Save Our State

Save Our State (http://www.saveourstate.info/index.php)
-   Communities in Crisis (http://www.saveourstate.info/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Welfare stats (http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=6665)

ilbegone 08-07-2012 03:53 AM

Welfare stats
 
Some time ago LA county supervisor Michael Antonovich got loud about how the social services burden for LA County was sinking the ship. I looked up the county's fiscal pie chart (maybe a year ago) and found that the social services slice was indeed inordinately large.

However, as a part of my curiosity about how brown supremacists have been tossing out half truth propaganda about previous waves of immigrants (nativism!!!, xenophobia!!!! and anglosajon prejudice!!!!!!!!!!), I have been looking at the concept of political machines (such as Tammany Hall and others, all with apparent Democrat connections) and the trading of social services and government jobs for votes over the last couple of days and got to poking around in welfare issues as a part of it.

Something astounding to me:

We have all heard that California, with 12% of the US population, has 33% of the national welfare burden. However, I further discovered today that LA county, with 26% of the California population, has 39% of California welfare cases.

Wow.

For those who are preoccupied with race with whatever axe there is to grind, I haven't seen California figures, but nationally it seems to me that the mix is something approximately (rounded up and down a couple of points for convenience) 33% each white, black, and Hispanic. No word as to illegality of presence or such yet, and that figure might be hidden or skewed either way depending on agenda.

Jeanfromfillmore 08-08-2012 01:20 AM

There was an article on FoxNews website that talks about the free federally funded lunches being given out during the summer by various non-profits that any kid under 18, no matter what their family income level, can receive.

Tonight I attended a school board meeting in which the board was informed that all the students who attend schools in our school district will be receiving free breakfast and lunch, no matter what their family income. It's being done by what is called Provision 2. When a school district has an enrollment of 75% students who are below the poverty level , they can apply for this program and as a result, for 4 years at least, often longer, they give all the students two free meals each school day. The schools don't have to collect and process any applications, keep track of meal application or meal categories, or conduct verification for at least three out of four years at most. Yes you read that right!!! There is very little oversight.

Mind you, most of these families receive food stamps, WIC, and some receive cash aid!!!!

This program has been going on for many years, since the 80's. But very few take notice because they say it's for the "kids". Well, those kids are now so fat and have such a feeling of entitlement that really makes this whole concept a real joke. Are these kids or their parents to lazy to slap to pieces of bread together and make a PB&J? Or put a bowl of cereal and milk in front of them in the morning? My mother sure did, and if I was to lazy to make my lunch, well I went hungry, but whose fault was that? Where's the responsibility on the part of the parents and students? They should not be our responsibility or a double payment of our taxes.

ilbegone 08-08-2012 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore (Post 21287)
There was an article on FoxNews website that talks about the free federally funded lunches being given out during the summer by various non-profits that any kid under 18, no matter what their family income level, can receive.

Tonight I attended a school board meeting in which the board was informed that all the students who attend schools in our school district will be receiving free breakfast and lunch, no matter what their family income. It's being done by what is called Provision 2. When a school district has an enrollment of 75% students who are below the poverty level , they can apply for this program and as a result, for 4 years at least, often longer, they give all the students two free meals each school day. The schools don't have to collect and process any applications, keep track of meal application or meal categories, or conduct verification for at least three out of four years at most. Yes you read that right!!! There is very little oversight.

Mind you, most of these families receive food stamps, WIC, and some receive cash aid!!!!

This program has been going on for many years, since the 80's. But very few take notice because they say it's for the "kids". Well, those kids are now so fat and have such a feeling of entitlement that really makes this whole concept a real joke. Are these kids or their parents to lazy to slap to pieces of bread together and make a PB&J? Or put a bowl of cereal and milk in front of them in the morning? My mother sure did, and if I was to lazy to make my lunch, well I went hungry, but whose fault was that? Where's the responsibility on the part of the parents and students? They should not be our responsibility or a double payment of our taxes.

Jean,

The program was signed into law in June 1946 by Harry S. Truman and was originated by Congressman Richard B. Russell. The program used to have accountability, but I believe that's been removed and replace with a 4 year accounting scheme which has more holes than swiss cheese and greatly susceptible to fraud https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...HMyMjOQ3lT6qHg. 74 pages.

The rational is that it reduces application burdens and simplifies meal counting and claiming procedures http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governan..._FactSheet.htm

While a long, unintelligible drone with all the lawyerese, amendments, and repeals http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C13.txt, the original intent of the National School Lunch Act seems to have been rooted in a desire to prop up farm commodity prices by purchasing and using farm surplus food products rather than paying not to grow.

I haven't seen that premise in the background discussion of the bill (because I haven't found it yet) or any direct quote from anyone originally involved, but it is alluded to around the internet and I did find a statement (by inclusion) in a google books rendition of American Farm Policy 1948 - 1973 by Willard W. Chochrane and Mary E. Ryan http://In which the bill was somethi...201946&f=false (scroll up to chapter heading then read through)

I thought about getting it, but the book retails for $60.00.

Wading through the incomprehensible fog of the interminable legal text, I perceive the bill has been amended constantly from the mid 1950's to the present, with revisions and amendments becoming an incremental flurry to blizzard sometime from the 1980's. I'd have to print it out and study it to find if the original text exists.

I don't think it's the same bill at all that it was in 1946, and I believe that in some cases adults qualify for free meals on the program without being associated with any form of education being performed.

Full name of the act:

Quote:

79 P.L. 396; 79 Cong. Ch. 281; 60 Stat. 230, H.R. 3370, PUBLIC LAW, NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT, JUNE 4, 1946, UNITED STATES STATUTES AT LARGE 79TH CONGRESS - 2ND SESSION

ilbegone 08-08-2012 01:19 PM

Part the above post was scrambled and editing wasn't working.

The 1946 National lunch program came from complying with the 1941 Steagle Amendment of a 1938 farm bill to prop up Farm Commodity Prices. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...gm6YFj3yuCqdFg

The farm policy book (American Farm Policy 1948 - 1973) http://books.google.com/books?id=kIN...201946&f=false

Scroll up to the chapter heading, then read down.

Jeanfromfillmore 08-08-2012 04:06 PM

I am aware of where it all started and where it is today. Provision 1,2,3 was added in 1980. But the point I was making is that those that receive foodstamps are receiving payment for food to provide three meals per day to each kid at home. That's 21 meals per week. But the schools are also providing 10 of those meals per week, just about half. Yet, that is not counted as income or credited against the amount of food stamps received. So basically these families are double dipping. They get half of their kids food needs met and still receive the food stamps as though they were providing 100% of their meals. And to add insult to injury, every kid at all the school gets those 10 free meals each week, no matter how wealthy their family may be. Yes, our schools are nothing by socialist establishments all on the tax dollar.

This is going on throughout the country and costing BILLIONS!!!!!

ilbegone 08-08-2012 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore (Post 21298)
I am aware of where it all started and where it is today. Provision 1,2,3 was added in 1980. But the point I was making is that those that receive foodstamps are receiving payment for food to provide three meals per day to each kid at home. That's 21 meals per week. But the schools are also providing 10 of those meals per week, just about half. Yet, that is not counted as income or credited against the amount of food stamps received. So basically these families are double dipping. They get half of their kids food needs met and still receive the food stamps as though they were providing 100% of their meals. And to add insult to injury, every kid at all the school gets those 10 free meals each week, no matter how wealthy their family may be. Yes, our schools are nothing by socialist establishments all on the tax dollar.

This is going on throughout the country and costing BILLIONS!!!!!

You're right, and I agree 100% with you.

But I'll tell you what the argument is going to be from the other side, and sadly it has some validity due to the culture change starting with the kids born in the late 70's - not the least narcissism delivered to schoolkids with the "you're so special" and everyone gets a trophy routine, then they grow up and become parents who essentially ignore the kids for a decade. That is, until the kids become unmanageable and it's too late. Drugs and alcohol figure in too.

Lots of kids don't have breakfast regardless of how monied or not the parents are, and that brown bag lunch might only have a bag of chips.

I'll tell you right now about how screwed up our society has gotten with all those young men who live with a woman who works and provides for them while they hang out smoking pot and playing video games all day. The kids come in a distant third.

What's going to change it all? Will the system have to be overloaded until it implodes, or is there a viable way to fix it before that happens? The politicians aren't going to fix it.

Jeanfromfillmore 08-08-2012 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilbegone (Post 21300)
You're right, and I agree 100% with you.

But I'll tell you what the argument is going to be from the other side, and sadly it has some validity due to the culture change starting with the kids born in the late 70's - not the least narcissism delivered to schoolkids with the "you're so special" and everyone gets a trophy routine, then they grow up and become parents who essentially ignore the kids for a decade. That is, until the kids become unmanageable and it's too late. Drugs and alcohol figure in too.

Lots of kids don't have breakfast regardless of how monied or not the parents are, and that brown bag lunch might only have a bag of chips.

I'll tell you right now about how screwed up our society has gotten with all those young men who live with a woman who works and provides for them while they hang out smoking pot and playing video games all day. The kids come in a distant third.

What's going to change it all? Will the system have to be overloaded until it implodes, or is there a viable way to fix it before that happens? The politicians aren't going to fix it.

Yes, you're correct. There were plenty of times that I woke up late and didn't have time for breakfast, or didn't make my lunch or forgot it. But, that was my responsibility and I was the one who was at fault. I didn't expect someone else to make up for my mistakes. And what I learned by going hungry was that it was not a pleasent feeling and if I didn't want to be hungry in the future, then I'd better pay attention in school so that I'd have the skills to get a job and buy the food I needed.

The thought that a kid should never go hungry is BS. If humans never felt what it was like to be hungry they'd have little encentive to provide for themselves and that lesson needs to be learned at a young age.

I'm just glad that I didn't grow up with these entitlement babies. They're in for a huge shock when they realize the pantry is empty.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved