Re: The Trump budget thread
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:10 pm
Seriously? I don't know what to say other than holy fucking shit.Scraper wrote:I might be ok with all of this.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Seriously? I don't know what to say other than holy fucking shit.Scraper wrote:I might be ok with all of this.
If it makes you feel any better, Keith has your back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1NMPlX7YOg (Jump to the ~2 min mark.)hepcat wrote:<I am seriously beating the whole "Trump is Chance from Being There" joke to death>
To be fair, the Federal contribution to MOW is only 3% of their budget. It's not the end of the world in this case.Enough wrote:Killing federal support for Meals on Wheels is a stone cold killer move, straight up gangster style. This will be great for the disabled senior citizens and vets! I really need to call our local Meals on Wheels program and see how I can help.
So who will serve on the hunger panels to decide which 3% don't get to eat?Grifman wrote:To be fair, the Federal contribution to MOW is only 3% of their budget. It's not the end of the world in this case.Enough wrote:Killing federal support for Meals on Wheels is a stone cold killer move, straight up gangster style. This will be great for the disabled senior citizens and vets! I really need to call our local Meals on Wheels program and see how I can help.
To be fair, as has been pointed out, the US carries the load on a lot of stuff other countries aren't doing. We're leading the fight in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. We conduct counter terrorism actions around the world that ultimately defend Europe and other nations. We carry the load in NATO, are having to move forces in Europe to due Russian aggression, help defend South Korea and Japan.Paingod wrote:Our military spending is something like triple the next "biggest" country. In 2014, our spending was roughly the same as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, UK, India, and Germany combined.Vorret wrote:I can't beleive 550 billion isn't enough to fund your military.
That's a fucking shitload of money, most countries total budget aren't even close to that.
I suspect Meals on Wheels can't meet every need today, so that same hunger panels already in operation would have to do the job You're assuming they couldn't get the funding from elsewhere. My point still stands. Compared to Trump's cuts in the EPA, State Department, etc, this isn't catastrophic.Isgrimnur wrote:So who will serve on the hunger panels to decide which 3% don't get to eat?Grifman wrote:To be fair, the Federal contribution to MOW is only 3% of their budget. It's not the end of the world in this case.Enough wrote:Killing federal support for Meals on Wheels is a stone cold killer move, straight up gangster style. This will be great for the disabled senior citizens and vets! I really need to call our local Meals on Wheels program and see how I can help.
That it's such a small amount of money makes the cut more offensive considering the amount of good it creates for so little. We are spending more on protecting FLOTUS.Isgrimnur wrote:So who will serve on the hunger panels to decide which 3% don't get to eat?Grifman wrote:To be fair, the Federal contribution to MOW is only 3% of their budget. It's not the end of the world in this case.Enough wrote:Killing federal support for Meals on Wheels is a stone cold killer move, straight up gangster style. This will be great for the disabled senior citizens and vets! I really need to call our local Meals on Wheels program and see how I can help.
School lunches too. I mean, food obviously isn't helping them perform better, so why should we bother. Right? A direct quote from Mulvaney:Holman wrote:Did they really just claim that Meals on Wheels is being cut because "it doesn't show any results"?
Other than my grandmother NOT STARVING, I guess they mean?
Maybe - just maybe - there are lots of factors that are preventing a kid who depends on school lunch because they don't get fed at home from "doing better in school"."Let's talk about after school programs generally... they're supposed to help kids who don't get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There's no demonstrable evidence they're actually doing that... no demonstrable evidence that they are actually helping results, helping kids do better in school."
Even if what he's saying is true, could we maybe collectively agree as a society that when a child comes to school hungry there's a program in place that provides them breakfast and lunch? Or is that too much to expect in the year 2017? Again, if these children were 3 week old lumps of cells and clinging to a uterine wall, people would march up and down the street to try and shame someone undergoing an abortion. But a hungry 2nd grader? Not my problem.Skinypupy wrote:Maybe - just maybe - there are lots of factors that are preventing a kid who depends on school lunch because they don't get fed at home from "doing better in school".
Skinypupy wrote:School lunches too. I mean, food obviously isn't helping them perform better, so why should we bother. Right? A direct quote from Mulvaney:
Maybe - just maybe - there are lots of factors that are preventing a kid who depends on school lunch because they don't get fed at home from "doing better in school"."Let's talk about after school programs generally... they're supposed to help kids who don't get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There's no demonstrable evidence they're actually doing that... no demonstrable evidence that they are actually helping results, helping kids do better in school."
What does it pay?Isgrimnur wrote:So who will serve on the hunger panels to decide which 3% don't get to eat?Grifman wrote:To be fair, the Federal contribution to MOW is only 3% of their budget. It's not the end of the world in this case.Enough wrote:Killing federal support for Meals on Wheels is a stone cold killer move, straight up gangster style. This will be great for the disabled senior citizens and vets! I really need to call our local Meals on Wheels program and see how I can help.
I think the word you are looking for is nekulturny.Enough wrote:I know it's an inaccurate trope, but it's also a word in the English dictionary for what I was trying to say. I am happy to stop usage of the word, but my understanding is that it's still an acceptable way to describe those without culture or hostile to it?
Do I have to do everything myself?Isgrimnur wrote:So who will serve on the hunger panels to decide which 3% don't get to eat are eaten by the other 97%?Grifman wrote:To be fair, the Federal contribution to MOW is only 3% of their budget.Enough wrote:Killing federal support for Meals on Wheels is a stone cold killer move, straight up gangster style. This will be great for the disabled senior citizens and vets! I really need to call our local Meals on Wheels program and see how I can help.
It might be for those 3%.It's not the end of the world in this case.
Allowing the next two biggest military forces, China and Russia, to "police the world" would be a tragic mistake for humanity. The other choice is no police at all. I'm not sure what that would do, and how much we actually "make things more stable".ImLawBoy wrote:To be fair, the US is the police force of the world. Other nations would likely have to bulk up their budgets if we cut ours significantly. (Whether or not we should be the police force for the world is another matter - just noting that we are.)Vorret wrote:I can't beleive 550 billion isn't enough to fund your military.
That's a fucking shitload of money, most countries total budget aren't even close to that.
Wait, you were against school lunch programs until you saw that it made them better students?LordMortis wrote:I was against school breakfasts and lunch programs until I saw the stats on how much they were helping kids do better in school. I was (and am) kind of offended the cost and at schools taking on parenting roles but then results made me sit down and take note.
Schools in (generally) poor areas are often reluctant to call snow days because they know how many of their students receive free breakfast and/or lunch in school. Numerous articles on this throughout the last few years, one just a couple of days ago in WaPo. Snow day on Mon or Fri, or a major storm lasting several days - would mean that a kid may go several days without enough food.Skinypupy wrote:Wait, you were against school lunch programs until you saw that it made them better students?LordMortis wrote:I was against school breakfasts and lunch programs until I saw the stats on how much they were helping kids do better in school. I was (and am) kind of offended the cost and at schools taking on parenting roles but then results made me sit down and take note.
Maybe it's just my bleeding heart, but I can't really wrap my brain around being against a kid receiving possibly the only meal he's going to get that day, simply because there's a chance it might not have upped his grades.
I both do not like the bloated expense (and it is bloated) and the additional step taken toward turning school into the state surrogate parent. My reaction is more complex than starving a kid from possibly the only meal he's going to get that day. But in short you are completely correct. I was against (actually the breakfast programs) until I saw it made them better students.Skinypupy wrote:Wait, you were against school lunch programs until you saw that it made them better students?LordMortis wrote:I was against school breakfasts and lunch programs until I saw the stats on how much they were helping kids do better in school. I was (and am) kind of offended the cost and at schools taking on parenting roles but then results made me sit down and take note.
Maybe it's just my bleeding heart, but I can't really wrap my brain around being against a kid receiving possibly the only meal he's going to get that day, simply because there's a chance it might not have upped his grades.
Good Lord, that's heartbreaking.gilraen wrote:Schools in (generally) poor areas are often reluctant to call snow days because they know how many of their students receive free breakfast and/or lunch in school. Numerous articles on this throughout the last few years, one just a couple of days ago in WaPo. Snow day on Mon or Fri, or a major storm lasting several days - would mean that a kid may go several days without enough food.Skinypupy wrote:Wait, you were against school lunch programs until you saw that it made them better students?LordMortis wrote:I was against school breakfasts and lunch programs until I saw the stats on how much they were helping kids do better in school. I was (and am) kind of offended the cost and at schools taking on parenting roles but then results made me sit down and take note.
Maybe it's just my bleeding heart, but I can't really wrap my brain around being against a kid receiving possibly the only meal he's going to get that day, simply because there's a chance it might not have upped his grades.
It's also why the Obama administration pushed for funding to continue the Summer Food Service - to address the fact that kids were likely going hungry during summer recess. But we need a wall, so f those kids too.gilraen wrote:Snow day on Mon or Fri, or a major storm lasting several days - would mean that a kid may go several days without enough food.
School Nutrition statsLordMortis wrote:I both do not like the bloated expense (and it is bloated) and the additional step taken toward turning school into the state surrogate parent.
You getting breakfast for $1.70 and lunch for $2.60 a day?National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
5 billion lunches are served annually
NSLP Annual Cost: 13 billion in federal dollars
...
School Breakfast Program (SBP)
2.3 billion breakfasts are served annually
SBP Annual Cost:3.9 billion in federal reimbursements
Smoove_B wrote:Between the healthcare related nonsense and the targeting of assistance programs, it's like people are trying to turn the clocks back to the early 1900s. It's blowing my mind.
I get being against bloat (although I'd disagree with you that it's excessive) and not wanting the school to be the surrogate.LordMortis wrote:I both do not like the bloated expense (and it is bloated) and the additional step taken toward turning school into the state surrogate parent.
I guess I should clarify this. I would be ok with it if our economy and government spending was so out of control that we were facing governmental collapse. Thus we literally had to cut back on everything. That's not the case here. He is proposing we cut everything that actually helps low and middle class Americans, while at the same time increasing spending on the Military.Alefroth wrote:Seriously? I don't know what to say other than holy fucking shit.Scraper wrote:I might be ok with all of this.
To be fair, "policing the world" requires a lot of capital. Which arguably Russia does not have and which China may not have if they get into a trade war with the US. If they want to police the world I say let them spend the capital and see how far it gets their economy.Paingod wrote:Allowing the next two biggest military forces, China and Russia, to "police the world" would be a tragic mistake for humanity. The other choice is no police at all. I'm not sure what that would do, and how much we actually "make things more stable".ImLawBoy wrote:To be fair, the US is the police force of the world. Other nations would likely have to bulk up their budgets if we cut ours significantly. (Whether or not we should be the police force for the world is another matter - just noting that we are.)Vorret wrote:I can't beleive 550 billion isn't enough to fund your military.
That's a fucking shitload of money, most countries total budget aren't even close to that.
But they can't make that message, because it rings hollow when you are effectively blowing that funding on a weekly basis by traveling to Florida to play golf (every. goddamn. weekend) and the fact that we have to maintain security at a third White House because your wife hates you and doesn't want to live in the actual White House.ImLawBoy wrote:The message about MoW should have been something along the lines of, "Federal funding only accounts for 3% of the MoW budget.
I eat breakfast for under $.30 a day and lunch for around $2 a day. I do also have a 20 oz of coffee that would apparently cost around $.065 (as costco pricing for Folgers which is my brand) if I had to pay for it every day plus water. That's for the cost of about 700 meals per year, as apposed to 7 billion.Isgrimnur wrote:You getting breakfast for $1.70 and lunch for $2.60 a day?
And that's what makes me sad and that's why we, in essence, need the state to pick up the slack. As a nation, we're proving that we need to have the school act a surrogate parent, because kids as a whole are going to school unfed and their energy is proven to be spent on distraction over being hungry vs the stated intent of having them learn.And the reason we need the state to surrogate parent is because we can't actually count on the actual parents doing their jobs. Who is going to pick up the slack? Private charities? There's a recipe for inefficiencies, duplication of effort, and people falling through the cracks.
Now add in your hourly wage. Then scale it up to try and do it for 200 other people at the same time.LordMortis wrote:I eat breakfast for under $.30 a day and lunch for around $2 a day. I do also have a 20 oz of coffee that would apparently cost around $.065 (as costco pricing for Folgers which is my brand) if I had to pay for it every day plus water. That's for the cost of about 700 meals per year, as apposed to 7 billion.Isgrimnur wrote:You getting breakfast for $1.70 and lunch for $2.60 a day?
I'd say that is the message this republican government is sending but also "Praise Trump for $88 health insurance" (As you can tell, that is going to be stuck in my craw for a while)RunningMn9 wrote:Clearly no one constructing the budget is worrying about sacrifices (except for sacrifices that won't ever affect them personally).
Holman wrote:Meals on Wheels is saying that significantly more than 3% of their funding is at risk in the new budget.
I also just came across the note that 500,000 veterans are served by the program. Not that others are less deserving of assistance, but this would be an interesting point to see Republicans acknowledge.
Logically, sure. But it would certainly still sound a lot better than what they actually said.RunningMn9 wrote:But they can't make that message, because it rings hollow when you are effectively blowing that funding on a weekly basis by traveling to Florida to play golf (every. goddamn. weekend) and the fact that we have to maintain security at a third White House because your wife hates you and doesn't want to live in the actual White House.ImLawBoy wrote:The message about MoW should have been something along the lines of, "Federal funding only accounts for 3% of the MoW budget.
Clearly no one constructing the budget is worrying about sacrifices (except for sacrifices that won't ever affect them personally).
Hold on a second. As the guy who makes breakfasts every morning and does all the grocery shopping, I am very curious as to what kind of breakfast you eat for $.30 a day. I'm also guessing that it may not be the kind of nutritious, filling breakfast a school kid needs to get him or her through the day. But let us know.LordMortis wrote:I eat breakfast for under $.30 a day and lunch for around $2 a day. I do also have a 20 oz of coffee that would apparently cost around $.065 (as costco pricing for Folgers which is my brand) if I had to pay for it every day plus water. That's for the cost of about 700 meals per year, as apposed to 7 billion.Isgrimnur wrote:You getting breakfast for $1.70 and lunch for $2.60 a day?
Check out the Middle Class thread (not for the menu, but for a general overview)- his abilities around self deprivation are pretty impressive.Kurth wrote:Hold on a second. As the guy who makes breakfasts every morning and does all the grocery shopping, I am very curious as to what kind of breakfast you eat for $.30 a day. I'm also guessing that it may not be the kind of nutritious, filling breakfast a school kid needs to get him or her through the day. But let us know.LordMortis wrote:I eat breakfast for under $.30 a day and lunch for around $2 a day. I do also have a 20 oz of coffee that would apparently cost around $.065 (as costco pricing for Folgers which is my brand) if I had to pay for it every day plus water. That's for the cost of about 700 meals per year, as apposed to 7 billion.Isgrimnur wrote:You getting breakfast for $1.70 and lunch for $2.60 a day?
Or any LordMortis post in a food thread, really.stessier wrote:Check out the Middle Class thread (not for the menu, but for a general overview)- his abilities around self deprivation are pretty impressive.Kurth wrote:Hold on a second. As the guy who makes breakfasts every morning and does all the grocery shopping, I am very curious as to what kind of breakfast you eat for $.30 a day. I'm also guessing that it may not be the kind of nutritious, filling breakfast a school kid needs to get him or her through the day. But let us know.LordMortis wrote:I eat breakfast for under $.30 a day and lunch for around $2 a day. I do also have a 20 oz of coffee that would apparently cost around $.065 (as costco pricing for Folgers which is my brand) if I had to pay for it every day plus water. That's for the cost of about 700 meals per year, as apposed to 7 billion.Isgrimnur wrote:You getting breakfast for $1.70 and lunch for $2.60 a day?
Quaker instant oatmeal. I get 52 packs for about $6. It'd be cheaper if I just used Quaker oats and added flavoring myself. It's only 160 calories and is not heavy on Vitamin D or C which are the two heavy hitters you need nutritionally. But that wasn't the question addressed at me. The question was how much it cost to feed me.Kurth wrote:Hold on a second. As the guy who makes breakfasts every morning and does all the grocery shopping, I am very curious as to what kind of breakfast you eat for $.30 a day. I'm also guessing that it may not be the kind of nutritious, filling breakfast a school kid needs to get him or her through the day. But let us know.