DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Separating families that owe lunch money! Pay up or we'll take your kids!

Pretty much debtors prison if you ask me and I thought that was illegal.

So you set the bar pretty low for someone to send the government into your home I see. Did the children look malnourished? Neglected? Nah, let's just skip all of the signs that may actually be a cause of action and use it as a tool of the school system. I thought you were against using the system? I guess that just depends on who is using it, huh?



I'll get to this part a little later.



I'll tell you one way not to do it. Threaten to disrupt their family by using law enforcement as some tool to threaten and punish families and children. And several businesses offered to pay the bill. But it really wasn't about the bill. If it were they could have just accepted the money.



Actually that was addressed but it seems in your zeal for involving the government in the lives of families you overlooked that.

SEVERAL businesses offered to pay that bill but the school system refused the money. Like I said, it wasn't really about the money at all.



So that's the bar to involve the government now? Because something might be possible?

Here's what you seem to have missed in all of this. The district is SO POOR, it qualified for free lunches for the entire district. That's right, the entire district.

But rather to look into that as a solution for its students and families, it chose a path to punish those students and families. It chose an avenue to shame and punish families rather than to look for a way to help them.

And you support it.



The right in this country seems to have all the solutions. Force every woman to bare children. Then punish and threaten poor people instead of looking for ways to help them. Take their children from them and create another nightmare.

There was a solution DC. An easy one. Apply to have all students lunches be free because it's a very poor area. To accept the money the businesses offered so the school district wouldn't be stuck with the bill. In the end, after this story came to light, they did the right thing.

They admitted they were wrong and somehow you just keep making excuses for bad behavior.

For the love of God man, just answer the F*ING QUESTION!!!!!!

I answered it repeatedy. I'll bold it for you this time.

SEVERAL businesses offered to pay the money but the school system refused to accept it. It wasn't about the money or they would have accepted the payment.

Those businesses didn't volunteer to pay this UNTIL AFTER this letter was sent. Then, and only then, did they feel sorry for these people and offer to pay their debts... Without this viral letter threatening them, NOBODY was stepping up to pay the debt... so I will ask the question again..

What should the school system have done to try to collect this money OTHER THAN send a threatening letter?

They could have placed an article in the local paper and online explaining the situation and maybe those businesses would have stepped up before they had to resort to such unethical tactics. It would have at least shown they tried a common sense approach to addressing the problem.

I also notice that you didn't address the fact they REFUSED the money when it was offered. There was the solution but they stayed on course.

They could have looked into the program they qualify for that provides free lunches for these children before it became an issue.

You see, that's what most people think schools are for in part. To help their students. To try to find common sense answers to the problems their students face. Not t use extortion tactics in an attempt to divide and splinter families.

I know that must sound rather far fetched to you.

That's easy to propose... now that you know there are companies out there... I have literally never seen anybody do this and absolutely NOBODY would have thought about it...


That is due to the fact that I generally don't care. We are talking about what should have happened BEFORE the letter.. I'm trying to stay on topic.


That would be the parents job.. they are the parents. So you are ok with the school system digging into and demanding their financial information so they can figure out if they qualify for a program, but not interested in having the courts look for neglect... okay. I know that liberals think the government should be everybody's substitute parent.. but I don't. If the parents are too lazy or too stupid to look into these programs themselves, then checking for neglect at home is probably not a bad idea...


Schools are to educate, that is their first and primary mission.. I know that liberals think they are there to raise kids, indoctrinate them with liberal values, and all of that.. but they should focus on educating.


To the same extent that parental responsibility and accountability is far fetched to you.

No, I don't consider that the proper response.

I also think that is an isolated example, while people ripping off the system because they can get away w/it is a much, much larger problem.

I am not just talking about not paying for lunches, but am including welfare fraud, theft, insurance scams, etc. These types of people are parasites on all of us, because you be sure that the companies and schools are not going to just accept losing money. Someone has to pay for these cheaters and that someone always seems to be the working man.

People only looking in one direction never see the things behind them.



That isn't the topic at all. You have refined the topic to only look at a part of the issue. As I said, the premise was what could the school have done to go in a different direction. I know this is a point you don't care about because by dismissing it, it proves the school district was more concerned about punishing families than the money. You wish for me to address your points then dismiss mine. That's not how honest debate works.



I notice you state education is their "primary goal" but seem to dismiss that if a school district can easily, and without cost to the district, help the situation of their students and families, they should do that. Or are you suggesting a school district should ignore ways to help their students? Christian values? The school had choices both before and after the letter was written that it did not explore. They made a single minded decision that in the end they had to apologize for. And you're still upholding it.



Start supporting a living wage and we'll have something to discuss. As of now you support starvation wages, no healthcare for millions of Americans and blame the population of a poverty stricken area for that situation.

Yeah..... no.

So now you support schools calling family services when people fall behind in paying for school lunches? It's odd how badly people want government out of their lives but seem to want to insert them in everyone elses life.



So you're putting all poor people into that category? In case you missed it, this district is so poor they ended up qualifying for free lunches for all students.

I agree that there are people that cheat the system. There are also working families making so little that they can't make ends meet. Not everyone who can't pay for things is a terrible person.

Weaponizing Children's Services should not be a first resort.

Are local papers still a thing? My hometown had 3 papers when I was young, the biggest and oldest closed its door about 5 years ago. Here in Lancaster, there is still a paper I think, but the last time I read it it was about 3 full sheets folded and next to zero content worth reading.

They ARE a thing, but they are rapidly going out.

Pit, WTH is wrong w/you? Is reading really that hard for you or are you just trying to fight w/me?

Take a look again: Your question is in green. My response is in white.



You also completely misrepresented the second part as well. I have already addressed that people who qualify can get free or reduced lunches. I said what the school did was wrong, but that this is a much bigger problem because people do rip off others.

You need to stop or I swear to God that we will no longer be friends. I don't mind you disagreeing w/me and debating me, but stop w/the BS tactics of lying and completely misrepresenting what I am saying. I'm not kidding, Pit.

You got a problem w/me......PM me and we can hash it. Hell, I will meet w/you and we can hash it out. But STOP misrepresenting what I am saying on a PUBLIC forum!!!

Ignore him. He has a problem with everyone.

I mean...........My God! He asks me if it is a proper response and I say I don't agree w/it and he then accuses me of condoning such an act. WTF?

Well I for one am happy you finally took a stance on something!

Just keep in mind, he, and daman, say they read the WHOLE mueller report. All 450 pages of it. Unredacted.

Yet, as of the 21st of this month, according to cnn, there is nothing of the sort available.

They didn't read the whole report........they read what the msm told them. They lie - the person you are talking about, and daman. Daman DID try to cover it by saying something about "it was long and boring....."

I never said unredacted, you're trolling hard though so keep on doing you...

Your comments are like spam on a pizza, everybody likes a pizza, but nobody wants or likes your spam.

So, you read the whole damn thing? Just as pit and daman claim they did:? When the whole damn thing isn't available to read?

You've just positioned yourself in an indefensible position.


one can't claim to have read the whole mueller report, when the whole mueller report isn't available to read.

So, they lied? Pit and daman. Or is the whole report available? If so, where.

Otherwise, if you can't show anything other than the msm claiming stuff.......best to shut it off on your part. Quit looking the fool.

I'll look the fool if it makes you stfu. You're little word play is ridiculous and you're worried about me looking the fool. smdh

Best get to bed and sleep off whatever it is bro.

that hasn’t stopped you or the GOP sheep from making up crap about what is in the un-retracted bits. Your prejudice is shining strong again bro. Not surprised tho.

They didn't just "fall behind".. the school floated them the money all year.. the school called and sent letters, which were ignored, trying to get the account squared...


The school system is a government entity that wasn't being paid and would have had to eat the cost.... the court system is a different government entity... the government was involved either way.

That's a direct lie.

I'm sorry about that Vers. I should have taken a closer look at your post. My bad.

You keep ignoring that once the letter was sent out, businesses offered to pay the bill and the school system refused to accept the money.

That shows the intent in all of this was never about the money in the first place.

I don't keep ignoring it.. we were having a specific conversation related to what the school system should have done rather than send the letter.. so the fact that somebody else offered to pay it after the fact was immaterial.


Then what was the intent?

At the point businesses offered to pay the bill and the school refused the money?

At that point it wasn't about the money or the school system would have simply accepted it.

See, you try to claim that after the letter was sent out that the rest of the story is immaterial. It certainly is not. It plainly shows that if it was actually about the money, the school would have accepted it from the business.

So why would the school system refuse to accept the money and continue to use this threat against the families? It was a power move to show the families they were in charge and were willing to use that power to intimidate and control them.

You know, that thing Republicans hate to see the government do to people. At least some people.

No, before that.. you claim that the letter was sent and the primary intent was NOT to collect the money.. then what was the primary intent of the letter?


No I don't. We were discussing what lead up to the letter and the letter itself.. at that point, nobody knew others would come forward and offer to pay the money.. so everything after the letter was immaterial to THAT SEGMENT of the discussion.


If you think the school system would send the letter, not caring as much about collecting the money, but rather just to exercise some power/control trip they were on... then we will have to just agree to disagree..


You have developed this really annoying habit of making reasonable posts and then always getting this "I hate republicans" jab in at the end.. it really doesn't do a single thing for your argument and just serves to incite more anger.

It's okay. I was hoping that is what happened. We're good.

While highly inflammatory, this is at least reasonably true.. since the left absolutely loves it and cheers when the government gets involved to investigate and fix family social issues..

So in that sense you have a case, republicans claim to hate it but secretly don't if it benefits them.. while democrats openly embrace it..

Maybe you should ask the school district. I mean when the business offered to pay the bill, they refused the money. Does that remotely make i seem like money was the goal?



But the discussion as far as I'm concerned is all about the motivation of the school district. To claim it was merely an attempt to collect the money is disproven by the fact they turned down the money to pay the bill.



I guess we will then. Because if the primary concern of the school district is simply about collecting the money, they would have accepted it from the business when they offered to pay the bill. The evidence dictates it ran deeper than that.



I don't really care about people "being incited" when I point out the truth.

Both sides pretty much suck and are filled with hypocrites.

Why would you find it "inflammatory"? I don't see your comment about the left that way at all. If you honestly don't believe that the GOP targets those with less by trying to cut programs to help the poor we can start a thread bout that if you like.

If you don't think they pass laws and legislation that promote a Christian religious agenda we can have that discussion. In this case they targeted those people of lesser means and wouldn't even accept the money from an outside source to pay the bill. It's not like they were hiding anything and once the actual intent of their motives was made public, they were forced to do the decent thing.

This isn't about cutting programs, this is about threatening the poor to be accountable for the money they owed. And if you think the left is above threatening the poor to try to change behavior, then you are just wrong.


I didn't realize this had happened.. I'll go look to find an article on their actual intent..


I'm glad they ultimately took the money... of course I'm glad they threatened them too because without that, nobody was going to step up and pay the money... now the money has been paid and we don't have to go through this again next year, the school system can just send this company a bill every month.

When they refused to accept the money to pay the debt from a business, it's obvious the intent wasn't about the money. Why do you keep ignoring that?

If all they cared about was the money, they would have accepted it from the business. That's pretty obvious.

I'm not ignoring it, I've addressed it.. I'm just having a hard time trying to figure out what is gained by declining the money just to exercise some kind of power and control over these poor people.. or why anybody would think that's a good idea.. which is why I'm trying to think of a more practical reason for declining the money..

The only thing I can come up with, and this is just my opinion.. they know that if they accept the money, this problem will not only continue but will likely get worse in future years... and what if nobody steps up to pay it then?

I'll tell you a story from my youth.. When I was 18 I got a speeding ticket and I didn't have any money so my mom and dad loaned me the money to pay the ticket.. well some time went by and I wasn't making much of an effort to pay them back and they were starting to get a little upset about my indifference to the whole thing... in one conversation, my grandfather told my mom that he would pay for the ticket and offered my mom the money.. she refused. Not because she didn't want the money, but because she wanted me to learn the lesson of responsibility so I didn't just think I could get away without paying my debts.. so I wouldn't do it again.

So I'm basically agreeing with you that by the school system declining the money, they showed that it wasn't all about the money, even though that $22K to the school system was probably more important than the $75 I owed my parents... I just don't believe it was this sinister power trip to show them who was in charge and exercise control over the poor.. but rather it was about setting expectations for future years, future families, future situations... that if you owe the money, you have to pay the money... you can't count on somebody to bail you out.

Well I'l try to adress your points.

Firstly, it is the duty of parents to teach their kids about responsibility. So yes, I agree that's the way you treat your children. At some point however, it's not up to a school district to treat the community like children.

Secondly, after this debacle it was learned that the community as a whole was so poor, that they qualified for free lunches for the entire district. To think that the school system was unaware just how poor the families were in their district only after they sent out the letters and then refused to accept money to settle the debt I would consider naive.

The conclusion I come to form all of this is that the district was fully aware of the financial situation within its community. Rather than to try to address that by seeing if they could find a better resolution for everyone in the form of seeing if those families were eligible for free lunches, they instead chose a combative and threatening form of addressing the issue.

Once they were forced to look for a rational solution, they found a way that this would no longer be an issue for the school district nor the community. So it won't be a problem next year, or the next year.

I would certainly hope we could both agree that by trying to find an actual solution that was reasonable and made common sense, all of this could have been avoided in the first place had the school district implied a little common sense.

Let me tell you a story now.....

In China, people are strongly associated by their friends and community. What they have employed is publicizing any time you jay walk, commit a traffic offense or are rude in public. They televise it and put in on jumbotrons around the community. It is done to shame those people. It is done to help keep the people under control.