3 ms·

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

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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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.
      - kerkeslager 1y ago
        If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, and fishes like a duck, it probably is a duck. If you spout all the verbatim opinions of a neoconservative, you're probably a neoconservative. I don't care if you identify as a libertarian or an attack helicopter. You're in this thread opposing the only proposed solution to feeding children, so it's pretty clear what you are.
- nickff 2y ago
  Please don’t respond with a fake quote; double quotation marks are for direct quotes (which are assumed to be from the parent unless otherwise attributed). If you’re going to make something up, please use single quotes, and make it clear that the parent didn’t actually say that.
lazyasciiart 2y 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 2y ago
  Edit: look here is one now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957
- yieldcrv 2y 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 2y ago
    > You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial That is not true. Regardless of what NY state did.
  - kerkeslager 2y 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 2y ago
      mmmm, okay, alternatively I overgeneralized and I clarified which subset of shared opinion I am fond of and referring to
hiddencost 2y ago
Naw. Not true.

forgetfreeman 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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.
    - kerkeslager 1y ago
      If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, and fishes like a duck, it probably is a duck. If you spout all the verbatim opinions of a neoconservative, you're probably a neoconservative. I don't care if you identify as a libertarian or an attack helicopter. You're in this thread opposing the only proposed solution to feeding children, so it's pretty clear what you are.
nickff 2y ago
Please don’t respond with a fake quote; double quotation marks are for direct quotes (which are assumed to be from the parent unless otherwise attributed). If you’re going to make something up, please use single quotes, and make it clear that the parent didn’t actually say that.

lazyasciiart 2y 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 2y ago
Edit: look here is one now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43900957
yieldcrv 2y 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 2y ago
  > You and the other parties actually agree that it isn't controversial That is not true. Regardless of what NY state did.
- kerkeslager 2y 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 2y ago
    mmmm, okay, alternatively I overgeneralized and I clarified which subset of shared opinion I am fond of and referring to

hiddencost 2y ago

Naw. Not true.