Which country do you want to invade? Are you going to suit up and join in on your preferred military adventure? Was the result in Iraq worth all of the treasure and young lives we spent over there? How did that work out? Do you want more of that?
For someone crying so much about spending money on our own people, you sure sound eager to waste it on ill advised military aggression towards other countries.
Could you at least spell out what military solutions you would have employed in Syria or Ukraine? Its easy to complain about what someone else is doing, what’s harder is coming up with a better suggestion.
I know because I have a few neighbors who teach - and they know. There are a few kids who are topics of constant conversation - between parents, between teachers, between students - and when those circles overlap. So I hear parent to parent, because one of those parents is a teacher, and I hear parent to student because my daughter is a student.
I mean, discussing the deficit and the debt seem to me to be a hell of a sidetrack anyway, and I shouldn’t have gotten involved in it, I suppose. But seriously, what does your opinion of US foreign policy (hugs for all!) have to do with the topic of the thread?
But since we’re sidetracked already: My comment supported yours, and was backed up with actual evidence. Possibly the first hard numbers in the thread, honestly.
But I sure don’t mind being corrected. Please, explain what is “jack shit” about what I said.
Somebody else started a thread asking why, if Republican ideas are correct, their states seem to suck.
What if it costs more not to do something?
I wish that were true. Obama is an imperialist, just like his predecessors. As for Russia, how is that any business of the US? Putin is concerned, with justification, about the US-backed “civil society” groups that do things in Russia that Americans would never tolerate here. When Ukraine’s government was toppled last February and replaced with a junta containing fascist elements, Moscow became even more concerned. None of this should be a concern for the United States.
I would also include all the Iraqi treasure and lives that were destroyed, along with the million Clinton killed via sanctions and bombing, all those killed in Bush I’s Operation Yellow Ribbon to restore the Kuwaiti dictator (you know about the incubator hoax, right?), and so on and so forth, going back to the late 1950s.
All of this offense (it’s not defense) sure is a lot more expensive than meals.
This thread has nothing to do with kids going hungry. It’s about extending free lunches to kids who don’t need them so that there is no social stigma for those who do need them.
Well, I guess you’re right. Cutting military spending to the level of the next two largest militaries combined would only cover about 75% of the budget deficit. Maybe we could raise taxes a little bit to make up for the rest.
And what exactly is wrong with taxing rich people? Did we pass an amendment that says we can’t? Is there an 11th commandment that says that it is immoral? I am not talking about confiscatory taxes, I don’t see the problem.
The way social security works is that you determine a weighted average monthly income (on which you paid social security tax). After you retire, social security will pay you:
90% of your first $606 of monthly income (or $545.40)
32% of your next $3047 of monthly income (or $975.04)
and 15% on all income above that.
The way it works out, everyone with an average weighted lifetime income over $43,836 is subsidizing everyone making less than that. Its just that we make people who make less than $117,000 pay this subsidy on all their income while people who make a million dollars pay this subsidy on about 10% of their income.
I think he is saying that being able to beat up Russia several times over is more important than free school lunches. I guess a larger military will scare russia or something.
Most of the kids at my daughters’ schools are getting free/reduced. I think 80%. But also the majority of them are getting the extra slice of pizza, or other paid add on.
At the schools where there is that large of a percentage qualifying , I do not think there is any stigma… other than our family is too stupid to play the system, and are paying full price for free food.
This thread is about a lot of things, including some of the principles that seem to inform attitudes about funding school lunches. You stated in post #7 that “it costs well in excess of 60% more to feed 60% more. This is because there is always administrative fees involved in the collection and distribution of taxes.”
Having disgorged that extraordinary fallacy, you then proceeded in most of the rest of your posts to tell everyone why their comments were irrelevant to the topic.
Let’s start with the fallacy. It’s hard (well, impossible, really) to see why an increased budget for school lunches – if it even comes to that – suddenly incurs any extra administrative overhead at all, let alone out of proportion to the budget increase, as you imply. More likely, increased volume would reduce unit costs but, much more importantly, if lunch subsidies didn’t have to be means tested, this would greatly simplify the administration and reduce administrative overhead. It seems to be a recurring irony that “small-government” conservatives always seem to be in favor of a system that takes tax dollars off the top and funnels it to useless government bureaucracies instead of to where it’s needed. Strange.
But of course we know why that is. I mentioned it before. Whatever conservatives pretend to be arguing, it fundamentally comes down to a fear that “undeserving bums” will get something for nothing and they will somehow be subsidizing it. Meanwhile children go hungry and the poor go without health care in the wealthiest country in the world. In the case of health care, more than $350 billion a year goes to the administration and profit of private insurance which, at the end of the day, accomplishes nothing except rationing and claims denial. And yes, this is very relevant to the school lunch program because the principle is exactly the same: proclaiming that the nation “can’t afford” to pay for everyone, they cheerfully pay twice as much – in direct costs and indirect social costs – to run vast and useless bureaucracies whose sole purpose is to make sure that some are excluded, in the name of some Ayn-Randian lunacy.
Could you please explain what you mean by “play[ing] the system?” Are you suggesting that those kids’ parents are lying about their incomes in order to qualify for free/reduced price lunches?
The thread is about what the op states it’s about. If you want wander off the reservation then consider starting another thread.
It’s very simple, all municipal money gets accounted for. It’s been explained in this thread how that works on the lowest level. The food isn’t free and there isn’t a magical gain in efficiency if you buy more of it. More food requires additional storage, handling, energy to cook it, containers to serve it in, and equipment to clean it.
As for administrative costs above the school district that’s a given. Any time money is appropriated it requires programs to manage and track it.
what the op suggested is a pure waste of money. It’s additional debt that the children will be saddled with it.
To the extent that that’s true, the ruling classes of various countries do not constitute the entire world. That’s like Ari Fleischer saying that “the world” supported the war against Iraq because their governments were making contributions to it.
I do know of some people that have lied about income to get it. I worked at a union job, where the salaries were common knowledge, since they are spelled out in the contract, and people with the same income and some with the same number of children, and some with less than us, were getting it.
But those ( the few that I know for a fact were lying) were not the ones laughing at our kids for not knowing how to get the free lunch.
It’s not what I mean, by play the system… it’s what they have been told. They have been told by various children, that you’re crazy to pay for this… it’s free if you just do it right… if you just play (work) the system… They have been told… no one checks the income, they just take your word for it.
The schools don’t seem to care, since the higher the % of students on the Free/Reduced lunch program, the more the school qualifies for in other state aid.
Wolfpup, so I have it clear in my head. At the bottom line, when all factors are considered, do you think it will cost more of less for the government to feed that 60% more kits than they are today? This isn’t intended to be a trap, I’d really like to know.
There is some bitching now in this thread about the big bad rich getting a free ride. Won’t this 60% include some of the rich (presumably) less deserving as well?
Magiver, you seem to be forgetting quite a few number of kids already use the same facilities and food, yet pay into it. The school lunchroom is not JUST for those who are currently too poor to get the free/reduced price lunches, but for everyone, even those who pay.
It won’t necessarily mean more food, more storage facilities, more handling and energy, containers, and equipment, because those students are already being served. The difference would be, like Shagnasty mentioned, a likely reduction in the overhead required to run two different systems, one for those who do not pay, and one for those who do. Plus less paperwork and bureocracy in tracking who’s in the program and who’s not. But they’re already serving the children food and all those facilities already exist.
As a kid we were very very poor. And we couldn’t afford to eat the school lunch, so I brought my food. In this system, since we are now using other people’s money, I’d guess shortly that everyone will be using the facilities and the government procured food.
This might not be a huge cost, or most of the kids might be buying food these days anyway and I’m just out of touch! But it’s hard to image that this won’t cost a fair amount more. Haven’t we all bemoaned the “efficiency drills” at work that rarely if every find actual efficiencies?
To me if one really wants to avoid the potential stigma of this, there are better, cheaper ways to give all the kids the same tickets/passes.
That’s a perfectly reasonable question. But before I get into it I think it’s worth pointing out again how ridiculous Magiver’s argument is about how the proportionality of costs works. We’re apparently supposed to believe that the overall unit cost of a lunch is higher for 100 kids than it is for 50, or for 10 – and that administrative unit costs rise disproportionately, too, as if every dollar incurs its own babysitting expense! If any of this were true, restaurants would be in the business of chasing away customers instead of attracting them, and would be seeking to achieve the ideal business model: “closed”.
Now to your question. I never claimed that it wouldn’t necessarily cost more to feed everyone, but my assertion is that there would be a great deal of money saved that is now wasted on bureaucracy, and in my view this is a far better use of money than most things the feds spend money on. Furthermore, in the long term it may actually be a net savings in terms of better education, better health and lower health care costs, and improved societal productivity.
I acknowledge there are other views but I haven’t seen too many that seem very rational. It’s just appalling to see the degree to which Republicans as a group have been trying to stall, sabotage, or overturn school lunch programs in general. If they had their way there just wouldn’t be any at all. As I said, it’s all ideology. The good news is that the US has, to its everlasting credit, managed to achieve a pretty commendable program already, despite all the obstacles.
