7 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 e

> 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
    In today's democracy you only get what you want if what you want is coincidentally the same as what their donors want.
    - jobgh 4y ago
      What are some examples of legislation that has broad support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and is ignored by our representatives?
      - lu5t 4y ago
        Federal legalization of cannabis
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        That's a fairly recent phenomena. It wasn't always a popular idea but the dam might be breaking: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-unveil-long-awaited-marijuana-legalization-bill/story?id=87197357 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-unveil-long... https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...
        jobgh 4y ago
        Source? General polls don't count either. It needs to be representative of actual voters and then adjusted for interstate voting power difference.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        I hate to refer you to a search engine, look for any major issue where the population differs in opinion to the donor class. An obvious place to start is with healthcare, where even slight majorities of Republicans wanted it socialized (at least before 2016) but picking out issues is a waste of time. The vast majority of the public has no influence on public policy. The elite consensus becomes policy 100% of the time. If there isn't an elite consensus (on around 11% of studied issues), the median public preference is chosen 1% of the time; instead one of the elite factions not aligned with public opinion usually carries the day. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... People's opinions are highly correlated with elite opinions, of course (because elites control what they hear, read, and see, and whether they'll progress in their careers or be employed at all), but when there's a divergence, public opinion is followed 0% of the time.
InvisibleCities 4y ago
This has nothing do with people’s civic engagement levels, and everything to do with money. The semiconductor industry gets a massive subsidy because they spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying - impoverished schoolchildren get left to starve because they don’t.
- jobgh 4y ago
  You honestly think tens of millions in lobbying efforts cause a tens of billions return on investment? Why is it so insanely cheap? Maybe our elected representatives simply agree that national security is a priority just like the people who voted them into office?
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I doubt it. The parallels of this rhetoric from the war on terror is stark. You can put anything under the umbrella of national security, and your average senator is perfectly aware of that. A theoretical threat to semiconductor distribution pails in comparison to the actual threat of climate change or the real threat of poverty which millions of Americans are facing. No, I don’t believe the senators looked at this with an unbiased mind and came to this conclusion on their own volition. Much rather, they rely on some funding for their campaigning, and said funding had a deep influence on their decision. Not rational thinking.
    - jobgh 4y ago
      Securing core resources has been a long standing national security concern for countries. Also, there’s a good chunk of populist isolationist sentiment in the zeitgeist. Senators aren’t unbiased. They’re biased towards what their voters want. If they step out of line, they’ll likely get crushed. I don’t think money in politics is very explanatory. It seems a basic understanding of the 3 branches and the interplay between the states and federal government explains a lot.
      - runarberg 4y ago
DubiousPusher 4y ago
> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  I mean, these people are voted in.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    True, the natsec Republican your polity elected did have to overcome a natsec Democrat or visa-versa. I encourage you to attend some meetings of your local party Republican or Democrat (whichever is dominant) and see how the people you get to elect are chosen. What you'll find is the folks controlling that process are deeply under the influence of a status quo and that most unorthodoxy there is very quickly marginalized.
    - brewdad 4y ago
      People with power wanting to retain that power is not as insightful or surprising as you think it is.
      - DubiousPusher 4y ago
        Judging by this threqd, it appears to be to some.
    - koheripbal 4y ago
      Right, but that's a feature not bug. People who have been involved in politics and have experience with budgets and governing SHOULD be the ones making decisions. Next time you get heart surgery, ask for the fringe thinking fresh college grad and see how that goes.
      - 4y ago
Spivak 4y ago
Or the tl;dr, there’s always money available for things that directly make money and when it comes to government repayment is in the form of jobs and GDP growth. “But free school lunches also provide a positive ROI!” I agree with you, now convince your representative of it.
- stirfish 4y ago
  Maybe we need a different spin on it: instead of a positive ROI, free school lunches provide a strong security posture by making stronger and smarter future-soldiers?
jacobreg 4y ago
The point isn't that its one or the other, the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives. The point is that either-or is a false dichotomy, we can have good social safety nets and still have robust national security. The reason we don't have both isn't that we can't afford both, its that much of this country views poverty as a moral failing and intentionally neglects the poor because "they deserve it".
- option 4y ago
  sorry, but the either-or false dichotomy is introduced here by your comment above.
- echelon 4y ago
  > makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives Many people in this country want their chances to be better, and not have those opportunities distributed evenly. They want a shot of improving their status by ascending career, wealth, and opportunity gradients. This is how they vote. This is how companies operate too. On the flip side, true universal equity doesn't even stop at the national boarder. If you're a proponent of equitability for all, then you want to distribute all high income jobs, housing, medical care, and wealth all around the world and give everyone access and good chances. To some degree this has happened with manufacturing. In time it will happen to knowledge work as well. There are problems with both models of the world. Power and resources become concentrated. With slowing growth, wealth building up the lower class of one nation leads to the eroding of the middle class in another. It's unclear to me that these choices are even the ones that will dominate the future outcomes for our civilization. It's resource reallocation. The big trends will be war, technological disruptions, and ecosystem changes.
- csomar 4y ago
  > the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives That's not the point presented by the OP. If he was to advance such a point, he'll have to cite a research that shows that investing in poorer families will lead to semi-conductor advancement in the country. Unless you think the US (or any reasonably advanced big economy) doesn't need a competitive semi-conductor industry.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dubcee349 4y ago
You could also say that a few very good traders in the senate would greatly benefit from this passing as well. There are a number of reasons this passed. This is not going to increase skilled labor in a meaningful way so I would not frame it as providing jobs that will get people out of subsidized programs.
cudgy 4y ago
> there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Consensus among whom? Congress? Poll after poll demonstrates that people care more about economic issues that affect them directly than spending more on military when the US already spends ridiculous amounts over their nearest competitors.

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
  In today's democracy you only get what you want if what you want is coincidentally the same as what their donors want.
  - jobgh 4y ago
    What are some examples of legislation that has broad support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and is ignored by our representatives?
    - lu5t 4y ago
      Federal legalization of cannabis
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        That's a fairly recent phenomena. It wasn't always a popular idea but the dam might be breaking: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-unveil-long-awaited-marijuana-legalization-bill/story?id=87197357 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-unveil-long... https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...
      - jobgh 4y ago
        Source? General polls don't count either. It needs to be representative of actual voters and then adjusted for interstate voting power difference.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      I hate to refer you to a search engine, look for any major issue where the population differs in opinion to the donor class. An obvious place to start is with healthcare, where even slight majorities of Republicans wanted it socialized (at least before 2016) but picking out issues is a waste of time. The vast majority of the public has no influence on public policy. The elite consensus becomes policy 100% of the time. If there isn't an elite consensus (on around 11% of studied issues), the median public preference is chosen 1% of the time; instead one of the elite factions not aligned with public opinion usually carries the day. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... People's opinions are highly correlated with elite opinions, of course (because elites control what they hear, read, and see, and whether they'll progress in their careers or be employed at all), but when there's a divergence, public opinion is followed 0% of the time.

InvisibleCities 4y ago

This has nothing do with people’s civic engagement levels, and everything to do with money. The semiconductor industry gets a massive subsidy because they spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying - impoverished schoolchildren get left to starve because they don’t.

jobgh 4y ago
You honestly think tens of millions in lobbying efforts cause a tens of billions return on investment? Why is it so insanely cheap? Maybe our elected representatives simply agree that national security is a priority just like the people who voted them into office?
- runarberg 4y ago
  I doubt it. The parallels of this rhetoric from the war on terror is stark. You can put anything under the umbrella of national security, and your average senator is perfectly aware of that. A theoretical threat to semiconductor distribution pails in comparison to the actual threat of climate change or the real threat of poverty which millions of Americans are facing. No, I don’t believe the senators looked at this with an unbiased mind and came to this conclusion on their own volition. Much rather, they rely on some funding for their campaigning, and said funding had a deep influence on their decision. Not rational thinking.
  - jobgh 4y ago
    Securing core resources has been a long standing national security concern for countries. Also, there’s a good chunk of populist isolationist sentiment in the zeitgeist. Senators aren’t unbiased. They’re biased towards what their voters want. If they step out of line, they’ll likely get crushed. I don’t think money in politics is very explanatory. It seems a basic understanding of the 3 branches and the interplay between the states and federal government explains a lot.
    - runarberg 4y ago

DubiousPusher 4y ago

> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?

BobbyJo 4y ago
I mean, these people are voted in.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  True, the natsec Republican your polity elected did have to overcome a natsec Democrat or visa-versa. I encourage you to attend some meetings of your local party Republican or Democrat (whichever is dominant) and see how the people you get to elect are chosen. What you'll find is the folks controlling that process are deeply under the influence of a status quo and that most unorthodoxy there is very quickly marginalized.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    People with power wanting to retain that power is not as insightful or surprising as you think it is.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      Judging by this threqd, it appears to be to some.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    Right, but that's a feature not bug. People who have been involved in politics and have experience with budgets and governing SHOULD be the ones making decisions. Next time you get heart surgery, ask for the fringe thinking fresh college grad and see how that goes.
    - 4y ago

Spivak 4y ago

Or the tl;dr, there’s always money available for things that directly make money and when it comes to government repayment is in the form of jobs and GDP growth. “But free school lunches also provide a positive ROI!” I agree with you, now convince your representative of it.

stirfish 4y ago
Maybe we need a different spin on it: instead of a positive ROI, free school lunches provide a strong security posture by making stronger and smarter future-soldiers?

jacobreg 4y ago

The point isn't that its one or the other, the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives. The point is that either-or is a false dichotomy, we can have good social safety nets and still have robust national security. The reason we don't have both isn't that we can't afford both, its that much of this country views poverty as a moral failing and intentionally neglects the poor because "they deserve it".

option 4y ago
sorry, but the either-or false dichotomy is introduced here by your comment above.
echelon 4y ago
> makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives Many people in this country want their chances to be better, and not have those opportunities distributed evenly. They want a shot of improving their status by ascending career, wealth, and opportunity gradients. This is how they vote. This is how companies operate too. On the flip side, true universal equity doesn't even stop at the national boarder. If you're a proponent of equitability for all, then you want to distribute all high income jobs, housing, medical care, and wealth all around the world and give everyone access and good chances. To some degree this has happened with manufacturing. In time it will happen to knowledge work as well. There are problems with both models of the world. Power and resources become concentrated. With slowing growth, wealth building up the lower class of one nation leads to the eroding of the middle class in another. It's unclear to me that these choices are even the ones that will dominate the future outcomes for our civilization. It's resource reallocation. The big trends will be war, technological disruptions, and ecosystem changes.
csomar 4y ago
> the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives That's not the point presented by the OP. If he was to advance such a point, he'll have to cite a research that shows that investing in poorer families will lead to semi-conductor advancement in the country. Unless you think the US (or any reasonably advanced big economy) doesn't need a competitive semi-conductor industry.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dubcee349 4y ago

You could also say that a few very good traders in the senate would greatly benefit from this passing as well. There are a number of reasons this passed. This is not going to increase skilled labor in a meaningful way so I would not frame it as providing jobs that will get people out of subsidized programs.

cudgy 4y ago

> there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Consensus among whom? Congress? Poll after poll demonstrates that people care more about economic issues that affect them directly than spending more on military when the US already spends ridiculous amounts over their nearest competitors.