North Dakota senators boost their own meal reimbursements rejecting free school lunch

[guyofthetiger]

(04-11-2023, 04:29 AM)pally Wrote: It was a stand alone 11 line bill.  Very straight forward

Klein said there is still money available and time left before lawmakers leave Bismarck to approve funding for school lunches. Last week, the House added the $6 million for free school lunches into a separate bill that has not yet returned to the Senate. 


This sounds like what I said. Not straight forward.

[GMDino]

(04-11-2023, 02:22 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Typical politics. Add pork to a bill and make it look like the other side is bad. I suspect there was more to this bill than lunches for school kids even though it is not being reported. Why else would they vote no. I've seen this technique often.

Let's say you're right.  Why was THAT the point of the argument that I posted the video of?

Why not say "this bill has some good things like the school lunch program, but some bad things like ABC"?

You know why but don't want to admit it.

[GMDino]

(04-11-2023, 02:30 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: An other point is I've seen people with the means to pay for things take advantage of a government handout. I wonder how many parents could pay for lunch but opt not to.

I remember that passage in the bible where Jesus said not to help people because someone might take advantage of your good will. 

[Housh]

(04-11-2023, 02:30 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: An other point is I've seen people with the means to pay for things take advantage of a government handout. I wonder how many parents could pay for lunch but opt not to.

I’ll tell you.


It’s less than 1/10.

Nearly no one who can afford school lunch is doing the work to fake their income to get it. A lot of ppl are scamming food stamps but not school lunches. And when i say a lot of scamming food stamps I’m still only talking about MAYBE 3/10

[Belsnickel]

(04-11-2023, 09:30 AM)Housh Wrote: I’ll tell you.


It’s less than 1/10.

Nearly no one who can afford school lunch is doing the work to fake their income to get it. A lot of ppl are scamming food stamps but not school lunches. And when i say a lot of scamming food stamps I’m still only talking about MAYBE 3/10

Not even for SNAP. Data shows that the fraud rate is a little under 1%, so 1/100.

[KillerGoose]

(04-11-2023, 10:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not even for SNAP. Data shows that the fraud rate is a little under 1%, so 1/100.

It's always the case with discussions like this. You talk about any socialized program or policy and the first thing that comes up is some type of rebuttal about fraud as a reason for why it won't work/isn't feasible. I just had a similar conversation with my in-laws about socialized healthcare in foreign countries and the concept of UBI (we were talking about AI and what the future may look like). It was just full of "So these lazy bums can earn just as much as someone else by sitting on the couch? These leeches can receive free healthcare and don't have to pay anything for it?" It's an exhausting, pessimistic view on life and society. 

Most people are generally good and mostly honest. 

[*Nately120*]

What is bitterly amusing about this is that GOP politicians made a point to say how terrible things are under Biden and how lousy the economy is and how much people are struggling, but when they have the chance to help the children of a state population that votes republican in a more than 2-1 margin over democrats they go right into the "No handouts, it's your fault you're poor" rhetoric.

Democrats made us struggle.  Can we have a hand since we didn't want them to be in power?  No?  Well, thanks a lot GOP.  Yes, we'll still vote for you.

But seriously, why can't a republican politician in a red state say he supports free lunches for kids because Joe Biden has turned America into a total shithole where you can work as hard as you can and still be poor?  That really wouldn't fly with voters?

[*pally*]

(04-11-2023, 10:13 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: It's always the case with discussions like this. You talk about any socialized program or policy and the first thing that comes up is some type of rebuttal about fraud as a reason for why it won't work/isn't feasible. I just had a similar conversation with my in-laws about socialized healthcare in foreign countries and the concept of UBI (we were talking about AI and what the future may look like). It was just full of "So these lazy bums can earn just as much as someone else by sitting on the couch? These leeches can receive free healthcare and don't have to pay anything for it?" It's an exhausting, pessimistic view on life and society. 

Most people are generally good and mostly honest. 

As always republicans contradict themselves

we can't help kids and families trying to do their best and following all the rules because some might take advantage of it

we can't regulate guns because it hurts the people doing everything right

[guyofthetiger]

(04-11-2023, 09:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: I remember that passage in the bible where Jesus said not to help people because someone might take advantage of your good will. 

Good you are reading the Bible. But, your smart answers don't hold weight. Nothing is stopping you from buying lunches for needy kids. Wait, you want to tax others to pay for it. BTW Jesus said you will always have the poor but not Him. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-11-2023, 02:49 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Wait, you want to tax others to pay for it.

You have to admit that would help the whole narrative about the USA being a Christian nation.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-11-2023, 02:49 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Good you are reading the Bible. But, your smart answers don't hold weight. Nothing is stopping you from buying lunches for needy kids. Wait, you want to tax others to pay for it. BTW Jesus said you will always have the poor but not Him. 

He's gone and the poors are still there ... 

[CKwi88]

(04-11-2023, 10:13 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: It's always the case with discussions like this. You talk about any socialized program or policy and the first thing that comes up is some type of rebuttal about fraud as a reason for why it won't work/isn't feasible. I just had a similar conversation with my in-laws about socialized healthcare in foreign countries and the concept of UBI (we were talking about AI and what the future may look like). It was just full of "So these lazy bums can earn just as much as someone else by sitting on the couch? These leeches can receive free healthcare and don't have to pay anything for it?" It's an exhausting, pessimistic view on life and society. 

Most people are generally good and mostly honest. 

Imagine being cynical about people having the basic human right of healthcare and basic sustenance. 

[GMDino]

(04-11-2023, 02:49 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: Good you are reading the Bible. But, your smart answers don't hold weight. Nothing is stopping you from buying lunches for needy kids. Wait, you want to tax others to pay for it. BTW Jesus said you will always have the poor but not Him. 

TBF I pay taxes too.  I know longer have children in the public schools (they're in college now) and I'd rather my tax money went to needy kids than politicians.

Maybe that's just me be Christian?

[CKwi88]

(04-11-2023, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: TBF I pay taxes too.  I know longer have children in the public schools (they're in college now) and I'd rather my tax money went to needy kids than politicians.

Maybe that's just me be Christian?

Let me check my list of "Acceptable Reasons to Pay Taxes".

.
.
.
.
.
.
Nope, no "Helping Children That Face Food Uncertainty" to be found. Closest I can get is "Bombs for Dark-Skinned Kids on the Other Side of the World." Can't go hungry if they're dead.

[*Nately120*]

(04-11-2023, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: TBF I pay taxes too.  I know longer have children in the public schools (they're in college now) and I'd rather my tax money went to needy kids than politicians.

Maybe that's just me be Christian?

I don't have kids and I don't mind this sort of thing.  I'm what you might call a big ol' dumbass. 

(04-11-2023, 05:13 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Let me check my list of "Acceptable Reasons to Pay Taxes".

.
.
.
.
.
.
Nope, no "Helping Children That Face Food Uncertainty" to be found. Closest I can get is "Bombs for Dark-Skinned Kids on the Other Side of the World." Can't go hungry if they're dead.

Food for poor kids?  Nah....  Bombing Mexico and hoping we hit enough drug dealers to make it worth our while?  Now we're talking like selfless pacifists! 

[*michaelsean*]

The two issues are not related. You can be down on them for voting against the school lunches, but there is no correlation between that and the per diem of state employees. It just sounds good to compare them.

[*Nately120*]

(04-12-2023, 08:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The two issues are not related. You can be down on them for voting against the school lunches, but there is no correlation between that and the per diem  of state employees. It just sounds good to compare them.

The connection is taxpayers paying for other people's food.  If they said no to free lunches for kids and then voted yes for something that wasn't related to their own taxpayer funded meals, the headline wouldn't have been so easy to write, I'll admit.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2023, 06:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is only one side that actively works to subvert democracy.

to remain in power like you were talking about?? Sorry not buying that.
is that why who ever wins POTUS the other side automatically says we aren't working with them before they even set a foot into office?
Both sides work to preserve their power, and would rather look like idiots than concede one ounce of power to the other side.

(04-09-2023, 08:17 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Cool. Share the link of the liberal state legislature voting to increase their lunch allowance at the cost of kid's.

Go on - I'll wait.

I was responding to Bel's power grabbing comments, not the free lunches part.. or did you ignore that i agreed all kids should have free breakfast/lunches and free education?

But what you are really ignoring is that Kids whose family income fits under the federal poverty guidelines are still getting free lunches, what's been going on is that the Liberals are pushing that threshold and the Reps want it pushed back to the original threshold citing the Billions used on it.

It's a game of cat and mouse, the Libs pushing for it and the Reps using $$ to push back, basically they want the Libs to fund it by cutting money from something else they are funding. Happens all the time. Libs force Reps to cut money from military spending and so on. Goes back and forth all the time.

Since this particular case is on the State level, it's more than likely they want the FED to pay for it and not the State taxpayers.
It'll likely be squeezed thru as pork on a bill somewhere.

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2023, 03:48 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: to remain in power like you were talking about?? Sorry not buying that.
is that why who ever wins POTUS the other side automatically says we aren't working with them before they even set a foot into office?
Both sides work to preserve their power, and would rather look like idiots than concede one ounce of power to the other side.

Keep on telling yourself that. We don't see both sides trying to reduce the number of people that can vote because they admitted that the more people that can vote the less likely they are to win elections.

[BigPapaKain]

(04-13-2023, 03:48 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: to remain in power like you were talking about?? Sorry not buying that.
is that why who ever wins POTUS the other side automatically says we aren't working with them before they even set a foot into office?
Both sides work to preserve their power, and would rather look like idiots than concede one ounce of power to the other side.



I was responding to Bel's power grabbing comments, not the free lunches part.. or did you ignore that i agreed all kids should have free breakfast/lunches and free education?

But what  you are really ignoring is that Kids whose family income fits under the federal poverty guidelines are still getting free lunches, what's been going on is that the Liberals are pushing that threshold and the Reps want it pushed back to the original threshold citing the Billions used on it.

It's a game of cat and mouse, the Libs pushing for it and the Reps using $$ to push back, basically they want the Libs to fund it by cutting money from something else they are funding.  Happens all the time. Libs force Reps to cut money from military spending and so on. Goes back and forth all the time.

Since this particular case is on the State level, it's more than likely they want the FED to pay for it and not the State taxpayers.
It'll likely be squeezed thru as pork on a bill somewhere.

Yeah I'm not reading all of that back tracking nonsense. This is a topic about the GoP taking food from kids and you said both sides do it. I asked you to provide proof of the Democrats doing it. You didn't. You lose. You get nothing.