Any parent can tell you that a hungry child isn’t capable of doing any complex activity. Attempting to educate a kid who hasn’t eaten in god knows how long, for whatever reason, isn’t going to work.
Beyond that, universal school breakfast and lunch help people who can afford it by removing yet another thing for parents to worry about. And it eliminates the stigma of only the poor kids getting free lunches.
Republicans have been disdainful of public education since before I was born, so they’re trying to make it fail by continuing to spend money trying to teach hungry kids.
And it eliminates the stigma of only the poor kids getting free lunches.
The stigma is the point.
Conservatives believe receiving charity should be shameful.
Because conservatives (and neoliberals) think poverty is a personal moral failure - if you’re poor, it’s not because society and capitalism and racism and structural inequality screwed you over, it’s because you, personally, were lazy or wasted your money or broke the law or didn’t work hard enough.
So if a child can’t afford a school lunch, it’s because their parents are bad people. And shaming that child with an obvious “free lunch” (I remember having a bright red card that I had to show in the cafeteria, and the lunch lady would sneer at me and loudly proclaim “here is your FREE LUNCH” and hand me a cheese sandwich and an apple when the other kids were getting pizza just to make sure everybody knew my parents were poor) teaches the child to be ashamed of their parents and be ashamed of their poverty so they’ll work harder to avoid poverty as adults.
And if schools give every child free lunch, not only do they lose that “teaching opportunity”, they teach children that food is a right and that everybody, no matter their economic status, should have enough to eat, which is a direct attack on the fundamental principles of capitalism and American society.
Go into a conservative space and tell them people have a right to food and shelter and medical care and watch them froth in rage.
Wow I never put it together before but you are right, the free lunch was a lesson to work hard and not be poor, and I have to say it worked on me. We had our free lunches provided in a very distinct white paper bag and you had to walk to the office to get it, then walk back down to the cafeteria after everyone was already sitting down. So everyone got to see the white bag lunch as you walked in, and everyone knew what it meant. Would it have killed the school to use the standard brown paper bag, or give it to us on a lunch tray with the hot lunch kids? No but if the reason was to embarrass me into not being poor it worked. I promised myself that my kids would never have to deal with that embarrassment, and so far I’ve kept that promise.
It’s crazy how different things can be in different places. When I was in school, it didn’t matter whether you paid or not, everyone got the same thing the same way. Actually, we had no way of knowing what other students paid for their lunch, as we would have an account with the school that you would put money on, and when you went through the line, you would give the person at the end the last 4 digits of your ssn and it would charge you the correct amount and take it out of your account.
Now if you didn’t have enough money in your account to cover whatever you owed, then there would be an issue, but I don’t remember ever seeing that.
Go into a conservative space and tell them people have a right to food and shelter and medical care and watch them froth in rage.
But if you specifically say that they have a right to those things, they’ll wholeheartedly agree.
Removed by mod
It’s a lot simpler. Conservatives want to funnel all tax money to the ultra wealthy. It’s just wealth worship.
By their twisted logic the rich people deserve all the money, because they’re rich and therefore god’s chosen people
Prosperity gospel
Basic, and higher education should be on that list. I’d aslo argue for utilities, and AFAIC utilities should be public, and include telecommunications companies, not just water, electric, and mass transit.
Oh man, that is so fucked up. The UK has its own problems around attitudes towards the poor, but I never saw anything like this in school. My school had cards that you had to load credit onto, and people with free school meals had a standard amount automatically added on each day.
Any parent can tell you that a hungry child isn’t capable of doing any complex activity.
Neither is a hungry adult. Free access to food should be a constitutional right.
If we can force all the kids into a school, the goddamn LEAST we can do is toss them some snacks
Keep them hungry, keep them dumb. Make it so only the already rich have access to education. Keep the power in the hand of the wealthy few.
Ohhh, they’re opposing universal free meals while wanting to keep the free meals for students from poor families. That makes way more sense than opposing both. Not cartoonishly evil. It’s possible that it’s for purely utilitarian reasons.
Typical politics taking things out of context and extrapolating.
(No, I am not endorsing the republican party or saying that universal free meals for students should be blocked.)
It isn’t quite as insane as the headline makes it sound.
But anyway, maybe Republicans are worried that if anyone sees a “socialist” type of program at work they might think it is kind of a good idea in certain circumstances. O noes 😨
what the fuck is wrong with america?
Republicans.
Well, rightists in general. Unfortunately there is a non-zero percentage of rightist Democrats, as well.
That’s not to say that Democrats are perfect though. With the people who are in charge that are Democrats being severely uneducated, such as Biden saying that cannons and flamethrowers are illegal and impossible to own. Overall the issue is that nobody directly has any opinion or control. We vote for people that make decisions for us and they don’t always upkeep their promises and make decisions people that voted for them like. There is no exactly perfect candidate, voting eliminates most bad candidates, but voting directly in as many matters as possible is a much better and reliable democracy than the current system.
that is some truly moronic whataboutism, and nothing else… only cowards hide behind arguments like that…
the democratic party is largely a right wing conservative party, so i would assume so
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.”
- George Carlin literally decades ago
Until you’re old enough to join the military.
Nah, get with the times. They’re putting kids back in factories and kitchens now.
Removed by mod
The narcissists include those who have allowed republicans into power - and to erode any social safety nets they can get their paws on - for DECADES, by sitting on their lazy mediocre asses on Election Day, fondling their
ignorancepurity then lovingly sniffing their fingers… bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRitE.Mandatory psilocybin doses might do it.
We’re addicted to tearing one another down to feel better about ourselves. Our country has become the national embodiment of schadenfreude.
Help.
this is the whole thing, man… tweaking freaks for competition 24/7 just for the chance to make SportsCenter…
As a leftist, I don’t want to tear Republicans down. And I’ll stop the moment they stop trying to commit genocide against minorities and literally starve children.
Removed by mod
I’d prefer if you asked what the fuck is right with America so the answer can be two sentences rather than the length of a novel.
There’s always a group of people or party that want to tear others down. From slavery and seceding, to wanting segregation laws and harassing minorities. In other countries you had apartheid and Nazis. It’s a constant battle/struggle against evil and those wanting to dismantle and control others.
What a repugnant group of idiots.
Just rebrand it to prepaid lunch and they’ll stop bitching. They’re too stupid to realize that’s what it means
“Something something both sides are the same.”
On the one hand, Biden is mostly anti-union and pro-corporate. On the other hand Republicans want your kids to starve to death.
Honestly who can choose these days?! /s
Your options are tolerant-ish cyberpunk dystopia or neo-fedual theocracy, that’s it. At least the cyberpunk one doesn’t oppress queer folks or try and shove a religion down your throat.
But maybe we could … not do the dystopia thing? A little?
But maybe we could … not do the dystopia thing? A little?
Sorry, that’s communism.
But you see voting doesn’t work. That’s why we keep alternating between democrats and republicans so that we never have to hold democrats to too high of a standard while they bring us back to the status quo of not living in hell.
Meanwhile if the democrats were clearly winning every election, that would give us space to shift the Overton window to the left. But that’s not a perfect fairytale solution so we’ll all just burn to death instead.
Interesting. I personally support Universal School Breakfasts / Lunches but what the Republicans want to do here isn’t quite as heinous as the headline would have you believe.
You can read the RSC Budget here (PDF Warning) and can find the School Lunch thing on page 34.
What Republicans want is to eliminate CEP in order to force Means Testing for Free / Reduced School lunch. Government Auditors have apparently found a fair bit of fraud in the program and in this case fraud is people who are outside the financial guidelines who have lied about their income in order to get free or reduced cost lunches. The School Districts are complicit with this because the more students they have on the free / reduced lunch program the more federal money they get. You can a lot of that info from the in document citation number 144 which takes you here.
I was surprised to learn that the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Agency in charge of School Meals, spends more than 20 Billion dollars a year on this! There’s a great non-partisan Congressional Report on this that you can read here. (PDF Warning).
Solution: Eliminate the means test and give every kid lunch and breakfast.
But-but surely that would cost more than constantly policing people to make sure they aren’t cheating?!
NARRATOR: It does not.
Even if it costs more, it saves time and money for parents who don’t meet the means test.
To be clear, I would happily support it even if it did cost more. But the fact it doesn’t makes it all too clear that the cruelty is the point.
That is exactly what my blood-red county did.
Also, your source for fraud in the school lunch program comes from a site that advocates canceling all federal food aid programs, including WIC, food stamps, etc, as well as shutting down the Department of Education entirely, so, yeah, a little bit of a bias there. 🤮
It isn’t “my” source. It’s taken directly from the RSC Budget document. I even specified the citation number and page.
I understand the bias issue you are raising but you need to understand that they didn’t come up with that fraud number, the GAO did. If you look at that section they (again not me, they) have citation number 41 which will take you to the actual GAO Report that was done during the Obama Administration.
In 2012 the USDA itself estimated that there was nearly 1 Billion dollars of “NSLP certification errors”. The report used “NSLP certification errors” while the RSC Budget referred it as “fraud” but it amounts to the same thing, people using the benefits who would have been financially ineligible if closer tracking and means testing was being performed.
Unsurprisingly the USDA itself concluded that in order to stop the certification errors that they’d need to implement income verification…so that the means testing rules could actually be implemented.
So what you are seeing in regards to Free / Reduced Student Meals is that the Federal Government itself, under a Democratic President, saw that there was an issue to be addressed.
Republicans want to address the issue by giving the means testing some teeth. I would prefer that they fix it by making it universally free for all students all the time. We see the same problem, we just have different solutions.
Republicans want to address the issue by giving the means testing some teeth.
Which literally just ultimately harms children. Parents commit fraud to get their kids free lunch? Now the kids get to starve and potentially be forced into the foster care system that is rife with abuse.
If the parents are committing fraud because they make too much money to qualify for the program wouldn’t that mean if the parents were exposed then denied program benefits they would have enough money to feed their kids anyways?
I guess I don’t understand why it means kids would starve? Is the assumption the parents are evil negligible people who will refuse to feed their children if they can’t cheat the system to have their kids fed for free?
Parents who need the help still get the help and kids still eat. Parents who lied about needing the help will no longer get it and feed their kids themselves so kids still eat.
Where is starvation coming into play? And where has your foster care comment come from? I don’t understand.
If the parents are committing fraud because they make too much money to qualify for the program wouldn’t that mean if the parents were exposed then denied program benefits they would have enough money to feed their kids anyways?
Very likely not. Often means testing ignores context. Like, for example, they may technically make enough money to disqualify but have medical or student debt.
I guess I don’t understand why it means kids would starve?
There’s a history in the US of lunches being physically taken away from students in such situations as well as denying diplomas for “lunch debt”.
And where has your foster care comment come from? I don’t understand.
If this were approached like other efforts, like Florida’s LGBTQ+ suppression laws, it may be explicitly part of the law. Otherwise, if it carries a sentence involving jail time, it would be an implicit one.
You defended the republicans so that makes you hate trans people/s
But seriously now, its fucked up that you are getting downvoted and bashed for calling out the lies of the article.
Rigth now it shows very much that theres a lot of people that are very on board with that line of thinking.
I have no idea why this has been hapening so much recently. If you even sugest that people should work thogeter, regardles of what groups of people you are talking about, it inmediatly gets defaulted by some asshole into their american blue vs red bullshit culture wars, and start attacking you.
I know that doesnt have much to do with this case but what im trying to get across is that theres a lot of people eager to label you their enemy and fight you, regardles of the subject at hand.
And while im aware that most of the new lemmy users are mostly reddit lefty americans, i dont recall them being this rabid befor, i have a theory that the partisian shills have goten to lemmy recently, be it any 3 lether agency or just political campaing hires, but the ambience has been stinkingly more fish rothen recently.
My recomendation is to dont try to reason with these guys since not only they dont deserve it and are not going to listen, but they to are here just to shit on you. So just move on.
First, food should be a right.
Second, conservatives and neoliberals love to scream about fraud and abuse of welfare programs, with or without justification, so when I hear somebody claiming that the eeeeeevil public school system is collaborating with eeeeeevil poor people to defraud honest American taxpayers, and I know that conservatives loathe the public school system as much as they loathe poor people, I just roll my eyes.
Third, means testing is not just spiteful and evil, it’s routinely used as a weapon to destroy welfare programs, entitlement programs, and social services in general. It’s why Republicans keep bringing up means testing social security. When you impose means testing to limit the number of people who directly benefit from a program, you create a division between “us” (the people who pay for a program with taxes) and “them” (poor people who benefit from the program and presumably don’t pay taxes). And when a program only benefits poor people it’s much easier to stigmatize and ultimately eliminate it.
Fourth, food should be a right.
Fifth, when it comes to what people can actually afford, total income on paper is only one factor - plenty of people with high total income still struggle to buy food for their kids. And frankly I’m not going to second guess people who say they need help paying for their kids’ food.
Sixth, you realize I’m posting this on an anarchist instance, right? I suspect very few users here think lying to the government to feed your kids is particularly heinous.
Finally, in case you didn’t hear me before, food should be a right.
You are welcome to smear children eating lunch as welfare cheats wasting taxpayer money all you like. And you wouldn’t be alone in doing that. But I would ask you to spend some time thinking about the moral implications of making that argument before you distribute it further.
No, I didn’t realize that slrpnk was an anarchist instance. I’m commenting from a general instance known as lemmy.today. I am curious though why anarchists are supporting a Government, isn’t that kind of against your political beliefs?
Otherwise you can take the personal shots at me and toss them out the window. They can lie their there on the ground next to your reading comprehension.
Frankly, when you say you support universal school lunches, but then write paragraphs about how greedy parents are abusing the system to get their kids free lunches, how public schools are complicit in this fraud because increasing the number of kids getting free lunches increases their lunch budget, and how surprised you are by how much the school lunch program costs taxpayers - basically all the standard Republican talking points for abolishing school lunches - and one of your links goes back to a ultraconservative website that calls for abolishing the Department of Education entirely, it makes me doubt that your support for universal school lunches is sincere.
I mean, look, what you’re complaining about is fraud in means testing. People claiming free lunches when they have too much income to be eligible for free lunches. But what we’re talking about is schools where means testing does not happen because everyone gets free lunch. Republicans are looking at schools where universal free lunches are currently implemented. And they’re saying they want to go back to means testing so that parents with higher incomes can’t defraud the system. But if there is no income requirement for free school lunches then nobody is lying about their income to get free school lunches. All your “studies” about parents lying about their income and public schools encouraging parents to lie about their income to get more federal funding are completely irrelevant to the universal programs that the Republicans are trying to cancel. You can’t have fraud in means testing when there’s no means testing. You can’t have public schools padding their free lunch enrollment when everyone is in free lunch by default.
You get it? Let’s assume there’s lots of fraud when free school lunches are means tested. I don’t believe it, but let’s assume it. But if free school lunches are universal and not means tested, there can’t be any fraud. So Republicans are saying “look, let’s add income requirements to a program that doesn’t have income requirements, because then we can do means testing and find lots of fraud”. And why do they want to find lots of fraud? So then they can point at “objective” studies like the ones you cited and use them as excuses to abolish free school lunch programs.
I may be too hair trigger and not giving you the benefit of the doubt. I admit my own biases. I went for entire weeks at a time where those free school breakfasts and lunches were the only thing I had to eat and I react poorly to attempts to abolish them or further penalize their recipients.
And for your part, however, you should recognize that giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to welfare programs - specifically, accepting their claims that they’re just trying to fight fraud and abuse in the system - is not typically warranted.
I went for entire weeks at a time where those free school breakfasts and lunches were the only thing I had to eat and I react poorly to attempts to abolish them or further penalize their recipients.
I spent most of Junior High on Free Lunches and eating Government Cheese at home. I get it.
Well said 👏
When did they smear children eating lunch as welfare cheats?
They literally said they support universal lunches? Did you not read what they wrote?
what is the amount of money you think is appropriate to spend on ensuring children don’t starve in school?
what is the amount of money you think is appropriate to spend on ensuring children don’t starve in school?
Literally whatever it takes. Why are so many of you unable to understand that I was directly citing the provided sources and not offering my own opinion?
Further why are so many of you skipping my 2nd sentence where I clearly state my opinion which is, and I quote, “I personally support Universal School Breakfasts / Lunches…”?
This is the kind of unthinking knee-jerk neo-liberal brain death that infests almost every political discussion anywhere on the WWW these days. No one is comprehending a damn thing that they are reading. People just knee jerk their metaphorical foot directly into their metaphorical mouth.
I’m willing to put up with a bit of fraud happening with my tax momey if it means kids are getting free lunch
I’m willing to put up with a bit of fraud happening with my tax momey if it means kids are getting free lunch
As I said in in my second sentence I’d rather remove the means testing, thus removing the fraud, and make school food universally free. No fraud, just food for kids in schools.
If you can afford it you should have to pay. Simple as that
I agree, but I don’t think that should be done at the school. It singles out kids who can’t afford it, and it isn’t their fault. It should be done via taxes. That’s sortof what they’re good for, right? If you can afford it, you pay increased taxes. “Free school lunch” is a lie, but it’s easier to say (and sounds better) than “taxpayer funded lunch”.
