2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I mean, it really isn't though. Do you have kids? It's a real challenge to get them to eat anything unfamiliar even high quality, expensive, healthy stuff most upper middle class adults would really enjoy . Now think about cooking for 1000 kids in a low income area where these problems are the worst and most kids have very little exposure to things you would not call junk food. Given you can't force kids to eat something they don't want
there's a major misconception here as well as an error in logic
1 - the amount kids are charged for lunches, even if they pay full price, is only a fraction of the actual cost - the amount they pay is intended to help offset the cost slightly and is never the operating budget
2 - a growing number school cafeterias are outsourced to private companies - this ensures they will source the cheapest possible ingredients - while it often can make sense to outsource cafeteria management (despite it being a for profit contractor they can often do it for less than the school could on their own due to bureacratic inefficiences or lack of domain expertise since priority is the school not the food) the school should still be the ones responsible for procuring ingredients to ensure that sloppy joes are served for reasons other than cost of ingredients
3 - the best way to get children familiar with unfamiliar foods is to feed them - sure if you randomly give them a caesar salad and hummus just once it could lead to a revolt to children expecting chicken nuggets but if from day one those are the options it would be just fine - we can't allow the lowest common denominator's taste and experience dictate the diet for all, just like how some kids may grow up in homes that refuse to acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs and think the pyramids were built by aliens, we still teach about dinosaurs and don't include alien pyramid theories in our curriculum - it should be the same way with food
find a child a who's a picky eater and will only eat chicken nuggets on the kids menu and i'll show you a set of parents who not once were willing to go with an unpleasant meal or two of rebellion and always acceded to the child's meal demands - every single time in my life i've seen a child freak out because there were no chicken nuggets, at least one of the parents was freaking out at a similar level desperately trying to find a solution where they ask the kitchen what workarounds they can do, consider going to a new location or even ordering/getting nugget takeout and bringing it back to the original location for the child to eat - all that instead of saying "they don't have any, choose something else"
the parent is like zomg there's nothing that can be done - no there is, your kid is only demanding nuggets and throwing a fit because by doing so they get that, if they had 2-3 failed nugget tantrums they'd learn to stop that and just choose the next best available option - but the parents don't see it that way and will often complain "how do they not have nuggets on the kids menu, what kind of place is this?"
i see it all the time and it's just sad
Jamie Oliver famously went on a big quest to address this and was told to eff off. This is basically an apolitical issue. You have to be some kind of lunatic to want students to be served disgusting, extremely unhealthy food.
And no idea why you think this would be apolitical. I don't think any state or city that has tried universal free school lunches has seen major downsides...yet
As universal school meal proposals have spread across the country and been adopted by several Democratic governors and legislatures, they have been largely opposed by state Republicans. GOP governors have turned down federal funds to feed school children during the summer.
The Republican Study Committee, a caucus that makes up about three-fourths of the House GOP, in March published a draft budget that sought to drastically cut back on districts feeding meals to all students — specifically by ending the Community Eligibility Provision, the free meals program the Biden Department of Agriculture (USDA) just expanded.
And Project 2025, the conservative battle plan for a future Republican administration, argues that a GOP president must “reject efforts to create universal free school meals” and roll back the steps the federal government has already taken in that direction.
So exhausted with people saying this. Of course adequately funding school lunches is a matter of political ideology, why would you think it isn't?
You're right in that some people who are like, hard core libertarians would find ideological ground for opposition to school lunches existing. Though I imagine many would want the lunches to be good if they must exist.
What I mean is, that is not why these things happen. The school board didn't pass around a copy of The Fountainhead or Nozick and make a principled decision.
I also mean there isn't some huge ideological conflict over many of these things. Not that many people hold the outlier ideologies one would need to use to rationalize stuff like neglecting infrastructure, deliberately malnourishing school kids, our incarceration rate, workers getting no vacation, members of congress doing insider trading, people earning 100s of millions as career politicians, etc.
I'm sure if you showed 100k Americans the Japanese school lunch video and asked if they would like that here, with American food, something like 80k would say yes.
Teamsters came out today stating they wouldn't support either candidate. This coming after 20 straight years of putting their support behind democratic candidates.
But more interesting to me, is that their announcement included a poll they conducted asking who their members would vote for: 60% said trump , 34% said Harris. Have the teamsters historically publicly backed democratic presidents even though the majority of their members support Republicans? Just curious , wondering if these polls could indicate anything.
Teamsters came out today stating they wouldn't support either candidate. This coming after 20 straight years of putting their support behind democratic candidates.
But more interesting to me, is that their announcement included a poll they conducted asking who their members would vote for: 60% said trump , 34% said Harris. Have the teamsters historically publicly backed democratic presidents even though the majority of their members suppo
didnt the leader go to the RNC?
This is interesting, but I still can't find anything on 2020 polls:
"From April 9 to July 3, nearly 300 Teamsters locals nationwide conducted first-of-their-kind presidential town halls to solicit endorsement preferences from members via straw polls. The in-person voting was held prior to President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Teamsters’ polling data shows members backed Biden 44.3% to Donald Trump 36.3%.
Following the Republican National Convention and Biden’s exit, the Teamsters commissioned a national electronic poll of its 1.3 million members, overseen by an independent third party. During a voting window from July 24 to Sept. 15, rank-and-file Teamsters voted 59.6% for the union to endorse Trump, compared to 34% for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris."
You're right in that some people who are like, hard core libertarians would find ideological ground for opposition to school lunches existing. Though I imagine many would want the lunches to be good if they must exist.
What I mean is, that is not why these things happen. The school board didn't pass around a copy of The Fountainhead or Nozick and make a principled decision.
I also mean there isn't some huge ideological conflict over many o
school lunches are mean tested in Italy and I think in various other EU countries. I pay 6 Eur/kid/day for trash I would make better with 2 Eur of groceries for a few portions. they can eat better at a bar with 6 euros but they can't go to a bar.
a pragmatic libertarian would just tell you that if parents cant feed their children they should lose custody
I mean, it really isn't though. Do you have kids? It's a real challenge to get them to eat anything unfamiliar even high quality, expensive, healthy stuff most upper middle class adults would really enjoy . Now think about cooking for 1000 kids in a low income area where these problems are the worst and most kids have very little exposure to things you would not call junk food. Given you can't force kids to eat something they don't want
how and why is the budget 1 dollar per meal given the USA spends far more per pupil in public school than any other country in the world? you spend like 17k/year per pupil in K12.
removing a DEI admin can feed 300 kids very well for a school year
there's a major misconception here as well as an error in logic
1 - the amount kids are charged for lunches, even if they pay full price, is only a fraction of the actual cost - the amount they pay is intended to help offset the cost slightly and is never the operating budget
2 - a growing number school cafeterias are outsourced to private companies - this ensures they will source the cheapest possible ingredients - while it often can make se
in Italy it's no profit private associations and they pay all costs with the cap price (6 Eur per meal per kid); the state pays 0 to 6 depending on the income of the family
school lunches are mean tested in Italy and I think in various other EU countries. I pay 6 Eur/kid/day for trash I would make better with 2 Eur of groceries for a few portions. they can eat better at a bar with 6 euros but they can't go to a bar.
a pragmatic libertarian would just tell you that if parents cant feed their children they should lose custody
it's not standard, but very common for a lot of kids to bring their own lunch from school
most parents don't do that because of the extra time it takes to make their lunches in the morning but they do have that option if they don't want them eating the school lunches - what it often results in is a secondary bartering market where kids will trade some of their items each day for select items on the menu that they happen to like
it's not standard, but very common for a lot of kids to bring their own lunch from school
most parents don't do that because of the extra time it takes to make their lunches in the morning but they do have that option if they don't want them eating the school lunches - what it often results in is a secondary bartering market where kids will trade some of their items each day for select items on the menu that they happen to like
oh it's illegal in Italy to bring lunch ( excuse is other kids allergies).
need special paperwork with signatures from allergologists to bring a birthday cake
school lunches are mean tested in Italy and I think in various other EU countries. I pay 6 Eur/kid/day for trash I would make better with 2 Eur of groceries for a few portions. they can eat better at a bar with 6 euros but they can't go to a bar.
a pragmatic libertarian would just tell you that if parents cant feed their children they should lose custody
Ah yes the libertarian position of taking kids from homes because their parents are poor. Standard libertarian stuff.
Ah yes the libertarian position of taking kids from homes because their parents are poor. Standard libertarian stuff.
if minors need the state to substitute parents, parents definitionally aren't capable of doing the minimum they should be able to do to be parents.
libertarians dislike welfare, but they can accept some for undefended people. but if that happens it means their legal tutors failed completely at their job and should be replaced.
same is obviously true for demented patients and the like
in Italy it's no profit private associations and they pay all costs with the cap price (6 Eur per meal per kid); the state pays 0 to 6 depending on the income of the family
oh yeah but they don't make money off what the students pay
they make the money off the state where they have a set quota they'll be paid and what students pay at the register is not even 1/3 of that and the rest comes from the state
the cafeteria, even when privately run, can't just decide to charge more to the students as the school decides that, but even if that money did go up, it wouldn't necessarily mean the cafeteria would be bringing in more income, it'd just receive a larger portion of the same fixed amount directly from students
ie the state will say "we'll pay 6.54 per meal per student" and then the school charges what they can from those who can afford to pay and the state will provide the rest - in some districts there's so much poverty that they don't even collect money at all because it'd cost more to pay someone to operate a register for the few who can afford to pay that they just decide it's easier to make it free for everyone (also so the handful who aren't poor don't get ostracized)
also, usually when it's outsourced it's because for last few years the cafeteria cost the school 1.5 million but it was ineffeciently run, a private company estimates they can do it for 1 million a year in costs and bids 1.4 million so it's often a win-win financially for the school (despite that the quality of food obviously drops as they now cut every corner possible to run it as cheaply as possible)
oh yeah but they don't make money off what the students pay
they make the money off the state
ie the state will say "we'll pay 6.54 per meal per student" and then the school charges what they can from those who can afford to pay and the state will provide the rest - in some districts there's so much poverty that they don't even collect money at all because it'd cost more to pay someone to operate a register for the few who can afford to pay t
nono when I pay 6.11 for a meal at cap that's what they get. they don't have state extras here.
state puts the difference when the parents are asked less than 6.11 (mean tested on income).
it's always outsourced here as well as usual (as with everything else) private sector in competition can do it better for less money (as it automatically happens every single time with no exceptions everytime you can have competition).
they cut every corner the same when it's public but you can't fire them
if minors need the state to substitute parents, parents definitionally aren't capable of doing the minimum they should be able to do to be parents.
libertarians dislike welfare, but they can accept some for undefended people. but if that happens it means their legal tutors failed completely at their job and should be replaced.
same is obviously true for demented patients and the like
you’ll end up paying way more than if you just give the kid food bro. also again never heard of libertarians who actually want to EXPAND CPS
trump is a rino--change my mind.
The most consistent defense here/elsewhere during his term was that he's actually just a regular old republican+mean tweets ie rino+mean tweets. Mean tweets are basically meaningless so all you're left with is 100% rino 😀
trump is a rino--change my mind.
The most consistent defense here/elsewhere during his term was that he's actually just a regular old republican+mean tweets ie rino+mean tweets. Mean tweets are basically meaningless so all you're left with is 100% rino 😀
ofc he is more to the left than most republicans
you’ll end up paying way more than if you just give the kid food bro. also again never heard of libertarians who actually want to EXPAND CPS
you don't just pay for the food bro, it's the reddest of red flag.
especially in a rich country like yours where you need to act on purpose not to feed kids, food stamps alone allow for an Italian middle class food intake
you don't just pay for the food bro, it's the reddest of red flag.
especially in a rich country like yours where you need to act on purpose not to feed kids, food stamps alone allow for an Italian middle class food intake
lol I don’t get your takes sometimes. You want the state to take away kids and put them where? This is a completely different type of libertarianism than the american kind.
what does this food fight have to do with the 2024 USA election?
Luciom is ostensibly mad that Tim Walz gave free food to Minnesotan school children. He’d prefer them to take the kids away I guess.
Still think it's not spiraling?
Luciom: if you’re poor and pregnant you should not be allowed to have an abortion and you must carry the child to term
Also Luciom: if you’re poor and have a child your child should be taken away from you
Keep on keepin on, champ
