Topic: Senator Sanders and Rep. Omar introduce Universal School meals bill (Read 564 times)

You say you agree, then try to justify it again and again. This program is not "helping the needy".... we already have those programs. This one is literally feeding every US human three meals a day during for 13 years.  When only 20% of the people need help (which they already get).

  And I know I'm not going to get a lower tax bracket. The US loves penalizing those who strive to better themselves. But I would like to see an abatement or wasteful govt spending and useless expenses on our budget. This is one of them.

   Maybe I'm in a unique situation where I see the abuses of the welfare system on a daily basis. You cannot even begin to imagine how many people I see with new cars, $1000 cell phones, rolls of cash in their pockets, and a welfare ebt card in their wallet.

Now you're doing the typical thing of taking what I've said and conflating it into some extreme cases so you can turn it into some sort of emotional/moral issue that usually compels people to get into an argument. I would think the fact that I said I don't have a problem helping people out for awhile should make it clear that all the stuff in your post was just bullshit in order to try and create a conflict which is what you typical do on here when you're not "winning" a discussion.

well we aint gonna live in a zero tax world..
so what would you consider as things to spend funds on

but i do find it funny how people think offering free food = trapping people into some prison.
yea the school may offer a free sandwich but you can still give your kid pizza if you want

For me, this is not something I would be flexible on so all your attempts at justifications just fall on deaf ears. It's crossing the line no matter how I feel about other things. In fact, I feel so strongly about these sorts of issues that, despite despising Trump for years (long before he ran for president), I would either not vote or vote for him (or some other Republican). I would rather the country get even more fucked up than allow it to move towards being blatantly socialist. That's why someone like Bernie or even Warren (assuming she doesn't flop back from stealing all Bernie's stuff) could not win. The dems would lose a lot of the center and moderates.

im in agreement
my opinion is this though
all under 18's getting 3 meals a day for all 365 days a year is just 2%
yet the money going to banks is more like 8-10%
id personally prefer banks get 0 and then have 6-8% for other things and 2% to make sure no one starves

as for this 2% meal cost. this is not caviar, steak and gourmet food. its simple basic
bowl of cereal or toast...
sandwich and fruit
basic portion of meat and 3 veg

you know real basic but also proper unprocessed nutrition. whereby the kids that want the luxuries of coloured sugar milkshakes and pizza and chocolate bars and potato chip snacks can pay for the 'convenience' foods

what you end up finding is not every child ends up taking the free stuff and instead buys what they can afford but still leaves those that cant afford it well fed

they have actually done studies on many things like offered a community group free footwear. and found that some familes still bought the latest nike footwear and never even took up the free footwear offer. thus saving the budget allowance alloted for footwear

the studies also shown that the savings of those not taking the offer. did not end up as any tax refunds to the community. but then spent on stupid 'admin costs' and corporate deals for other things.. yep viper hoping his tax bracket would go from 32% to 16% if he just allocated spending of $100 to be just $50 wont get him a 16% bracket. instead the funds he did not allocated would self re-allocate themselves to double the budget of the $50 he did allocate

"provide three free meals per day for all U.S. school children"

They are not talking about providing for those in need, they're talking about government taking over the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. That's not socialism, that's socialist and that's where I draw the line. Once again, they're using children for votes cause they know it's an emotional issue for people in the same way they use it for gun control and the right uses it for abortion. It disgusts me when anyone uses kids as a means to try and sway opinion on an issue. And to be clear, I have no problem providing assistance for those who need it for awhile.

Make it $50.

There's my problem.  Some people are paying 10%.  
I'm paying 32%.

And that's just of my income.
Then throw in maybe another 6k of property tax. Add this tax, that tax, etc.  

Politicians keep wanting to add more and more welfare programs costing millions or billions. Never once do they consider MY welfare, or the tax inequality I suffer.

You may pay $2 towards that program, while I pay $6.  


You are already taxing the ever living crap out of the people that make good money, but then complain that they make good money.



This is another unnecessary program.  In the OP it states "1 in 5 children" are hungry or can't afford meals.  That's 20% of the population.  So now we're gonna introduce a bill to feed ALL children, 3 meals per day.  
    So if 80% of the population is being responsible enough to feed their own kids, you are essentially introducing a bill that is 80% wasteful and unneeded.  For every $100 that goes into that program, $80 is wasted.
    We already have school lunch programs for the poor.

and you think that if you let kids start your gonna get to save $2.29 on every $100 of tax
come on.
we all know that wil end up being an extra $2.29 the banks get to syphon out of the treasury

as for your 'tax benfits'
you want the government to not look after the kids..
ok no food, no wefareno healthcare,no state schools

cool $1.13tril not spent on that.
but that wont put $33 of tax as a refund after paying $100 of tax
that extra $33 ends up with the banks

so lets just cut to the chase
imagine you had $100
break it up into smaller amounts and dished out to the different 'tax benefit' categories you wish to see tax pay for

lets see your example of what you prefer the tax budget to be spent on
ill give you an example
$100=
$22.48 social security
$15.47 military
$14.64 medicare
$13.15 health
$11.59 income security/welfare
$8.45 bank payment
$4.50 veterans benefits
$3.05 education
$2.15 transportation
$4.52 other

feel free to take categories out and add new categories, change amounts and such. but just show how you want to s $100 of tax spent, based on who you feel is more worthy or not

Instead of complaining about the wealthy folks, who pay in most of the taxes, why don't you strive to be one of the wealthy ?

When it comes to my taxes, I hear all the time... it's only $2... 3... $6.   But that adds up quick.  It never ends.  You guys keep taxing the crap out of me, and I receive such a smaller share of the tax benefits. 

they are not your problem..
i mean are they in your physical kitchen, are you the one cooking the food.. no and no

if you truly think that feeding every american child would cause such a big dent into the treasury budget then you have no idea at all about the tax budget.
ok heres some perspective.
us treasury is $3400b
very very worse case every person in US under 18 getting fed 3 healthy meals a day every day 365
$78b ($2.29 for every $100 tax)

did you know that the government pay banks $10 out of every $100
yep over $340bill just gets handed to banks

so government could feed kids 15 meals a day every day before even touching 'your tax'
if thy just stopped paying banks

but i still hear you saying.. "no just dont feed kids"
but guess what. although the 'spending ' might primarily look like its saving. that $78b does not convert into a tax reimbursmnt shared out. instead that $78b just gets spent on new suits, mansions and lambo's for the elitist pay rises

and trying to presume that helping people in need is something that should be shunned. but then knowing soooo much more money is wasted on corporate affairs. just makes you truly not understand the initial purpose of what governments wer suppose to do.

governments are not suppose to enrich and protect corporation profits.
and you will never have a established government country have a scenario of zero tax..

so truly decide where do you sit. having your taxes look after the people or the elistists/corporations

Right! Get rid of taxation. Make people buy what they get.     

Still, NO.   Your kid is not my problem.  If the school wants to discount that poor kids meal by 50%, sure, let the parent apply for the discounted meal.
    But what happens when you make the families dependent on the schools for feeding the kid?  Now the school has to be open during summer vacation to feed kids? Increased wages and expenses for opening another 25% of the time?
    What happens when everyone becomes dependent on the government taking care of them? Why would anyone bother to better themselves, better their job, better their situation...When you can just sit around and collect handouts?
   You slowly make everyone a govt dependent, less people enter the workforce, less workers to pay taxes, raise the tax rate to counter the lower number of taxpayers. Eventually it becomes more beneficial to suck off the govt teat than to work. Tax revenue drops to a level insufficient to support all the handout programs. It all collapses, and we go back to where we were 300 years ago, fending for yourself with little to no govt services

what if.. what if
parents have a child. the parents work and feel their job is secure..... but by the time the kid is born and then later reaches the age of say 4. the parents lose their job or a parent loses their lives affecting the families income.

lets just pretend its just the lose the job scenario.
are governments to then still refuse to feed the kids. and have the kids on a waiting list to be assessed and eventually when assessed as having parents that cant afford to feed the family. have the kids removed from the home and treated as criminal child abusers.. purely for losing their job
or
the $2 a meal that would have paid for the kids food, could then go towards job searching where the parent can concentrate on trying to better the families life knowing the kids are healthy

oh and before bringing up the whole 'tax payer' crap
no where no time no place will you ever see a government void peoples responsibility to pay taxes. there will never be a tax free country.
so its better that tax money went towards peoples health and not corporations CEO wealth.
id rather see a kid got fed and not some scumbag office worker buy a lambo because he is some pen pushing government employee that does nothing but watch porn on his office computer from 9-5

yep you may say you hate a socialist concept of tax. but your wrong. tax is a thing of all concepts including capitalist.. the thing you probably would hate/do hate if you sat and deeply thought about it. is you hate the capitalist use of the tax funds for corporate benefit not social benefit

or are you on of them type of people that love pepsi more than another human

Now they are trying to send food off-planet, when they don't even know if there is life out there.

 

i know kids love their sugary, processed, well branded crap thats made.. but schools should offer a free food bill of proper healthy unprocessed, non additive food.. and then charge for the 'branded/processed fast food' as a luxury item/treat

i say this because i can see pepsi and pizzahut rubbing thier hands together at billion $$ grants to manage school kitchens offering just their unhealthy crap if a stipulation about what should be offered for free is not included

(p.s: i love pizza but atleast know what its doing to my body)

Ahahaha! Reminds me of what a previous administration did in my country. They basically got people to sweep the streets. Not that I'm not in favor of putting able-bodied people to work, just don't call that a "job". It was obviously not even minimum wage.

Businesses definitely would cut hours, I've also seen this and we don't even have this "universal" employment yet. Inflation went higher and companies simply asked their employees to not go to work. Most hit are those who are not even "regular" yet.

Of course they will. They'll just be crappy 20-25 hour/week job but hell, they get to say they did it and say the unemployment rate went down cause they use the misleading U-3 rate instead of the U-6 one. Target has already shown what will happen. They cut people hours to balance the books. But what does it matter. It's all about votes and as long as it's a great campaign slogan the sheep will vote for them.

Had to look that up when you mentioned it. I don't really believe they'll manage to give everyone a $15/h job and even if they do, it'll be a big drain on the government. The main reason governments give private businesses incentives is that they provide jobs the government can't.

Its funny you say that because a federal jobs for all program is also a major part of Bernie's platform.

This was something I did not expect would be necessary in America.  The thing with free meals for all kids is that families with more kids are taking more out of the "pot" so to speak. Of course the proponents can argue that that's not the case since everyone gets fed.

I'd rather have the kids be given meals on credit that parents would have to pay for later. They don't have money nor a job? Well maybe they can do community service to pay for it. They paid off their kids meal and society got something out of them. Of course this should be only for those who really can't feed their kids. Don't have them if you can't even feed them.

That's right... Don't even attempt to refute but instead continue with personal attacks cause that's all you have. If the founding fathers couldn't even agree on the extent of the spending power of the congress then there's no way you can state your opinion as "fact". Lets also just ignore that the supreme court has ruled that it's constitutional. I sometimes wonder what fantasy world you live in.

By the way. The court ruled that the WH and your arguments in the other matter were bullshit. And yes, I'm well aware it will probably be appealed but I doubt the end result will be different, assuming the arguments don't change in some way that creates a "loophole" that so many of the other court cases end up getting dismissed on.

Save the faux pontification. We both know you don't have any idea what you are rambling about as usual. Maybe you can tell me The Constitution is not a legal document and save yourself the trouble and just get right to making yourself look like an ass with your ignorance of the legal system.

Hamilton and Madison could not even agree on the general welfare part of... "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

The supreme court has ruled that the government is within their constitutional right to pay for "social" type programs. Justice Owen Roberts (republican) reaffirmed that and simplified it by saying "Put simply, Congress may tax and spend."

So once again, you have some fantasy of the country you think you live in that is not held up by reality. Continue talking out your ass if you like though.

You provided your opinions and interpretations of what you think The Constitution means. I referenced the tenth amendment to The Constitution. I am very sorry your reading comprehension and general understanding of basic legal concepts is so poor, but your ignorance doesn't change the facts. Just because The Constitution is being violated is not proof The Constitution does not restrict those things.

Once again you make a statement that means nothing. I provided things straight from the constitution. You provided a bunch of crap from your ass. If it was so "explicit", the government wouldn't be able to do what they already do. So once again, you're talking out your ass. You have a viewpoint of how you want to interpret things. How you think things should be run. Maybe you should go to a different country that closer fits what you want cause you're not going to get it in the US. If all you're going to do is continue to argue opinions then you're not worth having any sort of discussion with.

By the way. On the particular topic of this thread, I said no to it. Because it's not solving the underlying problem but instead is just slapping a bandaid on something in order to get votes.

Not opinion, fact. The Constitution states any authorities not EXPLICITLY granted to it in The Constitution are restricted. Given your past demonstrations of your legal prowess I am not about to get into a debate with you about constitutional law. If you want these programs so bad make it happen privately and voluntarily through charity programs, nothing is stopping you. You have no right to take the resources of others by force and redistribute them let alone put the government in a position of creating dependence on it for survival. Under The Constitution the people are the masters and the government it's servant. Under your system the government is the master and the people are it's servants. That is the exact opposite of what The Constitution says.

Many good discussion here. But the first think government should make free to make a social equality is education and health itself.
If education and health are free, people can afford the meal they want. It has been seen that opportunities to education and health is what shapes the future of a kid.
They would be able to enjoy equal opportunity hence shape their mind on the field they prefer.

My hypothesis is that what you eat has an impact on brain function.  Basically if you are eating a lot of meat it implies that your group are hunters.  For hunting one needs a nimble mind (and body for that matter.)  That will naturally develop to help the group operate effectively in their environment.

On the other hand, if you eat a lot of fruits and roots and what-not, your group are probably a gatherers or at least that is the most effective food source at the present time.  Not much brain is necessary for that, and excess brain wastes energy.

If you eat a lot of grain your group are probably farmers.  It's much better to be a mindless dolt who is content to work the fields dawn to dust.  A well working brain not only wastes energy but interferes with the life's work.  Double-negative.

I'd say that the 'leadership' understands this.  The food pyramid and diet offered by the powers that be favor grains and more recently high fructose corn surup.  This is mainly because they plan to avoid any more revolutions going forward and diet is one of the tools that they use to keep the peeps in a state of perpetual dopiness.  The 'war on beef' which is a thing among the eco-crowd is another face of the same basic coin.

Again, the socialists have a fascination with the concept of getting the kids early and keeping them as much as possible.  Mostly is that they understand that this is key to 'revolutionary change', and to enduring rule once revolution is accomplished.

That's nothing more than an "every man for himself" attitude. Nothing more than your opinion. The constitution sets out things like "to form a more perfect union", "to insure domestic tranquility", "to promote the general welfare", "to secure the blessings of liberty". The argument can easily be made that to ensure the government achieves those goals, they needs to do some of the things you outlined to some degree. This is another case where you state something as a fact when it's nothing more than an opinion.

The government's role is to protect its citizen's constitutional rights. That is it. Not to feed, house, educate, medically treat, employ, etc. When the people become the dependent of the government, the government is no longer the servant of the people but the master. If people really want this program, create it under private charitable organizations. Stop demanding that you get to be generous with other people's money. You want to be generous, YOU FUND IT. Giving away the sweat equity of others is not generosity or charity, it is theft.

Dont breed them if you cant feed them.  Feeding a child is the parent's responsibility. I can get behind some discounted meals for low-income families, but strongly disagree with the govt (tax payers) assuming the feeding cost of literally every child in America.

>provide three free meals per day

there isn't any such thing as a 'free lunch'.

School aged children are not at school at times that all three meals are consumed, they are usually out of school around 2 in the afternoon, well before dinner time. Anything provided to a child, at no cost to the child, or his parent needs to be paid for by someone, and in the case of the subject bill, it would be paid for by the taxpayers, but with additional costs added because government almost always will do things less efficiently than the private sector. This means the tax payer is actually paying for these meals, but at a higher cost than if they paid for the meals directly.

You are talking about the brain. The brain is part of the body. The body gets hungry, not the mind. The mind simply acts according to the amount of the eaten nutrition that reaches the brain.



EDIT: Besides, it works just the opposite of what you are thinking. A hungry mind is a mind that wants to learn. If the body is starved, the mind gradually loses its hunger for knowledge. Feed the body the right amount, and the mind's hunger increases.

Hm.

I know that as of right now, local schools handle the logistics on a large amount of this. The governments kick in the funds, but its up to the state and the local school boards to handle a good amount of the implementation of things.

I know as of right now this is something that only certain states have implemented, and I would like to see it done on a federal level though I do think the federal government is going to use this as leverage to force certain states into giving them what they want.

Don't think this is only 'for the good of the children' this is something where the fed government is just going to take more control.

This is a noble idea and it’ll help many children who’re unable to afford food, even though this bill is being introduced for political gains we all should support it because so many children’s will get free food if the bill is passed. However there’s one question on my mind, can the US government actually afford free food considering the huge debt it already has on it’s hands?.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/real-us-debt-levels-could-be-a-shocking-2000percent-of-gdp-report-suggests.html

https://www.eater.com/2019/10/16/20917241/bernie-sanders-ilhan-omar-universal-school-meals-program-act-bill

No. Just no. Implement policies that make it so that the children's parents can bloody well feed their children properly. This is typical. Don't bother solving the underlying real problems but instead stick a bandaid on something purely so you can manipulate people to cry for the children and get votes.

Again:

  “Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the
   sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the...authorities consider desirable,
   and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

 – Bertrand Russel – The Impact of Science on Society - 1953

I repeat it on this board and here because this thread really brings all three together ('injunction' meaning truancy laws and legally mandated injections.)

Also:

  https://www.aier.org/article/the-socialists-always-come-for-the-kids-eventually/

I didn't yet read the article.  I just know enough history that the saying "The Socialists always come for the kids, eventually" resonates.

An adult brain consumes roughly 20% of the energy that an adult consumes based on resting metabolic rate studies. Look it up.
If you don't consume enough calories your brain starts running on ketones instead of sugar and will see decreases in cognitive ability. Again, look it up.

Thinking and learning requires a lot of sugar.

It's a no brainer that you are completely misrepresenting the facts in pursuit of your agenda of the moment. Here is the current state of free food for schoolchildren.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

Program Fact Sheet...

https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/free-school-lunch-breakfast-every-state

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which is administered by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), served nearly 30 million lunches to students every day on average in 2018, and almost three-quarters of those were provided either at no charge or at a reduced price. In the same year over 14 million meals — 85 percent of which were free or reduced — were served daily through the related School Breakfast Program, which advocates say can have an equally powerful effect on students’ health and academic success.

How in the world off base are you going to get? Everybody knows that nobody, children included, eats food with their mind. Eating food is a body thing, not a mind thing.

Though I don't always agree with free stuff, this is one thing I might be OK with. We have a similar program in our country although it only focuses on the students that are underweight (which is likely due to poverty or some health condition, which is then monitored).

I wonder how this would affect the pack lunch industry though. If everyone's going to have free 3 meals at school anyway, then they wouldn't be buying those stuff. Actually not just that sector, 3 meals a day meant the parents can actually get away with not feeding their kids anything. 

This should be a no-brainer.  Anyone who knows about education, knows that a hungry mind cannot learn. Children have no ability to provide for themselves and need food and education if they will ever have a chance to do so.