43 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I'm not sure food for children is the hill to die on in combating government waste. 

By this logic, why not give every family with children free food for the whole year until the child is 18?  Why stop with school?   Let’s extend it to weeknights, weekends, and summers.  
Im not dying on a hill.  I’m trying to have an honest discussion about it.  What are the real costs and benefits?  What problem is it trying to solve?  Why does that problem exist?  If there’s already existing programs that are supposed to deal with this problem, why are they not working? Does this program address the root cause of that problem?   And if not, does throwing more money at it actually solve it or is it a bandaid and are there better ways to use that money? 

5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

By this logic, why not give every family with children free food for the whole year until the child is 18?  Why stop with school?   Let’s extend it to weeknights, weekends, and summers.  
Im not dying on a hill.  I’m trying to have an honest discussion about it.  What are the real costs and benefits?  What problem is it trying to solve?  Why does that problem exist?  If there’s already existing programs that are supposed to deal with this problem, why are they not working? Does this program address the root cause of that problem?   And if not, does throwing more money at it actually solve it or is it a bandaid and are there better ways to use that money? 

Before going after food for children, why not oil subsidies, billions for military equipment that is never used, paying farmers billions to NOT grow food, pensions for politicians? I could go on. Do any of those budget items solve anything?

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Before going after food for children, why not oil subsidies, billions for military equipment that is never used, paying farmers billions to NOT grow food, pensions for politicians? I could go on. Do any of those budget items solve anything?

I’m not "going after” food for children.   Adding facts to a discussion after someone posts about a topic isn’t "going after” it.

Toolg posted about school breakfast/lunch programs, he didn’t post about the items you have listed here. It would be weird of me to respond to his post about school lunches by talking about military equipment.

however since you asked:

1) I’m not extremely well versed on tax breaks and credits oil companies receive.  I would imagine that there are some credits for oil companies that might have made sense at some point but aren’t really needed anymore and should be eliminated.

2) absolutely our military budget is bloated.  100% agreed

3) I think our agriculture policy is the antithesis of the free market and should be completely revamped.  The example you posted above is exhibit 1A.

4) hell to the yes we should get rid of pensions for politicians.

 

16 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Why are students going hungry in class? Is someone forbidding them from taking their scheduled lunch?

Students are going hungry if they don't have any food at home to bring to school and their parents can't pay the school lunch bill.

It is simple and economical to feed children in school because they are all congregated in the same place at the same time, for the purpose of education. Economy of scale. The whole process of serving lunch is streamlined if students just line up and get served food. I believe school lunch and nutrition should be a part of their education. Something is not working right if kids are going hungry. Schools can already provide a building, desks to sit at, books, and materials... I feel make school lunches part of the education budget. Also subtract the administration costs of school lunch money accounts.

Just feed the kids. It's that simple.

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

Students are going hungry if they don't have any food at home to bring to school and their parents can't pay the school lunch bill.

It is simple and economical to feed children in school because they are all congregated in the same place at the same time, for the purpose of education. Economy of scale. The whole process of serving lunch is streamlined if students just line up and get served food. I believe school lunch and nutrition should be a part of their education. Something is not working right if kids are going hungry. Schools can already provide a building, desks to sit at, books, and materials... I feel make school lunches part of the education budget. Also subtract the administration costs of school lunch money accounts.

Just feed the kids. It's that simple.

And why do they not have any food at home to bring to school?   Do we not already have programs that assist lower income families with providing food for their children?   I'm not necessarily against making lunch part of the school budget.  But there should be a real reason for doing it, and a real discussion on the costs and benefits.  (i.e no voodoo economic tales where it's "free" and actually saves people money).  

21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And why do they not have any food at home to bring to school?   Do we not already have programs that assist lower income families with providing food for their children?   I'm not necessarily against making lunch part of the school budget.  But there should be a real reason for doing it, and a real discussion on the costs and benefits.  (i.e no voodoo economic tales where it's "free" and actually saves people money).  

They don't always have food at home if they are food insecure. Kids are already gathered at school for learning. Feed them. It is harder to reach people when they're about their daily lives.  

I am not showing your voodoo. I am showing real studies that say there is a market response at grocery stores when schools feed the children. Pardon me if you cannot accept that.

 

45 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And why do they not have any food at home to bring to school?   Do we not already have programs that assist lower income families with providing food for their children?   I'm not necessarily against making lunch part of the school budget.  But there should be a real reason for doing it, and a real discussion on the costs and benefits.  (i.e no voodoo economic tales where it's "free" and actually saves people money).  

Once people have something for free they depend on it. Im not saying its right or wrong, but its a fact. Generations of poor Americans are used to the schools feeding their kids. Poverty and dependence is cyclical. So the parents grew up that way, and now their kids are growing up that way (I know because I've seen it). While it makes sense from a theoretical view for us to sit back on our $2,000 laptops as we screw around at work and say they should do better, the reality is its not politically tenable for a politician to ignore all of the other government waste I pointed out in order to zero in on taking food away form children. It might play with the hard core right wing, but that's about it. Even then, if anything got done and the poor white trash who vote republican started feeling the effects of this, they wouldn't support it for long. So Im not sure what the point is. 

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

They don't always have food at home if they are food insecure. Kids are already gathered at school for learning. Feed them. It is harder to reach people when they're about their daily lives.  

I am not showing your voodoo. I am showing real studies that say there is a market response at grocery stores when schools feed the children. Pardon me if you cannot accept that.

 

 

"They don't always have food at home if they are food insecure."  What does this mean?  And again, why don't they have food at home?     

"Kids are already gathered at school for learning. Feed them." Again, I'm not necessarily against having lunches be part of the budget.  I'm asking why is this needed now?  Why aren't parents able to provide lunches for their children? 

"I am not showing your voodoo. I am showing real studies that say there is a market response at grocery stores when schools feed the children. Pardon me if you cannot accept that."

Did you read the study?  Or did you just trust what the claims made in the tweet?  The study used a model to estimate the change in grocery store revenues and model how chain groceries would respond to drops in revenue.  It wasn't a retroactive study of something that actually happened.   Additionally, if we're looking at externalities, then one must also examine what happens to employment at those grocery stores.  Does the grocery store lay people off due to the drop in revenue?  And what effect does that have? 

 

41 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Once people have something for free they depend on it. Im not saying its right or wrong, but its a fact. Generations of poor Americans are used to the schools feeding their kids. Poverty and dependence is cyclical. So the parents grew up that way, and now their kids are growing up that way (I know because I've seen it). While it makes sense from a theoretical view for us to sit back on our $2,000 laptops as we screw around at work and say they should do better, the reality is its not politically tenable for a politician to ignore all of the other government waste I pointed out in order to zero in on taking food away form children. It might play with the hard core right wing, but that's about it. Even then, if anything got done and the poor white trash who vote republican started feeling the effects of this, they wouldn't support it for long. So Im not sure what the point is. 

So I'll ask again, if we already have programs to assist poor people in feeding their families, then why are kids going to school hungry as Toolg has presented?  It would seem to me the first thing that we should then do is examine why the existing program is failing to do what it's supposed to do before we just throw more money at the problem.  

"Poverty and dependence is cyclical."  And the goal should be to break that cycle. If the way we're doing things isn't working to break that cycle, then we need to ask why that's happening, and then change what we're doing to increase the chance that this cycle is broken.  The goal should be for people to get out of poverty, not live in it. 

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So I'll ask again, if we already have programs to assist poor people in feeding their families, then why are kids going to school hungry as Toolg has presented?  It would seem to me the first thing that we should then do is examine why the existing program is failing to do what it's supposed to do before we just throw more money at the problem.  

"Poverty and dependence is cyclical."  And the goal should be to break that cycle. If the way we're doing things isn't working to break that cycle, then we need to ask why that's happening, and then change what we're doing to increase the chance that this cycle is broken.  The goal should be for people to get out of poverty, not live in it. 

I am trying to tell you it is more efficient to feed children where they are present already. Which is in school.

4 minutes ago, toolg said:

I am trying to tell you it is more efficient to feed children where they are present already. Which is in school.

More efficient than what alternative?  Children are already being fed in school.   They either a) bring in their own food , b) buy lunch from the cafeteria, or c) get lunch from the cafeteria at a reduced cost or free if they meet income eligibility requirements.

 

It's good news inflation is on the way down, though we may not feel it yet. Gas prices are also where they were before the pandemic. There is a 13 month record of continued job growth. Manufacturing is on the rise. I'd say we are headed in the right direction. 

2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

It's good news inflation is on the way down, though we may not feel it yet. Gas prices are also where they were before the pandemic. There is a 13 month record of continued job growth. Manufacturing is on the rise. I'd say we are headed in the right direction. 

This was always the risk with trumpbots putting all their eggs into the "Economic Anxiety" basket. Once the economy begins to recover, all they're left with is insignificant culture war garbage that you can't win an election on, especially not with a mentally ill psycho who still can't figure out he lost the last election.

10 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Gas prices are also where they were before the pandemic. 

13 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

It's good news inflation is on the way down, though we may not feel it yet. Gas prices are also where they were before the pandemic. There is a 13 month record of continued job growth. Manufacturing is on the rise. I'd say we are headed in the right direction. 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
 

Week ending 10Jul23 is $3.546.  The highest in 2020 pre-Covid was $2.578 for week ending 06Jul23.

3 minutes ago, RPeeteRules said:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
 

Week ending 10Jul23 is $3.546.  The highest in 2020 pre-Covid was $2.578 for week ending 06Jul23.

Ok. thanks.

38 minutes ago, toolg said:

I am trying to tell you it is more efficient to feed children where they are present already. Which is in school.

OK -- cool. End food stamps, reallocate that money to providing lunch to all public school kids. If kids want to eat, they have to go to school and not fail.

Works for me.

16 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This was always the risk with trumpbots putting all their eggs into the "Economic Anxiety" basket. Once the economy begins to recover, all they're left with is insignificant culture war garbage that you can't win an election on, especially not with a mentally ill psycho who still can't figure out he lost the last election.

Exactly. They have no plans for the economy or how to combat inflation or lower gas prices.

22 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This was always the risk with trumpbots putting all their eggs into the "Economic Anxiety" basket. Once the economy begins to recover, all they're left with is insignificant culture war garbage that you can't win an election on, especially not with a mentally ill psycho who still can't figure out he lost the last election.

That sounds like a challenge.

Ted Cruz Proposes Law That Would Allow Citizens To Know If Their Air Fryer is Spying on Them

https://www.mediaite.com/news/ted-cruz-proposes-law-that-would-allow-citizens-to-know-if-their-air-fryer-is-spying-on-them/

Quote

"One of the potential trade-offs is our privacy. In Texas, we’ve become very aware of that cost. The past few years, smart thermostats have allowed electric companies to control the temperature in your own home from afar in the name of conserving energy,” he said. "Furthermore, a lot of Americans don’t realize or expect that the growing number of smart household devices and appliances, have cameras on them, and microphones that can surreptitiously record families and transmit data.”

Tell us, Ted. Why are energy companies in Texas allowed to do that?

41 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

More efficient than what alternative?  Children are already being fed in school.   They either a) bring in their own food , b) buy lunch from the cafeteria, or c) get lunch from the cafeteria at a reduced cost or free if they meet income eligibility requirements.

 

a) not if kids don't have any food at home
b) not if parents cannot afford it
c) not always an option

It's really simple. Get rid of the paperwork. Just feed the children at school. No application, no lunch accounts needed. 

5 minutes ago, toolg said:

a) not if kids don't have any food at home
b) not if parents cannot afford it
c) not always an option

It's really simple. Get rid of the paperwork. Just feed the children at school. No application, no lunch accounts needed. 

And again I'll ask:

a) why don't the kids have any food at home?

b) if parents can't afford it, there's already the SNAP program and there's already programs in place for reduced or free lunches

c) why is it not always an option?

You're trying to solve a problem before you even get to the "why" of the problem.  

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So I'll ask again, if we already have programs to assist poor people in feeding their families, then why are kids going to school hungry as Toolg has presented?  It would seem to me the first thing that we should then do is examine why the existing program is failing to do what it's supposed to do before we just throw more money at the problem.  

"Poverty and dependence is cyclical."  And the goal should be to break that cycle. If the way we're doing things isn't working to break that cycle, then we need to ask why that's happening, and then change what we're doing to increase the chance that this cycle is broken.  The goal should be for people to get out of poverty, not live in it. 

The answer to your question is, they're poor and probably many are not the portrait of personal responsibility. If parents are poor and irresponsible, children should not suffer as a result. If you want to make me Emperor after Trump dies and I could change the entire system, I would favor food banks over the EBT system, but barring that, I don't see how such a thing gets through congress. 

43 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This was always the risk with trumpbots putting all their eggs into the "Economic Anxiety" basket. Once the economy begins to recover, all they're left with is insignificant culture war garbage that you can't win an election on, especially not with a mentally ill psycho who still can't figure out he lost the last election.

Biden is old and if we re-elect him they will literally turn all of our children into transexuals when they go to school. Those are 2 good reasons right there!