teachers have to deal with hungry kids and they are a distraction in the classroom. Of all the things we waste tax dollars on I can't get too worked up over giving a kid some food.

Besides, if we had better paying jobs available to people whole communities wouldn't qualify for free lunches.

Suggest removal:

13Ytownnative(1052 comments)posted 3 months ago

even if the parents are drunk druggies does that mean the kids shouldn't be fed ?

Suggest removal:

14billdog1(1553 comments)posted 3 months ago

In the argument concerning giving free breakfast, lunch and even the possibility of after school meals I can understand the frustration, until I see the Trillions given in foriegn aid, corporate welfare and subsidies. Dwight has the most valid point in this board, If real jobs were available there would be no need for subsidized meals in our schools. Instead we pay foreign gooberments to allow our business' to pollute the air, soil and water in third world countries so they don't have to operate under rules in the USofA that make them accountable. Allow American business' and businessmen to operate under conditions that pay pennies to women and children in these countries. Things that most of complainers would be outraged at happening here at home in the USofA. Would you all like a little cheese with your whine?

Suggest removal:

15walter_sobchak(1949 comments)posted 3 months ago

So, Dwight, you are telling me that NO parent in the Pittsburgh school system has a good paying job so we need to provide kids with the free meals? Or, if there were enough $50,000 per year jobs available to these people that they would all take them? The problem is the ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY in the country and the absolute lack of self-worth of these people. It is about priority and responsibility. You may say "Walter just wants to take it out on the children and make them suffer". Wrong, it is the parent(s) of the children that have chose to make their kids suffer. But, when Newt Gingrich commented that maybe we need to re-establish orphanages and children's homes, he was criticized.

Yes, I guess I am a cold-hearted bastard that came from a tough and poor upbringing. I see the error of my thinking. I just hope the school systems provide slots on the lunch trays for these kids to safely place their cell phones. I wouldn't want them to spill any free food on their $150 pair of Nikes.

Suggest removal:

16JoeFromHubbard(1085 comments)posted 3 months ago

I guess that several of those posting here would give away the farm to feed the world.

It doesn't happen that way in real life.

Suggest removal:

17DwightK(1285 comments)posted 3 months ago

This was my point:

"The program lets school districts that serve mostly low-income areas to make all students eligible for the free meals"

Take away the low income qualification by doing something to provide jobs and the area no longer meets the qualification.

I completely understand why you guys are upset but you don't look at a hungry kid and say "sorry your mom and dad can't feed you." You help them out and hope they grow up to do the same for others.

Suggest removal:

18JoeFromHubbard(1085 comments)posted 3 months ago

@ DwightK:

I fully support you point about meaningful employment to eliminate some of the poverty issues plaguing our area and many others.

The horrible loss of jobs in the last 20 or so years shifts us to a new paradigm where employment for the masses will no longer exist as it did.

In Youngstown the mills provided employment not requiring extensive education but skills learned on the job. I don't see anything like that returning in a meaningful way.

Suggest removal:

1976Ytown(1262 comments)posted 3 months ago

Years ago I had the pleasure of volunteering in an elementary school classroom as a reading mentor. My observation was that the same kids who received free lunch, didn't do their homework, and always wanted to raid the "animal crackers" emergency snack jar were the ones who had all of the latest and best video games shoes and clothes and got picked up in the newest SUVs. Just my observation of course.

Suggest removal:

20JoeFromHubbard(1085 comments)posted 3 months ago

@76Ytown:

Not enough money for the basics but plenty for cell phones, superfluous electronic gadgets and ill fitting clothes.

Suggest removal:

21billdog1(1553 comments)posted 3 months ago

Joe, all choices made by the parents, not the child.

Suggest removal:

22dontbeafool(1024 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Usually it is the same people who would kill for pro life issues that are mad when you feed a kid a free meal. It isn't their fault, it is their parents fault, if any fault is to be had. Kids just want to be like all the other kids. I always hated seeing the embarrassed kid in the cafeteria line having to show his or her "get a free lunch because I am poor" card. Like the commenters before, until they stop the corporate welfare and gazillions of foreign aid, you can't be mad at feeding U.S. kids. Turn your outrage elsewhere.

Suggest removal:

23steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I would be in favor of free lunches for kids in school if the value of the free lunches were deducted from their parents food stamp allotment.

Suggest removal:

24dontbeafool(1024 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think anyone receiving food stamps should actually have to turn in receipts proving that they spent their allotted amount on food. If they don't, their allotment is reduced. I hate the people who take advantage of the system by selling their stamps 50 cents on the dollar so they can go by cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc... instead of food. I guess they would find another loophole to manipulate the system, but I would make it harder for them.

Suggest removal:

25steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Common ground is rare, but at least the kids would be getting their meals that way.

Suggest removal:

26lajoci(321 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey! All you Republican job-creators out there!

Why don't you get to work creating some jobs? Get busy! Stop sitting on your butttts waiting for some big-government hand-out in the form of tax-breaks or, worse, subsidies!

Quit yer bittttchin', all the while buying/selling hedge funds, sales tax-free. (Nice job buying that little perk for yourselves!)

Quit your incessant whining about how nobody wants to work anymore, and post some jobs - but be ready to handle the crowds when thousands show up to interview for the 1/2 dozen or so entry level positions open.

Do you really believe that these kids and their families wouldn't rather be paying their own way?

Seriously?

Get real, job creators!

They can't pay their way because they don't have jobs, because you ain't doing yours, and you block the government from doing its, namely to be the job creator of last resort when the private sector FAILS -- which it is doing right now.

So stop being wussssy-whiner failures!

Let's see some jobs!

Suggest removal:

27steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

There are jobs everywhere. There were 5 pages of jobs in Sunday's Vindicator. Many of those jobs have been in the paper for weeks and weeks with no takers. Companies are unable to expand because they can't find people to fill their openings. Why would the unemployed get out of bed and fill out an application when everything is handed to them for free. I hope we don't get to the point that we have to follow what happened in Germany in the 1940's and drag people from their homes and put them to work.

Suggest removal:

28steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Newly released Census data reveals nearly 110 million Americans – more than one-third of the country – are receiving government assistance of some kind.

The number counts people receiving what are known as “means-tested” federal benefits, or subsidies based on income. This includes welfare programs ranging from food stamps to subsidized housing to the program most commonly referred to as “welfare,” Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

At the end of 2012, according to the stats, 51.5 million were on food stamps, while 83 million were collecting Medicaid – with some benefitting from multiple programs.

Though the programs were created to help those in need, some analysts worry that the way they’re designed is, increasingly, incentivizing people not to work. They note that when recipients combine several government assistance programs, in many cases they pay better than going to work.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner said that in the eight most generous states, the benefits can be tantamount to a $20 minimum wage – which would exceed the $7.25 minimum wage in most states.

“So in many cases people could actually do better on welfare than they could in an entry level job," Tanner said.

Suggest removal:

29DontBanThisDrone(483 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Our government takes an ever-increasing amount of our money from us, forcefully against our will. The more we get back, the better.

(-:

Suggest removal:

30jojuggie(1405 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Why doesn't this administration create some jobs,iajoc?
When was the last time Obama had a jobs council meeting? When he did have a jobs council meeting, eons ago, most of the invitees were union officials. The US chamber of Commerce was not even invited.

Obama is in so far over his head, he has no idea what's going on in this world. The only thing he has improved on since he took office, is his golf game. I understand he did a good job as a neighborhood organizer.

Suggest removal:

31lajoci(321 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

". . . nearly 110 million Americans – more than one-third of the country – are receiving government assistance of some kind . . .'

Does the "of some kind" include Social Security? Medicare? Veterans' benefits? The salaries of government employees?

When Exxon pays NO INCOME TAX (as they did NOT in 2009), does that count as a government payment to each an every Exxon employee?

How about when Chevron pays HALF the corporate income tax rate (as they did in 2012), does that count? Dose, then, each and every Chevron employee, from the CEO to the lowliest janitor, figure in that count of Americans receiving government benefits?

Republicans LOVE to use that open-ended "government assistance of some kind" mantra; in addition, they LOVE to talk about how half the country pays no Federal income tax.

Fine.

Don't forget that tax breaks and government subsidies fall into the category of "government assistance of some kind," in other words CORPORATE WELFARE that leaves the rest of us picking up the tab for mega-companies that have BOUGHT their way out of fulfilling their civic responsibility.

Suggest removal:

32lajoci(321 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey, Republicans! Stop trying to get yourself elected by promising FREE STUFF to corporations!

At least when the Dems do (as you claim) it, the benefits go to poor people, rather than BILLIONAIRES!

BILLIONAIRES and BILLIONAIRE companies don't need free stuff! They already rake in BILLIONS!

BILLIONAIRES don't need Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and food stamps!

Get real!

Suggest removal:

33steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

What on earth good does it do to raise taxes on corporations? Just drive more of them overseas? In order to reduce the number of people receiving Federal Assistance, people need to get out of bed, get dressed, and apply for a job. Many are eating themselves to death on food stamps and are making themselves so overweight that they are unemployable.

Suggest removal:

34dontbeafool(1024 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

1. There should be a flat tax across the board for all individuals and corporations.
2. If corporations want to leave, a surcharge needs to placed on their imported goods since they are circumventing the system by using slave wages, not following safety regulations, and not paying their US taxes.
3. People on food stamps do not get fat because they have so much money to spend on food. There are numerous reasons that one on stamps may be fat, some of which are their own fault, and some not. One reason being that they have to buy the cheapest, processed, unhealthy food because they can't afford the expensive, healthy stuff. But you know that Steivo, you are just the "shock jock" of the message boards, making statements that try to get people riled up.

Suggest removal:

3576Ytown(1262 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually, when it comes to nutrition you only need to shop the perimeter of the grocery store to get healthy food and shopping for fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy which cost less than processed food with far few calories. Fill a cart with fruit & veggies and see how far your money goes compared to chips and cookies.. It's all about choice.

Suggest removal:

36lajoci(321 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Or become a fat petro-corporation, and you can buy your way out of participating in the civic responsibility that make your company possible.

Suggest removal:

37dontbeafool(1024 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I guess it is which studies you read, they are conflicting results. I know when I go on my health kicks, I always pay more. Fruits and some veggies as snacks I can see, but whole meals, I would have to disagree. All of your lean meats are expensive. Also, if you have had kids, they aren't always big on veggies. Regardless, the point was, that they aren't getting obese because they are receiving so much in food stamps.

Suggest removal:

38steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't know what kind of food they are eating and how healthy the foods are, but it is obvious they are not underfed.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes