Without paperwork, school lunch free in Boston
Source: Boston Globe
Boston public schools will begin serving free lunches to all students this school year even if families have the financial means to pay, school officials are expected to announce Tuesday.
The meal program, more than a year in the making, is part of an experimental federal initiative that aims to make it easier for students from low-income families to receive free meals by eliminating the need to fill out paperwork, including potentially invasive questions about income.
Cities such as Atlanta, Detroit, and Chicago have been or will be participating in the free-meal program. Starting next school year, the program will be open to any school district across the country with high concentrations of students from low-income families. The cost of the free meals will be covered by the federal government.
“Every child has a right to healthy, nutritious meals in school, and when we saw a chance to offer these healthy meals at no cost to them, we jumped at the chance,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino in a prepared statement. “This takes the burden of proof off our low-income families and allows all children, regardless of income, to know healthy meals are waiting for them at school every day.”
Read more: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/09/02/boston-public-schools-will-offer-free-lunches-all-students/2aaUy5sxJjIak9ndGDHxkJ/story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
incorrect. The bankers, however, are criminals, and being supported on the backs of others. They didn't invest anything, they stole much of what they have, and now they are being given free money, taken from taxpayers, and a free pass for the same behavior that has put others in prison..
As to your other point, today I noticed it.
It is a subsidized program, btw. Not free.
scat. go away.
The food isn't free, it is an investment in a better country and our people. And it's a bad strategy to call it free because that removes its value, which we can ill afford. Using the term carelessly teaches people the wrong thing, whether they are 10 or 100. So as you can see, that hasn't changed.
Hopefully your overbearing ego is satiated now, and you think you've accomplished something by comparing thieving bankers to hungry children and using the word free in a more or less complete sentence. Congratulations. I guess it means something to you that I didn't come out of the womb suggesting that the lie of free food be called by it's real name, subsidized meals. I just happened to see the article and commented on it. I have said something before, maybe not here, (you being a budding librarian probably have more interest in figuring that out than I do) but I didn't care enough about what you thought to clue you in. Perhaps on your planet IKnowItAllAndAmPerfect there is no beginning and no end, your beings just exist in a perpetual state of knowingness. Here on Earth, however, sometimes we work in fits and starts. Enjoy the journey.
Anyway, here's a clue for the apparently clueless. I'm not playing games with you. I actually don't give flying rat's ass what you think, because it means nothing to me. And based on what I have heard so far, I suspect it never will.
if you think of food as something "optional" like an investment, i can understand why some people (teabillies and republicons) would be resentful. if you think of food as necessity, it is unnecessary to talk about "freebies" or investments. people have to eat to survive. let them explain why it would be better to let children starve vs. giving them food...that ought to win them friends and influence people 
democrats need to start framing the issues and stop allowing the rw to frame them.
"“Insensitive as it might sound, the idea of the Fed cutting its monthly bond purchases to a likely $60 billion from $85 billion is scarier to investors than the massive loss of life, exodus of two million refugees and escalating world tensions that the Syrian crisis has generated.”
Speaks for itself."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/09/midweek-pm-reads-3/
--------
The writers point is that the market, and kind of similarly the economy drops like a rock when the Fed hints that they may quit paying bankers $85 billion a month in taxpayer money to keep those who hold expensive real estate in the green, but the death and destruction going on in Syria, and the part we might play in exacerbating it doesn't even phase them.
Another insight I ran across once - a quote I read, supposedly from JD Rockefeller...
"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets."
People who think they are going to rise up and topple the tyrants don't understand - he, and people like him, just see the bloody mob as a buying opportunity.
One can't read or understand these people without realizing that caring for others is not even in their soul - they do everything for personal gain, and until we find a way to frame things so they feel it is in their best interest to do something, so they see that they get something out of it, we will never interest them in what we see as "necessity". If there were only a few, we could probably work around them, but, unfortunately, they have tens of millions of people who look up to and try to emulate them.
Those can be convinced, must be convinced, but appealing to their humanity is a lost cause. That's neither good nor bad, just a likely reality. Which leave us work to do, eh
You're doing it wrong.
Creative approach though.
" I think kids learn early on"
And it's really more insidious than that. They don't just "learn", they are actively " taught" class, hate, racism, etc by the adults around them.
My point is that it is a very different thing to fully believe, and talk as if one thinks WE are re investing in someone (or many) because we believe in them, believe that ALL of us do better when we help each other, that we ALL need help from time to time (anyone who says otherwise is a liar, or perhaps a Republican. All the way up the ladder, including Bill Gates, who got a LOT of help by virtue of who he was born to, the schools he went to and dropped out of, etc), than it is to say "here is something free because YOU are needy" which is what the "free lunch" message seems to embody most of the time. It is subsidized, not free, and they should be damn proud that it exists, proud enough to call it what it is. Only the worst sort of panderer, most of whom don't realize what they are doing, try to do things FOR people, instead of WITH them.
We have this conversation constantly in our non-profit, and I have had shorter versions with a couple of kids at the school across the street over the years. They seem to appreciate it, hearing that a bunch of people thought enough of them to include them in the community. 'Course, I usually leave them questioning what else they might have been, or will be, told that they shouldn't take at face value...
I think grown ups ought to be adult enough to tell children the truth, and tell them how happy they are that we can do this, (not all teachers are, btw) instead of walking around touting "free" food (as the article did that prompted my post) as if they were handing out $1 bills to people on the street corner. Because that is near the beginning of when, and one of the ways, that kids -are taught- (actively) that there is something different, and less valuable, about them. I think the school mentioned in the article is on the right track, but the mgmt ought to reinforce why it is important instead of letting people call it something that it isn't. It's not a death sentence, and I think parents could re-explain it to them, explain that this is one of the ways people are taught to be controlled by others. But it would be a lot easier if, say, newspaper articles didn't perpetuate the problem.
As far as not applying, it's your choice, and I would not presume to know better. But that is a fair amount of money, and I have found that changing my behavior or opinions based on what other people are going to think does me not one damn bit of good, because they will just make shit up if they are are that kind of person (heck, one can read it in the answers to my post). And if they are going to do that anyway, you might as well hang onto your money, because if your life is anything like mine, you really could make better use of it elsewhere
Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
And then all the little kids can gather 'round while you explain the real cost of their free lunch. That should go over well.
The market killed the Atlas Shrugged movie, don't you know? 
of idiots. Now I see why he said that...
It's not free, and using those terms is intellectually lazy. The fact that it's one of our better investments, and something that could otherwise teach the kids are really good lesson about how important it is to see that EVERYONE does better seems to escape people whose goal seems to be fomenting ignorance and snark.
On the other hand, you suggest a new way to spell Moran. Thank you for that.
Oh yeah. 
And enjoy the echo. <<-This is a hint, but I don't expect it will serve its purpose, and there will be more mud after this. I just won't see it
But of course! I'm on the same spot as them on the political spectrum. You on the other hand...
“Every child has a right to healthy, nutritious meals in school, and when we saw a chance to offer these healthy meals at no cost to them, we jumped at the chance,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino in a prepared statement. “This takes the burden of proof off our low-income families and allows all children, regardless of income, to know healthy meals are waiting for them at school every day.”
Bravo!!
How many free martini lunches do you think the crooked banksters have had on our dime?
