Report Inappropriate Comments

First, your reference to the French Revolution is despicable, though apt given the reality we live in now.

What's missing from your assessment and other comments on Facebook is that the national lunch program has completely unrealistic family income guidelines, so the families who supposedly "do not qualify" and should therefore "pay up", are barely struggling to make ends meet. The maximum salary guidelines are way too low to be helpful for most struggling families. For you to quote Philip Thornton as saying that "...72 percent of the outstanding lunch debt, nearly three in four kids who owe money, are kids that are not a part of the free and reduced lunch program" is misleading. The reality is that many of the families in need make too little to make ends meet for basic needs but make too much to qualify for aid.

Let's look at the figures. For a household of 3, max salary (before taxes) to qualify for free lunch is $31,500.

Let's imagine a possible scenario for a family of 3:

apt - $1,200

car $100-$200/month

gas $80 ($20 per week)

cable/internet/home phone $95

groceries $400 ($100 per week)

before and after care $600

That adds up to needing $30,900 annually after taxes (no clothes, no toys, no cell phone, no school supplies, just the basics).

That translates to an approximate gross salary of $41,200 if you assume an average of 25% income tax. So THIS family would not qualify for aid, but they are barely squeaking by. If they also have credit card or student loan debt, they are always behind and have to pick up a 2nd or 3rd job.

Explain to me how it's unfair to help these working families? People need to stop perpetuating Reagan's stereotype of the welfare queen and look at the real reality of poverty in this country.