32 ms·

New York State just passed universal free lunch and breakfast for public school students. Of all the things that we spend our tax dollars on, this feels like a

New York State just passed universal free lunch and breakfast for public school students. Of all the things that we spend our tax dollars on, this feels like a no brainer. Making sure children are fed should be at the top of the list.

kerkeslager 1y ago
Stuff like this seems like such a dividing line to me. Like, in theory when people believe things that are morally wrong, I want to reach out to them with compassion and respect and try to gently persuade them to my side because we're all, in theory, on the same side. But if you don't want kids to be fed, I really am not sure we're actually on the same side any more and I really am not sure what to do with that.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  People generally don't want the Federal government involved, thats where the consensus has been lacking. this is exhibit A of showing that these country sized states are fully capable of handling their own affairs and universal access to things, the same as the 21st century developed nations that do the same thing You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial, there are many funding sources if its deemed important, keep the federal government out of it
  - forgetfreeman 1y ago
    Except none of that is actually true. Unconvinced? Go look at a heat map of poverty in the US and then check out which states get bulk of federal assistance dollars. Note none of those states is running a massive budget surplus. While I have you I'd like to also point out that "hrrr federal government bad" is not only tautological, as an ideology it's deeply stupid . States frequently encounter problems that require a bigger budget than they can muster to solve (see also: disaster recovery).
    - yieldcrv 1y ago
      "hrrr federal government bad" is not my argument. I don't think the federal government is bad. I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions. Disaster recovery is also not the topic nor does it provide any introspective ability on this topic. yes, I agree if something is not within the budget, and there is also no consensus, then it won't happen. I'm not sure that even needed to be said, but I am familiar with people that would try to make programs happen in those situations too. I would vote no on those proposals in those cases.
      - kerkeslager 1y ago
        > I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions. 1. The budget of most Red states is not balanced. 2. States aren't sovereign institutions. 3. Funding being provided without strings attached is practically nonexistent. Money is allocated for a purpose. Allocating money with no string attached is simply not a thing that state or local governments do, so it's bizarre that you'd think states do this any differently from the federal government. 4. If you want the federal budget to be balanced, definitely you should vote for Democrats, because Republican presidents have increased the national debt more than Democratic ones consistently. Republican austerity is a total lie not borne out by any facts. Frankly, this is a blatant distraction. I don't give a shit whether it's states or the federal government that feeds kids, I just want a government to feed all the kids in my country. The only reason conservatives give a shit about state's rights is because being in favor of state's rights sounds a lot better than being against feeding children. But the fact is, when states do things like pass gun regulation or refuse to bypass due process to arrest immigrants, suddenly conservatives are against state's rights. And make no mistake, whenever there is any major movement for states to individually provide school lunches, it's conservatives that oppose it.
        yieldcrv 1y ago
        I never mentioned any party or conservatives or democrats. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is. I never mentioned any party or conservatives or democrats. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is. You are bringing up other positions to discredit a position you assumed I have, because you saw something that overlapped with something partisans say, when the only position I have is that the federal government doesn't need to be involved. and this subthread is about the federal government not being involved, because a state did it on their own. the article is about an individual doing it on their own, the article is about a foundation that does it on their own. that's the whole position the whole time. and I don't care who does it, the federal government doesn't need to. not everyone that would be against one particular organization doing the action with money is against the actual action occurring. that's what I think gets lost here, and how its masquaraded as controversial to suggest a different organization is capable of doing it. this article and thread is exhibits a, b, and c of different organizations doing it.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    This is simply not true. Multiple states have tried and failed to pass state funding for universal free lunches - because in each state there are groups who argue giving free lunches to all kids is bad. It’s not an argument about where the money comes from.
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      Edit: look here is one now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957
    - yieldcrv 1y ago
      and NY State is an example of where it is true. I'm not sure how the observation that other places also lacked consensus at the state level discredits anything. Some people dislike it on the federal level, and are fine with it at the state level, as they are two different organizations. My comment was only about them.
      - lazyasciiart 1y ago
        > You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial That is not true. Regardless of what NY state did.
      - kerkeslager 1y ago
        > Some people dislike it on the federal level, and are fine with it at the state level, as they are two different organizations. My comment was only about them. You said: > People generally don't want the Federal government involved, thats where the consensus has been lacking. So no, your comment was a claim about "people generally". If you'd like to say you misspoke, fine, but everyone can read what you said, so there's no point lying about what you said.
        yieldcrv 1y ago
        mmmm, okay, alternatively I overgeneralized and I clarified which subset of shared opinion I am fond of and referring to
  - hiddencost 1y ago
    Naw. Not true.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - kerkeslager 1y ago
    > It’s not that I don’t want kids fed. It’s that I know deep in my soul that $100 will be spent per child, with $99 extracted along the way by various politicians / consultants / unions, and $1 of disgusting food will (sometimes) be provided to a child. If you oppose any actual steps to feed kids, then you don't want the kids fed. The rest of this is just you justifying why you don't want the kids fed. If you want the program to feed the kids to be efficient: guess what, the left wants that too, and we're really happy to work to make that happen. But the fact is, the right is happy to simply throw out the program and let the kids starve rather than tolerate any inefficiency. And notably, that inefficiency is often created by right-wing policies which attempt to prevent anyone perceived as not deserving aid from receiving aid. If you vote Republican because you want the government to be more efficient, you're piling on even more bullshit. The national debt consistently increases more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones[1]--the perceived austerity of conservative government is entirely nonexistent. This problem is only worse under Trump: DOGE has made things less efficient by firing and rehiring half of the workers in government without even a basic understanding of how the programs work and or could be improved[2]. > And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge I'm well aware these programs are inefficient, though they're certainly not 1% efficient as in your made up numbers. It's just that I'm not willing to stop helping people because it's inefficient. I'd like to make it more efficient, but it's pretty hard to make programs more efficient when people like you are constantly trying to get rid of them and defund them. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-had-more-national-debt-8738104 https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-ha... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/21/doge-government-efficiency-federal-workers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/21/doge-gove...
    - pnutjam 1y ago
      The arguments are so facetious and facile. India has more corruption then the US and they can handle a free lunch program for all kids. Why can't America?
- verisimi 1y ago
  I'll play devil's advocate, and you tell me the immorality of the position. Say you have no children. Is it an acceptable position to hold that 'those people who have children should also be the ones to look after them'? Shouldn't you have considered these sorts of expenses and being able to meet them, rather than expecting to receive handouts?
  - yojo 1y ago
    You are not denying food to the parents, you are denying food to the children. They did not choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose the fiscal responsibility of their parents. Maybe there is room in there to shame the parents or give them a slap on the wrist, but the kids are blameless and denying them food makes you probably a monster.
    - verisimi 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - mschuster91 1y ago
        > And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.
        verisimi 1y ago
        How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
        mschuster91 1y ago
        That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  You can want kids to be fed and fully believe that the government giving out free meal to all kids will eventually lead to kids not being feed. I can think of lots of arguments Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. The "give a man a fish he eats for day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime", type of thinking. Some people might believe it encourages parents to be irresponsible. Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent. I'm not saying I buy those arguments but I can see them as valid arguments. Helping directly is not always helpful. There's plenty of examples of that. Whether that's true in this case I don't know.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient To be clear, the subject is still children, right? Refusing to feed children to "teach" them self-sufficiency is, IMO, right up there with a non-ironic "the children yearn for the mines". What could a self-sufficient 6th-grader even do for money? Steal baby food and small electronics from Target for fencing?
    - walthamstow 1y ago
      Well, I learnt a new Americanism today. Fence, verb, meaning to shift stolen goods. Upon first read I thought they would be sword fighting with stolen bluetooth speakers.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        an accelerometer and a speaker are needed for those lightsaber sounds
      - Suppafly 1y ago
- walthamstow 1y ago
  Even outside of morality it's a straightforward issue. Investments in children benefit the whole economy and society, for decades. If a person can't see that then they could be immoral but they might just be stupid.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Plenty of human beings genuinely and earnestly believe that investing in the "wrong kinds" of people would be harmful to society as a whole. This is not limited to regressives or conservatives either, with plenty of savants on tumbler and reddit reinventing eugenics "against rich people this time".
- potato3732842 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - m2024 1y ago
    [dead]
- asdf6969 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - kccoder 1y ago
    This is an absolutely disgusting, immoral, ghoulish position.
    - asdf6969 1y ago
      My country (Canada) gives every parent money every month for each kid they have. It’s enough to pay for food, so there’s really no excuse to not feed the kid. We don’t have school lunches and it’s not a problem. Do you think Canadians are all ghouls?
colechristensen 1y ago
Minnesota did so in 2023, it's working great. And importantly emphasizing "universal", we're not spending a bunch of money on the bureaucracy of figuring out who gets it and who qualifies and hearing people complain about fraud. They're kids, everybody gets it, nobody set up a test as to which gets get free food. I pay both MN and NY taxes and couldn't be happier about this expenditure.
- indrora 1y ago
  If I recall correctly, the MN movement started with St. Paul Public Schools doing it and their test scores (as a result) shooting through the roof. I know that free breakfast is another thing that Minnesota did, apparently?
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    It's both breakfast and lunch. It built upon programs during covid that provided food for kids when schools were closed.

kerkeslager 1y ago

Stuff like this seems like such a dividing line to me. Like, in theory when people believe things that are morally wrong, I want to reach out to them with compassion and respect and try to gently persuade them to my side because we're all, in theory, on the same side. But if you don't want kids to be fed, I really am not sure we're actually on the same side any more and I really am not sure what to do with that.

yieldcrv 1y ago
People generally don't want the Federal government involved, thats where the consensus has been lacking. this is exhibit A of showing that these country sized states are fully capable of handling their own affairs and universal access to things, the same as the 21st century developed nations that do the same thing You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial, there are many funding sources if its deemed important, keep the federal government out of it
- forgetfreeman 1y ago
  Except none of that is actually true. Unconvinced? Go look at a heat map of poverty in the US and then check out which states get bulk of federal assistance dollars. Note none of those states is running a massive budget surplus. While I have you I'd like to also point out that "hrrr federal government bad" is not only tautological, as an ideology it's deeply stupid . States frequently encounter problems that require a bigger budget than they can muster to solve (see also: disaster recovery).
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    "hrrr federal government bad" is not my argument. I don't think the federal government is bad. I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions. Disaster recovery is also not the topic nor does it provide any introspective ability on this topic. yes, I agree if something is not within the budget, and there is also no consensus, then it won't happen. I'm not sure that even needed to be said, but I am familiar with people that would try to make programs happen in those situations too. I would vote no on those proposals in those cases.
    - kerkeslager 1y ago
      > I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions. 1. The budget of most Red states is not balanced. 2. States aren't sovereign institutions. 3. Funding being provided without strings attached is practically nonexistent. Money is allocated for a purpose. Allocating money with no string attached is simply not a thing that state or local governments do, so it's bizarre that you'd think states do this any differently from the federal government. 4. If you want the federal budget to be balanced, definitely you should vote for Democrats, because Republican presidents have increased the national debt more than Democratic ones consistently. Republican austerity is a total lie not borne out by any facts. Frankly, this is a blatant distraction. I don't give a shit whether it's states or the federal government that feeds kids, I just want a government to feed all the kids in my country. The only reason conservatives give a shit about state's rights is because being in favor of state's rights sounds a lot better than being against feeding children. But the fact is, when states do things like pass gun regulation or refuse to bypass due process to arrest immigrants, suddenly conservatives are against state's rights. And make no mistake, whenever there is any major movement for states to individually provide school lunches, it's conservatives that oppose it.
      - yieldcrv 1y ago
        I never mentioned any party or conservatives or democrats. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is. I never mentioned any party or conservatives or democrats. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is. You are bringing up other positions to discredit a position you assumed I have, because you saw something that overlapped with something partisans say, when the only position I have is that the federal government doesn't need to be involved. and this subthread is about the federal government not being involved, because a state did it on their own. the article is about an individual doing it on their own, the article is about a foundation that does it on their own. that's the whole position the whole time. and I don't care who does it, the federal government doesn't need to. not everyone that would be against one particular organization doing the action with money is against the actual action occurring. that's what I think gets lost here, and how its masquaraded as controversial to suggest a different organization is capable of doing it. this article and thread is exhibits a, b, and c of different organizations doing it.
- lazyasciiart 1y ago
  This is simply not true. Multiple states have tried and failed to pass state funding for universal free lunches - because in each state there are groups who argue giving free lunches to all kids is bad. It’s not an argument about where the money comes from.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    Edit: look here is one now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    and NY State is an example of where it is true. I'm not sure how the observation that other places also lacked consensus at the state level discredits anything. Some people dislike it on the federal level, and are fine with it at the state level, as they are two different organizations. My comment was only about them.
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      > You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial That is not true. Regardless of what NY state did.
    - kerkeslager 1y ago
      > Some people dislike it on the federal level, and are fine with it at the state level, as they are two different organizations. My comment was only about them. You said: > People generally don't want the Federal government involved, thats where the consensus has been lacking. So no, your comment was a claim about "people generally". If you'd like to say you misspoke, fine, but everyone can read what you said, so there's no point lying about what you said.
      - yieldcrv 1y ago
        mmmm, okay, alternatively I overgeneralized and I clarified which subset of shared opinion I am fond of and referring to
- hiddencost 1y ago
  Naw. Not true.
monero-xmr 1y ago
[flagged]
- kerkeslager 1y ago
  > It’s not that I don’t want kids fed. It’s that I know deep in my soul that $100 will be spent per child, with $99 extracted along the way by various politicians / consultants / unions, and $1 of disgusting food will (sometimes) be provided to a child. If you oppose any actual steps to feed kids, then you don't want the kids fed. The rest of this is just you justifying why you don't want the kids fed. If you want the program to feed the kids to be efficient: guess what, the left wants that too, and we're really happy to work to make that happen. But the fact is, the right is happy to simply throw out the program and let the kids starve rather than tolerate any inefficiency. And notably, that inefficiency is often created by right-wing policies which attempt to prevent anyone perceived as not deserving aid from receiving aid. If you vote Republican because you want the government to be more efficient, you're piling on even more bullshit. The national debt consistently increases more under Republican presidents than Democratic ones[1]--the perceived austerity of conservative government is entirely nonexistent. This problem is only worse under Trump: DOGE has made things less efficient by firing and rehiring half of the workers in government without even a basic understanding of how the programs work and or could be improved[2]. > And what I like about leftists is their sympathy. What I dislike is their lack of real-world knowledge I'm well aware these programs are inefficient, though they're certainly not 1% efficient as in your made up numbers. It's just that I'm not willing to stop helping people because it's inefficient. I'd like to make it more efficient, but it's pretty hard to make programs more efficient when people like you are constantly trying to get rid of them and defund them. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-had-more-national-debt-8738104 https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-ha... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/21/doge-government-efficiency-federal-workers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/21/doge-gove...
  - pnutjam 1y ago
    The arguments are so facetious and facile. India has more corruption then the US and they can handle a free lunch program for all kids. Why can't America?
verisimi 1y ago
I'll play devil's advocate, and you tell me the immorality of the position. Say you have no children. Is it an acceptable position to hold that 'those people who have children should also be the ones to look after them'? Shouldn't you have considered these sorts of expenses and being able to meet them, rather than expecting to receive handouts?
- yojo 1y ago
  You are not denying food to the parents, you are denying food to the children. They did not choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose the fiscal responsibility of their parents. Maybe there is room in there to shame the parents or give them a slap on the wrist, but the kids are blameless and denying them food makes you probably a monster.
  - verisimi 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.
      - verisimi 1y ago
        How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
        mschuster91 1y ago
        That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
socalgal2 1y ago
You can want kids to be fed and fully believe that the government giving out free meal to all kids will eventually lead to kids not being feed. I can think of lots of arguments Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. The "give a man a fish he eats for day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime", type of thinking. Some people might believe it encourages parents to be irresponsible. Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent. I'm not saying I buy those arguments but I can see them as valid arguments. Helping directly is not always helpful. There's plenty of examples of that. Whether that's true in this case I don't know.
- overfeed 1y ago
  > Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient To be clear, the subject is still children, right? Refusing to feed children to "teach" them self-sufficiency is, IMO, right up there with a non-ironic "the children yearn for the mines". What could a self-sufficient 6th-grader even do for money? Steal baby food and small electronics from Target for fencing?
  - walthamstow 1y ago
    Well, I learnt a new Americanism today. Fence, verb, meaning to shift stolen goods. Upon first read I thought they would be sword fighting with stolen bluetooth speakers.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      an accelerometer and a speaker are needed for those lightsaber sounds
    - Suppafly 1y ago
walthamstow 1y ago
Even outside of morality it's a straightforward issue. Investments in children benefit the whole economy and society, for decades. If a person can't see that then they could be immoral but they might just be stupid.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Plenty of human beings genuinely and earnestly believe that investing in the "wrong kinds" of people would be harmful to society as a whole. This is not limited to regressives or conservatives either, with plenty of savants on tumbler and reddit reinventing eugenics "against rich people this time".
potato3732842 1y ago
[flagged]
- m2024 1y ago
  [dead]
asdf6969 1y ago
[flagged]
- kccoder 1y ago
  This is an absolutely disgusting, immoral, ghoulish position.
  - asdf6969 1y ago
    My country (Canada) gives every parent money every month for each kid they have. It’s enough to pay for food, so there’s really no excuse to not feed the kid. We don’t have school lunches and it’s not a problem. Do you think Canadians are all ghouls?

colechristensen 1y ago

Minnesota did so in 2023, it's working great. And importantly emphasizing "universal", we're not spending a bunch of money on the bureaucracy of figuring out who gets it and who qualifies and hearing people complain about fraud. They're kids, everybody gets it, nobody set up a test as to which gets get free food. I pay both MN and NY taxes and couldn't be happier about this expenditure.

indrora 1y ago
If I recall correctly, the MN movement started with St. Paul Public Schools doing it and their test scores (as a result) shooting through the roof. I know that free breakfast is another thing that Minnesota did, apparently?
- colechristensen 1y ago
  It's both breakfast and lunch. It built upon programs during covid that provided food for kids when schools were closed.