15 ms·

It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expa

It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. Unfortunately 52 senators get to control the agenda, and they get to decide what is "affordable" and "too expensive."

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. Tragic, yes, but note that you can’t compare the price tags directly on bills like this because the headline number tends to be a mix of tax breaks combined with spending authorization stretch out over many years. For example, $100 billion of the bill goes to domestic funding scientific research and fostering technology hubs. It’s spread out over 5 years. I need to read the fine print of how this is all spread out, but it’s incorrect to read the headline and assume that chipmakers are getting $280B of checks next year. For comparison, a bill authorizing the domestic lunch program over a similar 5 year term would likely be said to cost $65-70 billion due to the 5-year term and the inevitable rising prices over that term. (Note I’m not making any moral judgments about this, just putting it in context. I also didn’t verify any cost numbers from the parent comment, so don’t take my example as a fact)
guelo 4y ago
- mattnewton 4y ago
  51 senators could change that rule any time though, it’s just an accidental convention that hasn’t had the best track record imo
  - listless 4y ago
    Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to take one for the team and pull the plug on it, but I have little faith in our government ever doing the “principled” thing.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been overturned. It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to the 2013 decision of Harry Reid to invoke the "nuclear option." It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. I doubt that getting a few extra progressive federal judicial nominees through was worth those supreme court seats. For now, it seems that enough of the Senate has learned their lesson about removing the filibuster.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        >In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass. Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013. https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcconnell-nuclear-option https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcco... >It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism Based on recent decisions, we seem to be currently in an era of judicial restraint, not activism. Again, the SCOTUS doesn't create laws, congress does. That's the way the system was designed. I hope the Citizens United decision will get overturned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint
djur 4y ago
A substantial number of those 52 senators oppose free school meals not because they're "too expensive" but because the policy itself (the government giving free food to children) is something they object to on ideological grounds. A much smaller subset of that group also oppose the government giving free stuff to industry, but in either case the cost is not what they're concerned about.
- chmod600 4y ago
  Or, perhaps feel that state governments are better suited to those kinds of assistance programs.
  - mhneu 4y ago
    Unlikely, because many states then cut those assistance programs when given the opportunity. It's more likely that the 'state' argument is a way to achieve their ideological ends (cutting the program.) That said, this bill is a very positive development. Investing in local manufacturing and R&D is a great idea, and it will help the economy. Hopefully it will efficient and money will not be captured by rent-seekers or cronyism.
    - Grim-444 4y ago
      Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The state is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of its constituents. If the majority of the people living in the state are opposed to such a program, then they shouldn't have such a program. The scope of the federal government is supposed to be for coordinating cross-state stuff that states alone can't decide for themselves.
      - jonathanlb 4y ago
        > The state is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of its constituents. If the majority of the people living in the state are opposed to such a program, then they shouldn't have such a program. You're ignoring that gerrymandering districts allow politicians to enact policies that don't reflect the will of the people.
golemiprague 4y ago
ryathal 4y ago
They only killed universal free lunch, not the means tested part. Poorer kids are still getting free lunches and now the richer families have to pay for school lunches. They ended welfare for the wealthy.
- boomchinolo78 4y ago
  Not that anyone with wealth and some sense was letting their kids eat that goop.
- htuahisusi 4y ago
  I went to a public elementary school in New York state in the early 2000s, and only kids who needed free or reduced school lunch prices got it. The rest of us paid $1.75.
  - kevinventullo 4y ago
    I had the same experience in semi-rural Iowa, and I believe there was also a small morning program for kids who didn’t get breakfast at home.
yieldcrv 4y ago
You just need an external enemy. in this case China. You can bridge consensus on all sides when there is a boogeyman that isn't another American.
- Jensson 4y ago
  China provides free school lunches though, isn't it a problem if American schools can't compete?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Then you need to present it to Congress that way
theptip 4y ago
This is a shallow analysis. You can’t just look at the price tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the ROI). A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is really cheap. I’m not making any particular claims about the free school meals program, just noting that this argument doesn’t hold water as it stands. Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  > Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here. You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't on the value of feeding children that would go hungry otherwise. This is why saying > This is a shallow analysis. rings hollow. The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not because the poor are viewed as expendable.
  - californical 4y ago
    Poor children are still eligible? Nobody is going hungry
    - toolz 4y ago
      so many "think of the children" arguments without even addressing the fact that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability (mental issues can and do lead to starvation though, unfortunately). I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. That is not their expertise, not their domain and they don't need any temptations or distractions to use their funding or powers on schools. I want the federal government focused on federal issues. It seems quite reasonable that schools should serve the local community and be largely funded and ran by locals.
      - 4y ago
spicymaki 4y ago
It is despicable that we don't do enough for the poor, but the government can do two things at once. It does not need to be either or. For the US this is a chip manufacturing is a key strategic asset. South Korea, China, and Taiwan governments are essentially funding their chip manufacturing. It is not a fair playing field. The fact that they are only spending $52B on grants and incentives out of $280B is actually too little. South Korea is spending $450B for local chip manufacturing over 10 years and that started last year.
- sct202 4y ago
  While South Korea is throwing out giant numbers, the number of South Korean and Taiwanese companies who are announcing plants contingent on the CHIPS Act recently makes it seem like what the US is doing is very favorable (these companies have announced plans of SK Group $22b, Samsung $200b, Globalwafers $5b).
sytelus 4y ago
I would wager that a lot of these senators were available for purchase.
jedberg 4y ago
Keep in mind that this isn't just a handout to business, but also a national security issue. Having 90% of our chips made in Taiwan means we have to spend a bunch of resources protecting Taiwan. The long term plan here is to bring this manufacturing back into the US so that we don't have to protect Taiwan anymore. (Please note I'm not stating my opinion on if this is good or bad, simply stating the end game they are going for).
- ipsin 4y ago
  If this were true, there would be a reduction in US military spending, but I'm... very much not buying that.
  - kevinventullo 4y ago
    It’s not about military might. Look at the pain the west is feeling with divestment from Russia, and then imagine doing that with China.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    That isn't a logical statement. Global risk is increasing dramatically, so it only makes sense for net military expenditures to increase also.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tablespoon 4y ago
> It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. That's misleading framing, that's derailing discussion about this. More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. The government has decided it would rather have the economy depend on large American companies for these critical components than on large Chinese companies. And that might have follow-on effects that mean more jobs for Americans so fewer kids are poor and need subsidized school lunches. I suppose if you're unhappy with that write your senators, and ask them to pass laws requiring purchases from the lowest-cost global supplier (e.g. not American), and use the money saved for welfare subsidies.
- cft 4y ago
  - seandoe 4y ago
    It was in direct response to the comment. What are you talking about?
- memonkey 4y ago
  Ah, yes, the ol' write your congresspeople. Part of the problem is that for years they are running on these platforms saying they will help the people but end up not doing any of the things they say they are going to do.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Democracy doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. You are not the only constituent with a voice.
    - hanniabu 4y ago
pastor_bob 4y ago
For more clarification: The US spends $19 billion a year on free lunches for low income American children. Universal free lunch for all would cost $30 billion a year.
onepointsixC 4y ago
> But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. The US cannot afford losing its technological edge. It is an issue of national security. CHIPS is quite a modest bill compared to foreign competitors such as the South Korean $450Bn bill[1]. And that's not even going into how much subsidies China is pumping into their fabs. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unveils-450-billion-push-to-seize-global-chipmaking-crown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q https://archive.ph/9Gs8q
mark_l_watson 4y ago
Your points are very good, I would have said the same thing. The cynic in me thinks it is not just the Senate. How much money has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s family invested in US chip makers in the last few months? Quite a lot of money… I remember when the US government stopped the $50 million/year breakfast for poor kids program - too much money. That is when we were attacking Iraq, and spending $50M every 20 minutes of so in order to pump money into political donors like the ‘defense’ industry and energy industries. Off topic, but I laugh when I hear democrats or republicans talk like their political party cares for them. Absurd. The DNC and RNC are themselves profit driven entities.
carabiner 4y ago
In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies.
ekianjo 4y ago
> because it was "too expensive" at $11B Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back. It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment either. Also, why "free meals" when parents can afford to pay for it? If you have parents who are under a certain threshold of revenues, give their kids free meals, but let's not do a one-size fits all policy, this is not 1950 anymore.
- over_bridge 4y ago
  > Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back. It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment either. They are not a pure cost, they are an investment in your next generation of humans (or human resources if you are that way inclined). Poor nutrition leads to worse academic and social outcomes which limits opportunities for poorer kids. Good food can boost their quality of life, health and ability to contribute to the world. > Also, why "free meals" when parents can afford to pay for it? If you have parents who are under a certain threshold of revenues, give their kids free meals, but let's not do a one-size fits all policy, this is not 1950 anymore. Every time you add a condition to a benefit like this, you have to create a whole government department around it. Many salaries, managers, cost of equipment and rent and energy. All to go through and classify each person against the threshold, then build reporting to find those who don't qualify, communicate this to them (so a helpdesk and appeal system needs to be created), an enforcement system, a penalty system, long waits for support or decisions, having to update your financial status if it changes etc. All of this wasteful bureaucracy just to be stingy towards kids.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > Poor nutrition leads to worse academic and social outcomes which limits opportunities for poorer kids. Good food can boost their quality of life, health and ability to contribute to the world. I don't buy it. People were given poor quality food right after WW2 pretty much everywhere and still had productive and fulfilling lives no matter what - they actually invented the world we currently live in. Nutrition science is also junk (look at the ever-changing recommendations from nutritionists on what should be given to people, it's a running joke at this stage since they keep contradicting what they were recommending before). > Every time you add a condition to a benefit like this, you have to create a whole government department around it. With digital reporting and tracking for everything the cost of customized tax-breaks or subsidies is going down year after year. And many other countries are already doing that (condition-based benefits), so not sure what the big problem is to do in the US as well. Unless there is rampant incompetence at play in the administration, which is another problem altogether.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
twawaaay 4y ago
This is flawed logic. Security is what allows everything else to exist. You can't just say "Let's liquidate military and spend all that money on children". This would last only shortly until China or somebody else invades US. Now, I am not saying to not pay for meals. Investing directly in children is probably one of the better ways to improve future outlook of a country. I am just saying your logic is flawed and there is no easy way to compare the two.
- Splendor 4y ago
  The military is full of young people who grew up in poverty. It might be good for national security if more of them didn't have nutritional deficiencies. They aren't separate issues.
  - doctor_eval 4y ago
    Yeah but if they weren’t in poverty they probably wouldn’t join up. But definitely related issues.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  The environment is what allows everything else to exist. By your logic, that should be the #1 spending priority. And that’s only the lowest hanging of the rotten fruit of this argument.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    Security is at the top of all needs. A country that can't defend itself will be pray to everybody else and will not be able to do anything about environment or education. You can bitch and moan all you want. Go visit Ukraine and see what happens when you live in a country that can't defend itself. Everything else is being put to side. Do you think they are discussing how much they should be spending to help with the effort to control global warming? The simple fact is that having US reliant on chips supplied by a hostile power will eventually be US downfall.
    - 4y ago
TameAntelope 4y ago
> Unfortunately 52 senators get to control the agenda, and they get to decide what is "affordable" and "too expensive." How else would you prefer this to be? Of course a majority of Senators get to control the agenda…
dubcee349 4y ago
And usually its on the basis that 10 people may commit fraud to take advantage of of a benefit. Corporations would never take advantage of these types of agreements. /s While this still may be a good idea to help get more semiconductor production in the US and could reduce ongoing inflation by increasing supply it doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in people as well including plans for school meals. I think we are still figuring out how much of the inflation is supply related and how much is because the cost of money has been too cheap.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. Tragic, yes, but note that you can’t compare the price tags directly on bills like this because the headline number tends to be a mix of tax breaks combined with spending authorization stretch out over many years. For example, $100 billion of the bill goes to domestic funding scientific research and fostering technology hubs. It’s spread out over 5 years. I need to read the fine print of how this is all spread out, but it’s incorrect to read the headline and assume that chipmakers are getting $280B of checks next year. For comparison, a bill authorizing the domestic lunch program over a similar 5 year term would likely be said to cost $65-70 billion due to the 5-year term and the inevitable rising prices over that term. (Note I’m not making any moral judgments about this, just putting it in context. I also didn’t verify any cost numbers from the parent comment, so don’t take my example as a fact)

guelo 4y ago

mattnewton 4y ago
51 senators could change that rule any time though, it’s just an accidental convention that hasn’t had the best track record imo
- listless 4y ago
  Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to take one for the team and pull the plug on it, but I have little faith in our government ever doing the “principled” thing.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been overturned. It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to the 2013 decision of Harry Reid to invoke the "nuclear option." It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. I doubt that getting a few extra progressive federal judicial nominees through was worth those supreme court seats. For now, it seems that enough of the Senate has learned their lesson about removing the filibuster.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass. Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013. https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcconnell-nuclear-option https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcco... >It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism Based on recent decisions, we seem to be currently in an era of judicial restraint, not activism. Again, the SCOTUS doesn't create laws, congress does. That's the way the system was designed. I hope the Citizens United decision will get overturned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint

djur 4y ago

A substantial number of those 52 senators oppose free school meals not because they're "too expensive" but because the policy itself (the government giving free food to children) is something they object to on ideological grounds. A much smaller subset of that group also oppose the government giving free stuff to industry, but in either case the cost is not what they're concerned about.

chmod600 4y ago
Or, perhaps feel that state governments are better suited to those kinds of assistance programs.
- mhneu 4y ago
  Unlikely, because many states then cut those assistance programs when given the opportunity. It's more likely that the 'state' argument is a way to achieve their ideological ends (cutting the program.) That said, this bill is a very positive development. Investing in local manufacturing and R&D is a great idea, and it will help the economy. Hopefully it will efficient and money will not be captured by rent-seekers or cronyism.
  - Grim-444 4y ago
    Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The state is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of its constituents. If the majority of the people living in the state are opposed to such a program, then they shouldn't have such a program. The scope of the federal government is supposed to be for coordinating cross-state stuff that states alone can't decide for themselves.
    - jonathanlb 4y ago
      > The state is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of its constituents. If the majority of the people living in the state are opposed to such a program, then they shouldn't have such a program. You're ignoring that gerrymandering districts allow politicians to enact policies that don't reflect the will of the people.

golemiprague 4y ago

ryathal 4y ago

They only killed universal free lunch, not the means tested part. Poorer kids are still getting free lunches and now the richer families have to pay for school lunches. They ended welfare for the wealthy.

boomchinolo78 4y ago
Not that anyone with wealth and some sense was letting their kids eat that goop.
htuahisusi 4y ago
I went to a public elementary school in New York state in the early 2000s, and only kids who needed free or reduced school lunch prices got it. The rest of us paid $1.75.
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  I had the same experience in semi-rural Iowa, and I believe there was also a small morning program for kids who didn’t get breakfast at home.

yieldcrv 4y ago

You just need an external enemy. in this case China. You can bridge consensus on all sides when there is a boogeyman that isn't another American.

Jensson 4y ago
China provides free school lunches though, isn't it a problem if American schools can't compete?
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Then you need to present it to Congress that way

theptip 4y ago

This is a shallow analysis. You can’t just look at the price tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the ROI). A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is really cheap. I’m not making any particular claims about the free school meals program, just noting that this argument doesn’t hold water as it stands. Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here.

thereare5lights 4y ago
> Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here. You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't on the value of feeding children that would go hungry otherwise. This is why saying > This is a shallow analysis. rings hollow. The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not because the poor are viewed as expendable.
- californical 4y ago
  Poor children are still eligible? Nobody is going hungry
  - toolz 4y ago
    so many "think of the children" arguments without even addressing the fact that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability (mental issues can and do lead to starvation though, unfortunately). I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. That is not their expertise, not their domain and they don't need any temptations or distractions to use their funding or powers on schools. I want the federal government focused on federal issues. It seems quite reasonable that schools should serve the local community and be largely funded and ran by locals.
    - 4y ago

spicymaki 4y ago

It is despicable that we don't do enough for the poor, but the government can do two things at once. It does not need to be either or. For the US this is a chip manufacturing is a key strategic asset. South Korea, China, and Taiwan governments are essentially funding their chip manufacturing. It is not a fair playing field. The fact that they are only spending $52B on grants and incentives out of $280B is actually too little. South Korea is spending $450B for local chip manufacturing over 10 years and that started last year.

sct202 4y ago
While South Korea is throwing out giant numbers, the number of South Korean and Taiwanese companies who are announcing plants contingent on the CHIPS Act recently makes it seem like what the US is doing is very favorable (these companies have announced plans of SK Group $22b, Samsung $200b, Globalwafers $5b).

sytelus 4y ago

I would wager that a lot of these senators were available for purchase.

jedberg 4y ago

Keep in mind that this isn't just a handout to business, but also a national security issue. Having 90% of our chips made in Taiwan means we have to spend a bunch of resources protecting Taiwan. The long term plan here is to bring this manufacturing back into the US so that we don't have to protect Taiwan anymore. (Please note I'm not stating my opinion on if this is good or bad, simply stating the end game they are going for).

ipsin 4y ago
If this were true, there would be a reduction in US military spending, but I'm... very much not buying that.
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  It’s not about military might. Look at the pain the west is feeling with divestment from Russia, and then imagine doing that with China.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  That isn't a logical statement. Global risk is increasing dramatically, so it only makes sense for net military expenditures to increase also.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tablespoon 4y ago

> It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. That's misleading framing, that's derailing discussion about this. More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. The government has decided it would rather have the economy depend on large American companies for these critical components than on large Chinese companies. And that might have follow-on effects that mean more jobs for Americans so fewer kids are poor and need subsidized school lunches. I suppose if you're unhappy with that write your senators, and ask them to pass laws requiring purchases from the lowest-cost global supplier (e.g. not American), and use the money saved for welfare subsidies.

cft 4y ago
- seandoe 4y ago
  It was in direct response to the comment. What are you talking about?
memonkey 4y ago
Ah, yes, the ol' write your congresspeople. Part of the problem is that for years they are running on these platforms saying they will help the people but end up not doing any of the things they say they are going to do.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Democracy doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. You are not the only constituent with a voice.
  - hanniabu 4y ago

pastor_bob 4y ago

For more clarification: The US spends $19 billion a year on free lunches for low income American children. Universal free lunch for all would cost $30 billion a year.

onepointsixC 4y ago

> But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. The US cannot afford losing its technological edge. It is an issue of national security. CHIPS is quite a modest bill compared to foreign competitors such as the South Korean $450Bn bill[1]. And that's not even going into how much subsidies China is pumping into their fabs. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unveils-450-billion-push-to-seize-global-chipmaking-crown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q https://archive.ph/9Gs8q

mark_l_watson 4y ago

Your points are very good, I would have said the same thing. The cynic in me thinks it is not just the Senate. How much money has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s family invested in US chip makers in the last few months? Quite a lot of money… I remember when the US government stopped the $50 million/year breakfast for poor kids program - too much money. That is when we were attacking Iraq, and spending $50M every 20 minutes of so in order to pump money into political donors like the ‘defense’ industry and energy industries. Off topic, but I laugh when I hear democrats or republicans talk like their political party cares for them. Absurd. The DNC and RNC are themselves profit driven entities.

carabiner 4y ago

In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies.

ekianjo 4y ago

> because it was "too expensive" at $11B Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back. It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment either. Also, why "free meals" when parents can afford to pay for it? If you have parents who are under a certain threshold of revenues, give their kids free meals, but let's not do a one-size fits all policy, this is not 1950 anymore.

over_bridge 4y ago
> Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back. It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment either. They are not a pure cost, they are an investment in your next generation of humans (or human resources if you are that way inclined). Poor nutrition leads to worse academic and social outcomes which limits opportunities for poorer kids. Good food can boost their quality of life, health and ability to contribute to the world. > Also, why "free meals" when parents can afford to pay for it? If you have parents who are under a certain threshold of revenues, give their kids free meals, but let's not do a one-size fits all policy, this is not 1950 anymore. Every time you add a condition to a benefit like this, you have to create a whole government department around it. Many salaries, managers, cost of equipment and rent and energy. All to go through and classify each person against the threshold, then build reporting to find those who don't qualify, communicate this to them (so a helpdesk and appeal system needs to be created), an enforcement system, a penalty system, long waits for support or decisions, having to update your financial status if it changes etc. All of this wasteful bureaucracy just to be stingy towards kids.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > Poor nutrition leads to worse academic and social outcomes which limits opportunities for poorer kids. Good food can boost their quality of life, health and ability to contribute to the world. I don't buy it. People were given poor quality food right after WW2 pretty much everywhere and still had productive and fulfilling lives no matter what - they actually invented the world we currently live in. Nutrition science is also junk (look at the ever-changing recommendations from nutritionists on what should be given to people, it's a running joke at this stage since they keep contradicting what they were recommending before). > Every time you add a condition to a benefit like this, you have to create a whole government department around it. With digital reporting and tracking for everything the cost of customized tax-breaks or subsidies is going down year after year. And many other countries are already doing that (condition-based benefits), so not sure what the big problem is to do in the US as well. Unless there is rampant incompetence at play in the administration, which is another problem altogether.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

twawaaay 4y ago

This is flawed logic. Security is what allows everything else to exist. You can't just say "Let's liquidate military and spend all that money on children". This would last only shortly until China or somebody else invades US. Now, I am not saying to not pay for meals. Investing directly in children is probably one of the better ways to improve future outlook of a country. I am just saying your logic is flawed and there is no easy way to compare the two.

Splendor 4y ago
The military is full of young people who grew up in poverty. It might be good for national security if more of them didn't have nutritional deficiencies. They aren't separate issues.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  Yeah but if they weren’t in poverty they probably wouldn’t join up. But definitely related issues.
doctor_eval 4y ago
The environment is what allows everything else to exist. By your logic, that should be the #1 spending priority. And that’s only the lowest hanging of the rotten fruit of this argument.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  Security is at the top of all needs. A country that can't defend itself will be pray to everybody else and will not be able to do anything about environment or education. You can bitch and moan all you want. Go visit Ukraine and see what happens when you live in a country that can't defend itself. Everything else is being put to side. Do you think they are discussing how much they should be spending to help with the effort to control global warming? The simple fact is that having US reliant on chips supplied by a hostile power will eventually be US downfall.
  - 4y ago

TameAntelope 4y ago

> Unfortunately 52 senators get to control the agenda, and they get to decide what is "affordable" and "too expensive." How else would you prefer this to be? Of course a majority of Senators get to control the agenda…

dubcee349 4y ago

And usually its on the basis that 10 people may commit fraud to take advantage of of a benefit. Corporations would never take advantage of these types of agreements. /s While this still may be a good idea to help get more semiconductor production in the US and could reduce ongoing inflation by increasing supply it doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in people as well including plans for school meals. I think we are still figuring out how much of the inflation is supply related and how much is because the cost of money has been too cheap.