5 ms·

> 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 exp

> 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.
  - thereare5lights 4y ago
    > that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... The metric of whether or not someone literally dies of starvation is a pathetic metric.
    - toolz 4y ago
      did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric? It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition. The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules. We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships" And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
        toolz 4y ago
        if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.
      - thereare5lights 4y ago
        > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent. > Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. When faced with data, you persist in this lie. > Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed False, food deserts coupled with the fact that the more nutritious foods are much more expensive make it extremely difficult to do so. > I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. That's easy af to do when it's voluntary. > We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me. This tells me that you've never been poor. One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.
  - mrep 4y ago
    > I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. I wouldn't go that far. Federal and state governments provide about half of education funding [0] and the way they dish it out is basically inversely proportional to how much funding a school gets through their local property taxes. Without that, funding would be very unbalanced. Although I'd be fine with reducing federal government funding/taxes with proportionate increase by the states. [0]: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/ https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-...
    - toolz 4y ago
      Do you think areas that want to put more into education should be punished while areas that care very little to invest in education get equal funding? If an area does well to foster profitable trade and wishes to utilize that profit to boost education, I feel like that's a good thing and ideally would result in massive migration to that area. Especially with utilities of the internet that make it not only possible, but very much in practice to share teaching for free from the best educators. If you force every kid to be equally educated, I worry you'll end up with a bunch of highly capable kids getting bored (because they're getting the same education as the rest of the kids who don't care) while forcing kids who don't care to painfully spend their entire youth on a useless education that they don't see value in. Sure, we all want disadvantaged people to have better opportunities but if we're forcing them to have better opportunities it seems unlikely to instill the most important aspect of those opportunities, which is that the people utilizing them actually want them. Difficult problems, for sure, but I struggle looking at todays kids attitude towards school and seeing how this is the best path forward. Even as recent as just a few generations ago you hear stories about kids giving up a lot in order to be educated. I imagine classrooms full of only eager students would have its benefits, and maybe those would vastly outweigh the detriments.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  If you've ever had to jump through the hoops of these programs like my parents had to, you would know that simply being eligible does not mean that you'll actually gain access to the program nor are you actually eligible if you're poor. The income requirements often times are far too high especially if you're in gentrifying areas due to cost of living.
listenman 4y ago
The next generation of Americans will grow up hungry if we cede the security of the very item at the heart of all of our infrastructure. The next generation won't have any equivalent electronic equipment from the post-WWII era, whilst living in a world that is based exclusively on semiconductors (consider the usage of semiconductors in medical equipment as well). This is certain death, and this kind of short-sighted belly aching is a problematic position to take when we're staring down the prospect of losing the entirety of our ability to sustain the infrastructure needed to keep anyone alive in the first place.

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.
- thereare5lights 4y ago
  > that literally no one starves in the U.S. for lack of food availability https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... The metric of whether or not someone literally dies of starvation is a pathetic metric.
  - toolz 4y ago
    did you read the definition of the very lowest tier of "very low food security" metric? It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed, but obviously even our rich don't understand nutrition. The harshest measurement on the chart was someone who didn't eat for a full day over a 3 month period. I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day and as a result our bodies are extremely adept at having irregular eating schedules. We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships" And a 100 years ago a lobotomy against "mental illness" (like mood swings or chatty women) was considered acceptable. A high school diploma was an amazing achievement. What's your point and how does that relate to today?
      - toolz 4y ago
        if you read the rest of my comment I'm sure you'll find a point in there. Picking out a single comment you don't like and ignoring the context of the debate adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not about to debate the merits of diet 100 years ago vs today in a thread about whether or not people in the US can or can't get access to adequate nutrition.
    - thereare5lights 4y ago
      > It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent. > Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. When faced with data, you persist in this lie. > Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of the poor can readily get the nutrition they need if they knew what they needed False, food deserts coupled with the fact that the more nutritious foods are much more expensive make it extremely difficult to do so. > I fast for many days at a time _because_ it's healthy. That's easy af to do when it's voluntary. > We have an obesity epidemic in our poorest demographic. That says about everything that needs to be said, if you ask me. This tells me that you've never been poor. One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods.
- mrep 4y ago
  > I for one don't think the federal government should have anything to do with our school systems. I wouldn't go that far. Federal and state governments provide about half of education funding [0] and the way they dish it out is basically inversely proportional to how much funding a school gets through their local property taxes. Without that, funding would be very unbalanced. Although I'd be fine with reducing federal government funding/taxes with proportionate increase by the states. [0]: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/ https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-...
  - toolz 4y ago
    Do you think areas that want to put more into education should be punished while areas that care very little to invest in education get equal funding? If an area does well to foster profitable trade and wishes to utilize that profit to boost education, I feel like that's a good thing and ideally would result in massive migration to that area. Especially with utilities of the internet that make it not only possible, but very much in practice to share teaching for free from the best educators. If you force every kid to be equally educated, I worry you'll end up with a bunch of highly capable kids getting bored (because they're getting the same education as the rest of the kids who don't care) while forcing kids who don't care to painfully spend their entire youth on a useless education that they don't see value in. Sure, we all want disadvantaged people to have better opportunities but if we're forcing them to have better opportunities it seems unlikely to instill the most important aspect of those opportunities, which is that the people utilizing them actually want them. Difficult problems, for sure, but I struggle looking at todays kids attitude towards school and seeing how this is the best path forward. Even as recent as just a few generations ago you hear stories about kids giving up a lot in order to be educated. I imagine classrooms full of only eager students would have its benefits, and maybe those would vastly outweigh the detriments.
thereare5lights 4y ago
If you've ever had to jump through the hoops of these programs like my parents had to, you would know that simply being eligible does not mean that you'll actually gain access to the program nor are you actually eligible if you're poor. The income requirements often times are far too high especially if you're in gentrifying areas due to cost of living.

listenman 4y ago

The next generation of Americans will grow up hungry if we cede the security of the very item at the heart of all of our infrastructure. The next generation won't have any equivalent electronic equipment from the post-WWII era, whilst living in a world that is based exclusively on semiconductors (consider the usage of semiconductors in medical equipment as well). This is certain death, and this kind of short-sighted belly aching is a problematic position to take when we're staring down the prospect of losing the entirety of our ability to sustain the infrastructure needed to keep anyone alive in the first place.