Schools Give Hungry Children Backpacks Filled With Food to Help Them Get T

DIET: Schools Give Hungry Children Backpacks Filled With Food to Help Them Get Through Weekend

By Heather Hollingsworth Associated Press Writer
Published: Apr 14, 2004


ST. JOSEPH, Mo. - On a recent Friday, about two dozen children went to the Noyes Elementary School office in what has become a weekly ritual at a growing number of schools: picking up backpacks of food so they won't go hungry over the weekend.

The children don't like to talk about being hungry, said Joyce Starr, who runs the backpack program. So teachers rely on other clues.

"One of the things that we notice is sometimes in the lunchroom, kids who eat their lunch real quick. They are hungry," Starr said.

more here
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA5918U1TD.html

:cry:

"Food bank and school officials say it's important the funding remain stable because students quickly grow to rely on the backpacks.

"The St. Joseph food bank learned that lesson when one youngster moved to a new school and waited patiently for a backpack during his first Friday. He burst into tears when a school employee told him the school didn't hand out backpacks, said Nicholas Saccaro, executive direction of America's Second Harvest of Greater St. Joseph.

"'It's just so tough,' Saccaro said. The food bank began delivering a lone backpack to the child's school."

I'm sorry I made a joke in post #6. I feel like melting and sliding into a gutter.

I know, that makes me part of the blame-America-first crowd.

When the hell is America going to take care of its own problems before going all over the world and preaching about the greatness of the American system-when our own kids are hungry?

Jesus Christ. This article has really pissed me off.

Rhea said the food deliveries have been credited with improving grades, school attendance and self-confidence.

"You give these children a little bit of love and a little bit of food and you stand back and watch how they amaze you," she said.


Some problems can be fixed so easily, yet we do nothing. Why do the children have to suffer?

There are LOTS of poor kids in the Mid West.

LOTS of rural poverty too.

Too often poverty has had a black face attached to it when the truth is that there are more poor whites than blacks (not only because there are more whites...percentage wise there are more whites who are poor than the percentage of blacks who are poor). The politicians like to attach a black face to poverty because then they can use racism to keep from providing services for the poor.

Why the poor don't march on Washington I do not know.

That's such a good post I just can't stand it.

Way to go, ikojo

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html

23.9%
Poverty rate in 2002 for those reporting black, regardless of whether they reported any other race or races.
38.3 million
The estimated number of U.S. residents who were black or black in combination with one or more other races as of July 1, 2002. This race group then made up 13.3% of the total population.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104520.html

For non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate rose from 7.4% to 7.8% between 2000 and 2001

I could not find the exact same breakout for "White" as for "Black" on this site, but those #s have been relatively consistent over various sources I've looked at over the past five years.

This is not to say that poverty is not a serious problem among "white" Americans - numerically, there are more poor whites than poor blacks.

And that ANY child, elder, family goes hungry in this rich society is a crime. Goes hungry anywhere on earth is a crime, but even more egregious in US, where we give tax breaks to rich corporations for paying their workers an UN-livable wage.

edit: typo

it is 45% white, 40% black, 10% hispanic, and 5 percent other minorities. There's a real dichtomy between the white kids and the minority kids. The black kids come predominately from the three housing projects in our district and one subdivision which is mostly section 8 housing. The white kids come predominately from neighborhoods with $200,000 homes (in an area where the average home costs $130K). Most of the black kids in our school are on free or reduced lunch (we have the highest rate in the district). Only a handful of white kids are on free and reduced lunch. Most of the hispanic students are also on free and reduced lunch (they mostly live in two apartment complexes that offer a sliding scale of rent based on income). The neighborhoods around here are very segregated - typical in the south - one black family moves in and for sale signs pop up all over the neighborhood. We have seen an exodus of white kids either moving out of our school zone, or being pulled out to be home schooled, or being pulled out to go to Christian school (the only private schools around here). We started the school year with 52% white students. I don't believe what is happening here is uncommon. The gap between the haves and have nots has steadily been increasing under this administration. Schools are becoming RE segregrated. It's a fact. Ironic that this year marks the anniversary of Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed. Wish someone would do a study on defacto segregation in the schools today in 2004. Think it would shock many!

Because those who don't live there can't afford to get there, and those who do live there know Washington doesn't care.

And no one hears the voices that speak for them. Money screams. Poverty whimpers.

I tried to work for a candidate this year, and .... had a DEVIL of a time being heard.

If we just stay only around poor people, we don't have the resources to get anything changed.

If we try to work among the "Haves", it's like pulling teeth to try to get a point across. We get just about anything except being heard.

The expenditure in energy is too much for most of us.

Kanary

Why the poor don't march on Washington I do not know.

How would they get there? Who's going to take care of the kids while they're off marching? Maybe those of us who are not so poor can help out by getting the permits, advertising, chartering busses, organizing child care, donating meals for the trip, allowing them time off all three of the jobs they're working just to stay afloat... that kind of thing.

C'mon... what would it take to get it going?

...next time they should choose their parents more carefully, shouldn't they.

I mean, they should take the President as their example.

George made an appropriate choice of parents, and now has a well-paying and relatively secure job, despite a dearth of qualifications.....

real patriotic bootstrap-American children would have made the morally correct choice of wealthy parents.

This is another example of how God hates the poor.

*gobble chomp chew gulp*

that several of our members here have been out of work for sometime. Now I am not sure exactly HOW they are managing to maintain internet access, but I do know that a lot of libraries are warm and welcoming in the winter and cool and comforting in the summer.

Perhaps we could set up our own DU care bank
just to make sure that we ALL survive the Busholocaust.

It would help set us even further apart from the Freepers.

and out of money, but at least I can get food stamps here in Massachusetts, and I qualify for MassHealth and dental care.

When I was in L.A., the only "free" health care I would have gotten is admittance to the morgue if I had died. There's something very wrong about that.

My mom helps me out by paying my telephone bill and such, but there are few luxuries in my life right now. I used to love reading more and buying books, but now it's a luxury to get books. There are few things in life that are free, but when you don't even have an extra $20 a month to "blow" on them, it's even more depressing.

As far as a computer and all, thankfully I was already set up with most office equipment to the point where I can work. If something horribly wrong happens to the computer, it might never get fixed though.

silverwear wasn't provided. * apparently could not
tolerate the sound that would have been made by
those noisy forks, knives, and spoons

In the current atmosphere of this country, of which I am profoundly ashamed, rather than be shocked into action by this story, it will probably just reseult in the teachers getting more idiotic criticism.

Not to mention, many teachers are probably paying out of their own pockets for much of this.

Of course, we can depend on the DLC to begin legislation that would take care of our children, right?

Did I mention that I'm ashamed of and sick about my country?

Kanary

"Jefferson beliveed in a free public education. Benjamin Franklin introduced public libraries in America. Damn socialists!"

go live in a country with NO benefits at all, and let them face the results of that.

Guess I've just lost my ability to care about them..... if they can say "Love it or Leave it", it's time for it to go the other way.

Of course, now that they've infiltrated the Dems, we all just might experience the above. Guess we'll all have to learn the hard way.

Kanary

They'll happily fuck kids over to protect the illusion that the successes they've enjoyed are purely of their own efforts, circumstances of birth and luck being things only squooshy class warriors take seriously.

5 years ago I was building a website for my Sis's 4/5th grade class. The kids were jazzed about it and she was emailing me the stuff they wrote to slot into their All About Me pages. One kid's responses to the themes were always so grey and dejected -- What I'd Like You To Know About Me: "That I'm not stupid. Sometimes I can do things for myself" -- I had to ask her, what's up with this kid?

Turned out he lived in a garage. Not attached to a house, a service bay in an auto shop. Of course, he was miserable there, but also got picked on at school -- he stank, since his Mom rarely washed him or his one set of clothes. He was scrawny, tired, and wan, school food being the only regular meals he got.

One of the webpages was a sort of wishlist, what kind of things would you be thrilled to have. Amidst the trips to Disneyland and Nintendo64 systems, his response: grapefruits and chocolate bunnies. The world he lived in was so mean and pinched that $5 grocery staples was all he dared hope for.

Stupid fucking freepers.

I'm sick.

I'm completely disgusted.

I'm very affected by Dennis Kucinich, and I know he believes in the hope that people will reclaim their humanity. But when I hear of things like this, I want to scream to Dennis to show me just how there can be hope in the midst of this.

I know there are also some mean and pinched teachers, but there are a lot of heroes who do their best to see that children have what they need, even though they live with nothing. Those teachers deserve endless support, because that is not and SHOULD NOT be their job. They are there to teach, but when a child has not the basics to sustain life, teaching takes a back seat.

I live in a criminal country.

Crap.

Kanary, who appreciates Charlie's story, even though it made her sick.

I am crying now. I really hope that poor kid is OK. Such a sad story.

His Mom, as you'd guess, was a hard luck case. When she disappeared after the school year he went with her.

When a missing backpack of food is such a calamity that a kid can't help openly crying over it (and you know no kid would ever want to do that if there's a possibility that her/his peers are around), then like Kanary's been saying, we're lower than dirt. I wish hell on the uber-conservatives and their freepazoid enablers -- if anyone wants to see real ideological purists, looking leftward is the wrong direction.

I am a sub in a district with some really tough schools. Our school lunches are just dreadful but in these schools virtually every student eats them. I see these kids coming in with dirty clothes. I see them with no coats. It just breaks my heart.

I couldn't bear it for long. Seeing kids wolf school lunches to salve sharp hunger, meals of starch and grease, comprised partly of USDA market corrections (Lima bean and hominy exports are depressed this year, better move fast to soak up the surplus! Now, what can we do to move this stuff out of storage?)... no, I couldn't do it.

I used to drink the bad feelings away but now I just have to deal with them. Some nights I just take a time to cry at some outrage and then go on. It really angers me that I am almost certainly never going to have a child while people who have no earthly business having them just skates idly by. It is heartbreaking.

I don't even want to get started... That there's a pool of millions desparate to be parents, havens of comfort and family for children trapped in a horrific life... and we thwart their rescue because it's not the way things ought to be.

My brother-in-law also suffers from this societal madness. He and his spouse are sweet-natured and dependable, but no kids for them, sharing the same razor makes them unfit parents.

Meanwhile, kids, kids for God's sake, are trapped in living nightmares. And conservatives have the brass to call themselves pragmatists, only interested in results. Fuck them. Fuck them twice.

It just burns me up. I see so many really smart, decent kids, who clearly come from Hellish places. Kids should be our first priority and often they are our last priority.

My bro-in-law and his sweetheart are hurting. When my son was younger, I'd take him by their place and they'd act like dotty grandparents, making him KING in their household. They'd swoop him out the door for adventures and he'd come back jabbering about tigers at the zoo, hamburgers, ice cream, and holey moley, my uncles are funny. They'd act like idiots half the day, trying to make him laugh.

No dessicated, low-moral, pandering, fearmonger politicians have any goddamned business crapping on my bro's aspirations for a family of his own. Nor do they have any place committing the indecency of keeping a kid in dire straits from the home of a parent who loves him even before they've met. They have no right whatsoever, the shameless fucks.

I have no idea what state thay live in but there are some which allow joint adoptions by gay couples. NJ, VT, HI, and CA to name four. Also they can possibly have one of them adopt a child as a single parent. That is fraught with potential problems though. In any case, I hope they get a child as they would make great parents from the sounds of things.

"inner ring" suburbs of St Louis. She had the kids do an essay of what they wanted out of life and what they wanted for kids their own age. She showed me some of them and it broke my heart. These were seventh grade kids and some of the things they wished for are taken for granted in more well off homes...

Things such as....
Air conditioning when it's hot (and it can get HOT in St Louis)
Kids not to get killed
End to teen pregnancy because they were too young to have kids.
basketball courts (in a lot of parts of St Louis there are no hoops because the suburban powers that be don't want a lot of kids hanging around playing ball. They claim there is a lot of violence.)


Anytime a Dem brings up assistance for the poor the pukes scream "class war, class war." Why don't the Dems begin calling the puke program what it is, a war of the rich on the poor. Maybe then poor and moderate income Americans (who are the majority of voters) would vote, thinking the politicians actually cared about their plight.

When we become so obsessed with the approval of cockroaches, what does that make us? Why must we be so infected with such poor inner balance that we're like drunkards in an imaginary mine field? I once thought "peer pressure" was an adolescent affliction. How can anyone seriously invest even a moment's regard for someone who'd employ 'liberal' or 'socialist' as an epithet ... as they wallow in the effluvium of their own bile and greed.

Oh, how right, and how beautifully put!

Yet, right here on DU, the DLCers see nothing wrong with these stories... it's as it should be.

That's why people like me don't belong here, or...... much of anywhere else, for that matter.

Kanary, without a Party....

I've just put this group at the top of our support list for when we're back on our feet.

What the bloody hell is wrong with this country?

I'm truly at a loss for words.

I'm going to cry :(

well heeled. The workers who must be service workers to the rich, often don't make enough to feed their children enough on weekends because of expensive and limited housing for the workers. When the children can't get a free school lunch on weekends, they often go hungry. I guess forcing the rich to pay decent wages to the parents so that they can afford to eat and pay rent would be too much to ask.

My question is, why do taxpayers and charities have to subsidize these workers and their families so that the rich can have places to play and vacation in without paying the price of decent housing and wages for the workers who help run these places?

people who worked there lived 20+ miles away in what I think were trailer park cities

it was really weird - fun to be there 2 summers at subsidized conferences and then realize the economic realities of the whole thing

in some of his writings from that period. You are exactly right: most of the people who lived in those communities worked for peanuts as waiters/waitresses, cooks, busboys, bartenders, bellhops, hotel clerks, etc., serving the rich who came to whoop it up in Vail and Aspen. It is still going on today: the service workers are the locals(and the majority); the ski animals are the out-of-towners.

I was going to do a post on it, but then the news was full of Kerry's snowboarding vacation, so I didn't want to give fuel to the freepers at that time.

Evidentally, the children of the Ketchum workers go hungry on weekends also when they can't get school lunches. They aren't paid that badly on an hourly basis, but the work is seasonal so their parents live hand to mouth depending on how much employment there is.

I found it strange because the only time I visited Ketchum was when I lost my sleeping bag in the Salmon River in Stanley, sixty miles away. I went to Ketchum in search of a sleeping bag and couldn't find anything less that $300. I was opened mouthed at the Fifty Avenue NY type stores there and the beautiful people on the streets.

I finally found a $40 sleeping bag in a Target store in Twin Falls an additional sixty miles away. The poverty becomes increasingly visible as you drive away from the glitzy chalets and condos in the area.

As late singer/songwriter Harry Chapin said, "You can't expect rich people to do much, because they're just holding onto their money, and you really can't expect poor people to do much, because they're struggling like hell to make do. It really comes down to people like you and I."

guess what, GOP--people can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, even tiny children. No matter how "great" our nation is.

This is part of a calculated plan to do away with poor folk.

The cuts to housing in the budget before Congress point to that.

I may be one of them.

Kanary

is an outstanding organization. My former company supported it with both cash donations and food drives. I was actually lucky enough to have worked for a corporation which cared about the community around it.

...for instance, do they pay living wages to THEIR workers? Benefits? It is unfortunately true that many "human service" organizations do not pay decent wages...and in Second Harvest's case I would be particularly interested since I believe their administrative costs are close to 50% of their budget.

The real problem is that "emergency" food banks have become a weekly or monthly necessity for both "the poor" and huge #s of the "working poor."

Minimum wage does not pay for both housing and food, and "welfare" benefits are far below minimum wage.

Meanwhile, Corporations get a special tax break for donations to food banks, and working people around the country (many of them struggling themselves) help to feed their even less fortunate neighbors. I wonder if some of those Corporations are among those paying no taxes at all? And how many of them are not paying their workers a living wage or benefits?

Those of us working for social justice are caught in a double bind, in my opinion. We know the need is immediate, and that children are going hungry, so we want to take care of that need. Meanwhile, our spare funds would probably go to better use trying to change the system that creates these ills by contributing to campaigns working for fair wages, fair taxes, and more adequate "safety nets" to assure that misfortune doesn't force people to beg for food.

...not with second harvest, his foodbank subsists on government grants, donations and food drives such as the letter carriers and scouts. The grants barely cover administration costs and buying things not donated, such as baby formula and diapers.

They are slowly being strangled to death, because the need is so great; and unfortunately, now they are also facing budget cuts.

If you have a foodbank in your area, donate today...because the need is great.

If you are in NW Ohio, or SE Michigan and want to donate, PM me for foodbank info...

Trekkerlass

and what has changed? Look, I donate too. After all, I work in a human service agency and refer people to our food banks every week. But it is increasingly apparent that not only is the need great, it is endless. Food insecurity and hunger are structural and systemic problems, which must be addressed on a structural and systemic level. Otherwise, ordinary people will essentially pay twice for feeding "the poor": losing the tax revenues that corporations are "gifted" for their donations AND being asked to donate themselves to help feed their neighbors.

I do not advocate not donating to local food banks, they are performing a service that is essential under the current system. I do advocate examing the premise that charity is a solution, rather than a stop-gap measure. This premise has become institutionalized in organizations like Second Harvest, however much good they are doing in the moment.

I understand that the system is flawed..But how to change it? There has to be change brought about; how do you drag corporations (figuratively) into the 21st century socially?

of the ill-named "welfare reform." There are organizations working on these issues, some local, some national. Put the heat on politicians: even raising the minimum wage is a start.

Welfare reform seems a bit off the radar these days; the poor have been so demonized that mainstream politicians are mostly afraid to advocate for them. But it is quite apparent that our economic system relies on pools of "disposable labor." And then there are those genuinely unable to work, or who's work in for wages would be less productive than staying home (as in welfare forcing mothers to work part time jobs at minimum wage, and paying premium day care costs so they can do so. The day care cost is sometimes more than the take-home wage.)

Again, I am not laying the blame on food banks. The people I work with at local food banks are great; I don't know what those of us working with the economically disadvantaged would do without them. But food banks are not the answer. Our food bank system has become so extensive because this is not "emergency" food but a necessary supplement to inadequate wages and an inadequate safety net. That is the injustice in the system, and a situation we should be looking to remedy.

What happens if the living wage of 10 per hour is enacted?
the people making minimum wage now would get the raise. Those making 10 an hour now would either find themselves at the new min wage, or would have to have a pay increase to keep ahead of the lower paying jobs. Incentive to earn is what makes a valued employee. take away the incentive, and you take away productivity.

The most obvious thing that would happen is that the consumer price on essentials would raise to cover the cost of the increase. The business owners are not going to absorb this cost. trust me.

within a few weeks, the new living wage will have no more buying power than the previous minimum wage had. Employers will have to lay off workers at the bottom end to help defray the cost, unemployment will rise even higher than it has over the last few years.

The welfare pay will now also have to go up, so, the taxes will have to go up to cover this cost, or the requirements to apply for welfare will have to be even stricter than they are now.

Basically, an across the board raise that would take place with a living wage law would put this country in greater financial trouble, and create a larger number of poor.

education is the key.

however, by your logic, when the bottom earners become more educated, and therefore demand more earning power, won't that push everyone else up as well? Then, who will work at the jobs that they left behind when they were educated? Essentially, you are saying that there have to be workers that aren't paid enough to live to ensure that the rest of us are fairly compensated.

Sad but true.
However, in your post I detect something of a tone that maybe everyone should be paid the same regardless of the job they do?
If so, where is the desire to become educated and excel?
If not, the lowest paid worker will always be at a minimum wage existence.

there is not easy answer, but trashing the economy and the business infrastructure is not the answer.
besides, raise the minimum to 10.50 and see how fast the rest of the companies in this country move to Mexico.

that have been made for every advance in worker's rights or fair wages.

Those cheap wages are being subsidized by your tax dollars. Every worker that gets food stamps, medicaid, WIC, food from a food bank that receives Federal/State/Local dollars, the child care subsidies, etc., etc. Is that why we pay our taxes? So our roads can crumble, our fire fighters go without equipment, our schools go underfunded while we subsidize corporate profits (for corporations not paying their fair share of taxes in many instances)?

As for Mexico, fair labor and human rights standards written into International Trade Agreements and ENFORCED might make those companies take a second look at moving.

did you get the notion that I thought everyone should be paid the same regardless of the job they do? Because I don't agree that a livable wage trashes the economy and plunges us all into 3rd world hell? I think that internal detector of yours might be a little off.

Of course the lowest paid worker will always be at a minimum wage existence. Where you and I part ways is that we don't agree that that level has to be at abject poverty.

we hear every time raising minimum wage is brought up. And somehow these dire scenarios never materialize. We use tax structure to reward corporations for relocating over-seas and subsidize their pollution. We could use tax and labor law to provide a combination of carrots and sticks for fair wages. That we don't is a social choice, not a natural law.

I'm all for education, but where are these jobs you are going to educate people for? And who then will be our waitresses and bank clerks? And what is wrong anyway with being a food service worker, etc.? Or child care worker? Another essential and critical job which pays too little to live on? Not everyone even WANTS to be a computer programmer. A good thing, too.

Especially when they offer that in the place of a cogent analysis.

If we extend your logic, countries like Mexico would run screaming from agrements like NAFTA, which promise to bring better paying jobs and open more markets for their goods. Both of those would bring higher wages, and so if higher wages bring inflation, then they are better off without those higher paying jobs.

The other fallacious assumption you make is that high wages will mean more layoffs in order to protect profits. I'd believe that if profits were already razor thin, but that isn't the case. And while it is true that payroll is the expense employers have the most control over, an employer cannot simply layoff folks willy-nilly because the work, while it exists, still needs to be done.

Will an increase in the minimum wage lead to inflation? Perhaps it will, but not to the extent that any gains in the minimum wage will be completely wiped out simply because not all employees who is in the manufacturing/distribution chain are currently paid minimum wage. Many are paid considerably more. So while the price of goods at Wal-Mart may increase slightly to cover the increase, the price of other goods--such as gasoline--will not be affected.

The other thing to consider is that most of the poor are "working poor." They have jobs, sometimes 2 or 3, but not enough income to support themselves. They also are unlikely to get benefits from thos jobs. Both of those factors create a drag on our economy, since we all ultimately pay for those benefits via social programs, higher hospital bills, etc. Essentially, we subsidize corporations' low wages.

This should be pointed out whenever anyone says that the poor have it easy in this country.

This happened a few years ago. The kid was 10 years old and was so poor that he didn't have a jacket. His teacher gave him a jacket to protect from the cold. He also gave him a pair of gloves. This kid had never had his own pair of gloves that matched. When he got the gloves, the teacher stated he just kept on looking at them because they matched.

Sad to say this little boy died. He was mauled by a pack of wild dogs. When the cops went by his home to tell his drug addicted mother about his death, she didn't know he wasn't home, let alone that he had spent the night at a friend's house.

In another story, the maintenance woman at a synagogue I attend is on food stamps. She gets $260 per month for her family of five kids and a husband. She told me that very often neighborhood kids will come by and eat her food because there is no food in their homes. She said her kids will feed it to them without her knowledge.

Very often it is the poor and not so well off who are GENUINELY charitable.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/crim.html

March 6, 2001, St. Louis. Rodney McAllister was ten years old when a pack of dogs ate him alive in the park across the street from his home in St. Louis. "He was literally eaten by the dogs," Police Chief Ron Henderson said. "They fed off of him."
Rodney's mother was arrested on charges of child endangerment. She did not know where her son was until police talked to her after the body was found.

"Very often it is the poor and not so well off who are GENUINELY charitable."

If you see someone in an old car that has died at a red light,
watch and see which people get out of their car to help push it out
of the way, so traffic can proceed.

It is almost NEVER the guy in the Mercedes Benz. It's the folks who have been in that position themselves who will go to the trouble to help the guy (and everyone else).


edited for bad spelling, bad grammar and bad breath.

... when one can find something to give to another in need. :shrug:


There's something very, very sick about anyone who'd feel better when others feel worse.

Welcome to *'s America ... turning into a third-world country right before our eyes.

The article reminded me to be thankful today that I have enough to provide for my son and a little extra to help those who need it. And it reminded me just what is at stake if we don't continue to fight the good fight.

We never had people in institutions and Veterans Hospitals turned out into the streets since the Great Depression. When the first homeless people were put out to beg on the streets, we were starting to turn into a third world country way back then.

However, most third world countries don't stop the poor from trying to build themselves some sort of shelters with whatever they can find in the trash to do so. Here no one will give them a place even to do that.

I was a bartender back in those days. All of a sudden there were people who were obviously the victims of schizophrenia wandering into the bar.

OK, I am not a shrink, but, damn it, I do know people who hear voices and see things when I have had a 15 minute conversation with them.

It must be great to be a conservative and not care.

during the Reagan administration. Many of the former residents ended up living on the streets.

Looks like another letter to my worthless Congressman and Senators.

There are people right here on DU who justify all this ugliness, saying that people who REALLY need "help" can get it, but it can't be " a way of life anymore"

Those of us who can actually care are increasingly rare.

Thank you for taking action.

Kanary

The increased documentation scared many families away from even applying.

These vile hypocrites turn a blind eye to CORPORATE corruption, but GOD FORBID that some poor kid gets a free lunch to which he may not be entitled.

Stories like these break my heart.

this country really sucks.

to these kids, and others just like them......

Did you agree with Clinton's "end of welfare as we've known it"?

Kanary, who really wants to know.......

While I think Clinton ran rings around the Bushes, and I would vote for him if he were running against Bush today, that was one of many things that he did that I was against.

of welfare "reform." It was but another example of his leading the fight to move the Democrats to the right and closer to the Republican party.

Welfare to Work was once seen as a radical idea of the repukes. The DLC, in their zeal to distance themselves from the poor, endorsed the concept.

It isn't a bad concept in a country with a real social safety net. But to tell a woman on welfare that she must go work some minimum wage job in order to get her meager benefits is draconian. If there was real support and subsidies for childcare, insurance and education (so these people could get a better job than cleaning buildings or Wal-Mart type jobs) I might see it differently.
Why is it OK for an upper middle class woman to stay home with her kids but if a poor woman does so she is demonized?

I read this a couple of hours ago but couldn't respond. Still can't, really.

I did check the website of the local paper but there's no mention of this article (but it may show up tomorrow). I spoke to my parents (who still live there - God only knows why) and although they hadn't heard the story, they weren't surprised.

St. Joseph's CongressBorg is Sam Graves (R). Embarrass the shit out of him by sending him an email at: http://www.house.gov/graves/
telling him how much attention this story is getting on the internet (ok, it's a stretch but it'll get his staff's attention).

(deep, and heavy, sigh.)

of those teachers in that school. :cry:

It's such a small thing and it means so much to those kids. :cry:

I don't know if we have a program like that here, but I'll certainly find out.

I've seen lots of compassion for these kids, which is the reasonable and human response. My question is addresses the core problem: at what point do we insist that parents who are part of the problem take responsibility for their lives and their children? This phenomena of kids having kids is going to engulf us. I'm expecting to be flamed for this, but at what point do we place some degree of responsibility on the single, often very young, parents of these poor kids? I'm all in favor of welfare to work in theory, but hell, we know with the average wages these people earn it ultimately does nothing to address poverty. I don't know about others, but I honestly can't see why public health services can't give teen mothers a norplant after delivery, or more importantly make it a requirement for public assistance. When so many of these kids are clearly neglected and unwanted, why not stop the problem at the source?

What exactly do you mean by that? Sounds rather ominous to me and I'm sure I'm not the only one; you might want to clarify that one.

And I guess we can insist all we want that the parents should not have the audacious character flaw of being poor, but insisting won't feed hungry kids who can't help the circumstances in which they were born.

parents are irresponsible? The fact is that most of these families have jobs, but they are so underpaid because even our minimum wage doesn't cover what it's supposed to cover anymore. Minimum wage should be $12 an hour to make it a living wage.

Funny enough all you ever hear about is the so-called crack mother who is neglecting her kids. The fact is that most of these people work but were dealt a low hand of cards in life.

I also knew of families where the bread winner was accidentally killed or maimed on the job and no longer able to work. Worker's comp doesn't pay for all the anguish.

So the kids who are getting free lunches because mom works at Walmart for $5.15 an hour and dad was killed in a wood chipper at the mill should go hungry because his parents are irresponsible?

I'm sure in some cases that may be a contributing factor to hunger in America but I think we're talking about a much bigger picture in this thread.

How does the 'kids having kids' argument explain similar issues about hunger in southeast Ohio or rural Kansas? It doesn't and it detracts from the much larger issue of poverty in America. Your devil's advocate position seems to me to be an indictment of the urban poor (single women, white, and African-American).

My educated guess about the town cited in the article, is that they are just 'blue collar' families. I should know, I grew up within 1 1/2 miles of Noyes Elementary School.

And will do so again this year. I think, as the truly compassionate individuals, we need to look at the circumstances that lead to situations such as children going hungry. I've often had to come out of my own pocket to purchase simple school supplies for students because the parents can't afford to purchase items on a class supply list. How can this happen? I'll give you an example of a woman, a single parent, whose husband had run out on the family. She took home 1100 BEFORE taxes per month (that's above minimum wage). She qualifies for rental assistance, but there is a 2-3 year waiting list. So in the meantime, she's paying $500 per month for rent. That's more than half her salary (after taxes). With her remaining funds this woman needs to figure out how to pay for:

Electricity
Gas
Telephone
Water/Sewage
Transportation
Child Care

These are all bills. Then there are those miscellaneous incidentals that we all take for granted such as clothing, underwear, socks, shoes, toilet paper, soap, dish detergent, etc. I don't mention food or medical because the family receives food stamps and a medicaid card. However, a family of three can't live on $1100 per month. It's not possible. Those children don't deserve to live in poverty. They don't deserve to be made fun of in school because they are poor and can't afford new clothes.

It makes me so angry and disappointed when we try to blame people who work hard 40 hours a week doing jobs none of us want to do for not getting paid enough to live on.

Why don't we start asking some of these greedy CEOs to cut their excessive salaries and provide living wages and health insurance for their employees? Why don't we provide a financial support system for those working poor who want to pursue higher education goals and get better paying jobs?

I am a single mom and I was once dirt poor. I've been in those shoes and believe me, NO parent would willingly bring a child into this world to suffer the burdens some of our children have been made to suffer.

About 3 years ago, my wife and I were in the same boat as we both earned about $7/hour as temporary data entry workers for a huge health insurer and our after tax income was about $210-250/week with some overtime thrown to us occasionally. In the meantime, we had about $475 in rent, $400/month in daycare expenses, $45/month in water, $100/month for electricity. We couldn't afford a land line phone, so we had to purchase a pre-pay mobile phone that, with all things considered, ran about $.20 per minute for use. My wife had about $150/month in student loans and mine were about half that, but we were able to have them deferred for a while. To make things even better, we drove a 1984 Pontiac Bonneville that was on its last legs, so gasoline was expensive and the car had many needed repairs that honestly were out of reach. We had no medical coverage and slipped by without auto insurance as well because it would've killed our squeaky tight budget to pay premiums. Often, because of overtime, our actual daycare expenses were higher and it worked out as a loss to put in extra hours. On one occasion, our temporary service was late in paying us, so we wound up selling a pile of books, CDs, and movies to raise rent money.

My point is this: with luck and tight, tight budgeting, we were able to do it; but I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. Yes, the working poor need living wages. We were working for CIGNA Healthcare as temps and at that time, their stock prices were over $100/share. When we were hired full time, the hourly wage went up to a princely $8.25/ hour which was then cut for benefits. The company newsletter stated with pride that one of our co-workers was guaranteed a job for 2 years so she could purchase a Habitat for Humanity home. Why is this something to be proud of? All it showed was that CIGNA was running a white collar sweatshop in its claims department. We need unions and we need them now.

what next? Involuntary sterilization? I think you are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. "I'm all in favor of welfare to work in theory, but hell, we know with the average wages these people earn it ultimately does nothing to address poverty." So how about advocating for raising those wages?

I don't have the stats handy, but not too long ago I read a report on the demographics of "welfare mothers." If I remember correctly, and I think I do, most were well into their 20's, had about the same # of children as the national average, and stayed on welfare < 2yrs at any one time. Unfortunately, the nature of the work they can get, often, as you note, does not pay enough to sustain a household. So they cycle on and off. So that means they shouldn't have kids at all? Since when should the basic human desire to have children be denied because one is poor?

I understand that what you are saying has become a kind of conventional wisdom; one hears it all over. But I think if the assumptions underlying such remedies are examined, it becomes clear that they are not remedies for the real problem, for one thing, and are incompatable with a democratic society and civil liberties.

edit for last paragraph

No, I don't want the poor to be a cheap commodity, but at the same time, I don't believe individual civil liberties include having children that will become a public charge. After the first birth, there should be a norplant to prevent further irresponsibility. If a single mother expects the state to take care of her child's needs, then there's a compelling interest to stop it from happening again.

Now, with an objection to this, is it then supposed to be a person's right to be irresponsible with their sexuality and then, if pregnancy results, to have the public assume the financial burden for that behavior?

Yes, I understand that many of these children are from the working poor and it wasn't my intention to say that low and stagnant wages aren't a factor in child poverty or that being born poor should carry associated miseries of hunger. It is, however, my contention that if an unwed mother choses to have a child and that upon having this child, she places the financial burden on the taxpayer, then yes, she should be forced to receive birth control implants. From my own experience, I've had several single mothers that were 18-19 years old who worked for me and had multiple children at that age. I ask again, at what point is an individual to be held accountable for their actions and, if these actions result in life, are we supposed to allow the mother to keep having children at the expense of the public?

I really didn't expect that. When I asked for a clarification of "stop it at the source" in one of my posts, I was really giving you the benefit of the doubt. Man, I really hope that Bush doesn't get another 4 years, because if poverty means having medicine or a medical procedure forced on my person, and my body is no longer my own, then we've really hit the bottom of the barrel.

Think about what you just posted. You would really advocate forced sterilization of poor women? My God...

but it is so frustrating to hear about people having yet another child when they can't afford the ones they already have. Free birth control education and free and readily available birth control is one answer. Punishing children for their parents' lack of foresight is a wrongheaded approach, but something needs to be done so people can afford their children and have only the children they can afford.

Before you ask: I am sterilized and nulliparous. I walk my talk.

Yes, I would, because at what point does society address the irresponsible action that ultimately perpetuates the cycle of poverty? Poor paying jobs in a largely service economy is an integral part of the problem, but personal actions contribute greatly to the crisis as well. I know from my own experience that many teen and young single mothers have entirely flippant attitudes toward having additional children. Even thought they're already relying on state and federal aid, they still have more children. Birth control and education is one possible solution, but if these women aren't concerned about one child, it's likely that they won't care about others. State and federal aid is supposed to be a safety net; meaning that it should be utilized for a crisis. Unfortunately, there are many who are born into it and perpetuate the dependency as a way of life. In my view, welfare to work should allow some sort of temporary subsidy to ensure that children don't go cold and hungry, but at the same time, there must be an incentive for the adult to work.

often leads to conclusions that bear little relationship to data gathered in more structured and comprehensive studies. Repeated studies over years have debunked the premises underlying the generalizations above. Mothers on welfare on average are not teenagers, have on average around two children, do not stay permanently on welfare, and the % of tax $ spent on "welfare" in the form of $ assistance to mothers is quite minuscule. Most "welfare" $ are spent on Medicaid, and most of that on caring for the elderly.

The "middle class" also receives "welfare" in, for instance, the form of home mortgage deductions, not to mention those Medicaid $ helping to care for their elderly parents.

is such a gross violation of basic rights that any benefits would not even be close to worth it. And that's assuming that your contention that the perpetuity of poverty is caused by rampant and unchecked procreation among the poor is correct. I do not believe it is, but it's irrelevant anyway. Really, who would decide how much money one has to make before their body becomes their own?

If having complete control over my reproductive system regardless of my economic status means having to feed a few more mouths, then so be it.

The logical implication of your comment is that poor people shouldn't have sex, since even people using birth control (being responsible with their sexuality) experience birth control failure and a resulting pregnancy. A poor woman who becomes pregnant and who is not against abortion may also have difficulty finding access to and money for an abortion, which would be another choice she could make to prevent bringing a child into a desperately poor family.

Furthermore, people in all classes are both irresponsible in their sexuality and unlucky in that they experience birth control failures. Though you may not mean to give the wealthier classes a pass for their "irresponsibility," the effect of your ideas about involuntary sterilization would be to prohibit reproduction (and, as I suggest above, perhaps even sexual activity, because of the possibility of pregnancy even when birth control is used) by the poor.

Please note that I don't think this is what you're advocating, but it seems to follow from some of what you have said.

Also, let me say that I personally know several women who have experienced birth control failure while trying to be responsible about the consequences of sex.

and then you'd mandate "forced "temporary" sterilization" on them? Gee, what next? forced sterilization of the deaf? the retarded?

Let's look at the problems leading to the hungry kids. Educate the parents on birth control, for better careers, etc. See that there are jobs with living wages, medical care, affordable housing, real mass transit. All this will help.

In the meantime, keep feeding the hungry kids. Whether the parents are noble working poor or alcoholic scumbags--feed the kids.

If you honestly can't see the problem with compulsory contraception, I pity you.

Let me tell you a little bit about it. It's mostly a working class town, that is losing jobs and hope. It has a hidden unemployment rate, closing stores, very poor public transportation, the busses quit too soon and go to parts of town that they needed to go to fifty years ago.
It is a regional center of sorts, and, attracts the populations of the rural areas when they have lost hope there. Affordable housing is almost non existent, the poor people are pushed into enclaves where it is easier to keep an eye on them.
The town is trying to go in two directions right now, most of it's growth is to the south towards Kansas City, most of the poverty is isolated in the northern and center parts of town.
Health care, for the poor consists of the emergency room, and one free health clinic that is limping along right now.
It doesn't suprise me that there are hungry people living in that hell hole, I didn't know that they were giving children backpacks, but I'm glad they are.
It used to be strongly democratic, and our state legislature right now is heaily right wing reptiles, who would rather spend money to build a baseball stadium in St. Louis, than take care of poor citizens.
I hope I haven't waited too long to reply to this thread I'm afraid it's going to be buried soon.