*MsKari: Amen! This story was the laughing stock of Milwaukee radio a few days ago. If these people are getting this benefit then their food stamp benefits should likewise be decreased. *

I hate it when these handouts are called "benefits". "Benefits" are something you earn.

MsKari: Amen! This story was the laughing stock of Milwaukee radio a few days ago. If these people are getting this benefit then their food stamp benefits should likewise be decreased. It's about time people start taking responsibility. Enough of this "oh but it's for the poor children" balogna and moocher mentality.

MsKari- I didn't think I had to go into great detail about cell phone minutes but they can be purchased relatively cheaply if you don't spend all day on the phone. But I underestimate the thought processes of some people. If you take the children away, let us know how you will take care of them then. I am sure it will be a very inexpensive solution.

MsKari- I agree!!!!!

*So interesting how many posters on here forget that we are talking about children. They have no control over what their parents do.*

If the city/county/state/federal government is going to feed these kids twice a day, all year long, by God, they ought to just take the children from their parents PERMANENTLY.

*Kids are wondering where they are going to eat that day till Mom or Dad get home ???? Are you kidding me ??? What kind of parents are they that they don't provide for their own kids ?*

Ones that have a framed photo of LBJ in their bedrooms, no doubt. Thanks for the Great Society, Lyndon!

Most of the kid's I see around Janesville don't look like they need a meal but maybe some exersize.

Wasp what do you mean no cost cell phones. Who do you think pays for there use.? The programs for free cell phones and free minutes is paid for by you and me that pay a cell phone bill. It's really not the items they have it's the ATTITUDE they think they are entitled. No child should go hungry in this country but come on aren't you a little tired of all the lazy parents, and we know who you are, taking of advantage just because they have been allowed to for so long. It's time for some reform here in this US. If these parents are sending the kids to the park to eat free then where is all the food they have gotten on there food stamps that you and I are paying for? You will never convince me that they can't afford a gallon of milk and some bread and peanut butter to feed the kids some lunch and some toast for breakfast. If they offered free supper they would send the kids there too. I'm just real tired of offer them this program, offer them that program, give them this, give them that.

So interesting how many posters on here forget that we are talking about children. They have no control over what their parents do. So many silly comments. Cell phones, poor people tend to move often, land line cost more to connect and reconnect for one. Some plans no monthly charge, Phones $14.
TV's OMG! As the queen said "let them eat cake". How about putting things in perspective?

And once again the hateful comments come out.

The 'free lunches' should all be Chinese Food, in honor of our bankers. Maybe they will even give us a discount on it...

things to do list.....1. take off work...2. pick up kids, for free lunch{to lazy to walk}. 3. wait them to eat lunch. 4. take them back home. 5. return to work.

"get free or reduced-priced meals during the school year but might go hungry during the summer."
How do they go "hungry" in the summer or winter with all the free food from the Welfare programs?

lovemycountry -- It would be ludicrous to do either of the two scenarios. Yes, if the government taxed at 100% things would fall apart. So too would this happen if taxes were 0%. Eliminating taxes all together would also eliminate the government. The result would be anarchy until another government took its place.

I do however get your point. You're suggesting that by simply cutting spending, the government will reduce its need for revenue and more can be spent boosting our economy. I too would like to see this happen. I just don't see how cutting 1.5% of the budget (approx. amount spent on food programs) is going to get us there. Especially since the money spent in this area leads to 3/4 of a dollar in economic activity that otherwise wouldn't occur.

The truth is, when it comes to social spending, the government will always have some type of a role. The question is always how much is appropriate and how do we implement things. It will be nice to see the current trend reverse. It is quite sad that an increasing number of people rely on part of their budget to be paid for by the government. I can also understand how people can be critical when they see poor choices being made with the little money these people have. However, I'm certain that the hand that money was exchanged with appreciated the business.

I think the worst part in any of this is how incredibly well of we are in this country as a whole, that we even have to bother complaining about this type of thing. I mean, we produce almost a quarter of the worlds GDP. Yet, there are people that actually think the poor are the source of there woes.

I wonder if Mr Degan recognizes that local tax payers also pay federal income taxes? This fairytale that this program will not cost local people anything is just that-a fairytale.Does Mr Degan know who funds the US Dept of agriculture?

germancaveguy wrote "However, the can also be argued that taxation helps the activity occur in the first place."
-
To examine a thesis, it helps to take it to the extreme. How about if the tax rate on business was 100%, how do you think that would effect people investing their capital to create things, including jobs ? Right, they wouldn't invest a dime.
-
How about if the income tax rate was 0% ? Suddenly, that $15/hr job can purchase a whole lot more, and instead of people avoiding work for the welfare check or to avoid paying income taxes, we have people going to work, being productive.
-
It's always sounds good to raise taxes just a little more for this program or that well deserving group. However, when you look at the real life case studies of highly taxed regions - California, Detroit, Europe, the results are a downward government debt spiral with no way out. The U.S. is teetering towards the debt spiral if not already doing a Wile E. Coyote hovering momentarily over the edge.

lovemycountry -- The first part of your statement, I agree with. But the second part, I think you're oversimplifying. Taxes are basically a form of rent. The government charges you, and in return you get a stable environment to conduct your affairs. Claiming that economic growth is reduced fails to account for what amount of growth would occur without government.

Sure, in some instances, taxation will hold an entity back. Yet, our government provides a measure for dealing with this. If a business can account for all its capital being used toward growth, it pays no taxes. Same for individuals; deductions and credits offset the amount people pay in. Do people spend money on things that create growth but aren't deductible? Sure. But then again, no system is ever perfect.

So yes, taxation can prohibit economic activity; but not always. However, the can also be argued that taxation helps the activity occur in the first place.

germancaveguy - Everyone's prosperity comes from using capital, labor, and resources to create goods and services. That's it. Oh, and when the government takes aforementioned capital through taxation, that lessens economic growth.

Ezoner -- So, you're stating that the general problem with a program like this is that it leads this country into greater debt and has no value to the economy? Or are you speaking of social welfare programs in general? Either way, I would have to disagree. Not because I feel that we should spend more on taking care of an ever larger group of people. Instead, simply because the numbers show that this type of government spending has one of the highest impacts on the economy.

Money spent on food programs, such as this one, leads to $1.75-$1.85 in economic activity. In contrast, tax cuts result in less than a dollar. Here, let me put it another way using an analogy similar to one you used a while back.

Let's say our economy consist solely on our ability to gather water. Each day, after gathering the water, everyone contributes some to the local tower to be redistributed. Some goes to protecting the village. Some goes to other villages. And yes, some of it goes to those that weren't able to find much.

Now, the problem being expressed here is that we shouldn't be giving water away to the last group because they found at least some. That the efforts of the others in the group shouldn't go to taking care of the scavengers. Yet, as a result of the give away, that water soon goes into the ground where it can be pumped back out. Some of it that same day.

Which leads us to the rest of the group, their job of getting water is more structured because they either have a well or work for someone who does. Because of this, the amount of water they can get is dependent on how much they can get from the well to the tower to home.

Some of the wells are small, and some of them are quite big. But as all this is going on, I find it hard to believe that those giving back nearly all that they get, are the ones causing the wells to dry up. Or that putting less in the tower will cure everything. Perhaps those who continue building bigger and bigger wells while finding ways to ensure that they pump it as full as they can get it have a little to do with the bitterness.

Everybody needs but a glass of water each day, so why waste time stressing the inadequacy of those who get one from the tower. Even if they find another glass somewhere else, it will always be pale in comparison to the amount made unavailable by those with a bigger well.

German -- The general problem is that more and more people are claiming and gettting benefits. Mind you -- I am all for supporting those that really need support. However, when military retunring from IRAQ sees a 50% increase in diability claims, then one stops to ponder, why. It it real or are more people claiming because they can. I have family members that run to Walmart and waste their own money on junk every payday. They have cells, TVs everything.... Yet they get the social engineering benefits. DO they really need it -- no. But they get it. The tests conducted on whether you should get benefits are far too loose. We are all seeing money flow like water, money coming from loans against our futures. Money that simply doesnt exist.

I wish I could get free breakfast and lunch so that I can afford new cell phones with data plans, ipod touches, ipads, etc. Too bad I have to support myself. Sadly, it's not the kids fault. I wouldn't want them to go hungry, but I'm sick of paying taxes to support the adults buying the things they want instead of the things their kids need, and the kids end up having nicer things than I do.

So in order to have salvation one must gain it with material goods or money?

It is so wonderful to see so many lovely, caring Christian folk posting opinions. Karma, she'll bite ya in the end.

Well,
At one time these programs were from volunteer groups and charities, where people had a choice to give, but now, the government chooses to use tax dollars for these programs. Which is wrong in my book. Sorry, but the government is not a charitable organization.

In the end we're all victims right?

Why do so many people have the idea that since they pay taxes, the money goes straight to the programs they don't agree with? I keep ready comments that ridicule any efforts to address the needs of the poor. Many times, nothing is offered but a snide remark about how the money is just being wasted on 'these people'.

How about this for a change. Why not think of what you do agree with the government spending money on. Chances are, your taxes only cover a small amount of those programs.

Further, apply this principle to the top 1%. You'll likely find enough in favor of the $60 billion spent on programs like these. Likewise, you'll also find enough that support the $90 billion in corporate subsidies. Mind you, these two amounts can be completely paid for by this one group's taxes alone.

My point is, simply stating that you're a tax payer is no excuse for empty criticism. In articles like this one, doing so is nothing more than picking on the poor. All it shows is the amount of arrogance a person has in thinking he'll never find himself in those shoes.

Shop.,...BINGO !

"My thoughts were that there are still children who are not sure where they're going to get lunch or where they're going to eat that day till mom and dad get home, or whatever their situation is."-from article

I would think that there are agencies that would deal with neglect, such as children being left unattended all day. Also, where are Mom and Dad getting home from, work? If they are working can they afford to buy some food for their children?

I have no doubt that this is a good program. I was merely pointing out the inherant dishonesty in statements like "It's a federal program, so it's not going to cost any local taxpayers' money,"

"It's a federal program, so it's not going to cost any local taxpayers' money," Degan said.

Hahaha. This is the way these people talk and think. I have seen this over and over. It is as if they think that there is a magical, mystical pile of money that is free for the taking, no cost, no strings attached. This is how they act with Federal money, grants, and State Money.

"It's a federal program, so it's not going to cost any local taxpayers' money,"
So none of our "local taxpayers" pay federal tax?

Thank you dtb. I love when somebody tries to pin guilt on me. It of course is good humor with my breakfast that was purchased by my own effort and not the taxpayers.

jv93 is in favor of children going hungry.

Mr. Degan, please give us more government funding insights. I'm guessing rebuilding I-90, including adding a pedestrian bridge, is a federal program, so that won't cost us anything. And those federal grants for speed traps & seat belt usage checks, no cost to local taxpayers ? We should use federal money to pay for everything !

This is crazy. I'm sure there's parents who just send their kids down there because it's easier than making a lunch. What on earth is next?

"It's a federal program, so it's not going to cost any local taxpayers' money," Degan said.

and just where does James Degan think the federal dollars come from?

Kids are wondering where they are going to eat that day till Mom or Dad get home ???? Are you kidding me ??? What kind of parents are they that they don't provide for their own kids ? I know, I know, that are a lot of idiots out there that don't care what happens to their kids, but,the more we enable these idiots, the less they will do. There must be a way we can make people be more responsible maybe quit selling them alcohol and tobacco, cut off there cable services, and give them a swift kick in the butt !! Of course this woudn't cost the local taxpayer any money, as it would be a kick that is federally funded.OMG.

I'll take steak and eggs. And a bowl of apple jacks soaked in lone star beer!

If that's the case lets just feed the whole county free breakfast. Nobody should go hungry right? At least if we provide free breakfast to the whole county we can be absolutely sure nobody went hungry. And best of all? It won't cost the tax payers a dime! LOL

"It's a federal program, so it's not going to cost any local taxpayers' money," Degan said.]

Fell of my chair laughing.

jksea5 -- Not to rain on your parade, but...

[The Summer Food Service Program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is administered by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, pays for the meals.

"It's a federal program, so it's not going to cost any local taxpayers' money," Degan said.]

I know the recall election is getting close and people want to prop up their champions, but let's at least keep some of the facts straight. Especially when they're in the same article.

Thank you governor Walker..w/out your reforms, this would not be the case (or even possible)

"The summer program never covered every day of the summer, and it still won't. However, it will cover more.
The move comes at a time when the district is seeing more families qualifying for the National School Lunch Program."