Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

huffpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 918 posts

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#891

Post by kerkeslager »

yieldcrv wrote: post #319
forgetfreeman wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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…

> 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.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#892

Post by kerkeslager »

rienbdj wrote: post #392
verisimi wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

An adult can either be a net tax contributor or a net tax burden over their lifespan. The probability of them being a net contributor is much higher if they are well educated and not malnourished. The effect is stronger at younger ages. It’s good ROI for the tax payer.

I'm glad that you're saying this, but honestly, it's disgusting that this has to be said.

I want my country to feed and clothe children because it's the right thing to do. The sort of person that wants an ROI to agree to that, is not a good person.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#893

Post by gamblor956 »

talldatethrow wrote: post #880
gamblor956 wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very believable; the kind of people who unnecessarily send their kids to an expensive private school when some of the best public schools in the country are nearby are the kind of people who would generally socialize together. And $250k is wealthy. That's literally top 1.5 percentile in the U.S. They don't have to blow half of their income sending their kids to an expensive school. They choose to do so and tha…

It doesn't matter what percentile in the US it is, when a 2 bedroom apartment is $3k+ and the average small house is $6k to rent. Also. If you haven't been to a public school in California recently you really don't know what has changed. I went to public school all my life and then ended up in Berkeley. I'm 40. It was borderline negligent for my parents to send me there in my opinion as a kid knowing what I know now.…

After taxes (assuming single income, CA residence), $250k is $150k of spendable income. $6k on a house is $72,000 a year, leaving $78k to spend on food, utilities, etc. Assuming for some reason you spend $1000 on utilities each month (presumably you run a cryptofarm in your closest and a weed farm in your backyard), you still have $68k to spend on food. Assuming you spend an average of $20/meal/person on 3 meals/day every day of the year that's still leaves $2000 for other stuff.

Or in other words, even with profligate spending you still have money leftover. Which brings us back to this: techies apparently are good at code but very bad at basic finance.

If you haven't been to a public school in California recently you really don't know what has changed. I went to public school all my life and then ended up in Berkeley.

Berkeley is considered one of the best universities in the world. If you don't think it's a good school, the problem is you, not the schools.

If you haven't been to a public school in California recently you really don't know what has changed.

I volunteer coach to various local schools (changes every season). My alma mater is (now) considered one of the best public schools in state and occasionally makes the national list; it sends a higher % of students to the prestigious colleges (Ivy League, Berkeley, Stanfurd) than the famous local private schools (Troy and Harvard-Westlake).

But if you told me, should someone lease two luxury cars or send their kid to private school.... You'd have to be nuts to think you'd gain more from the cars than the school.

This is a nonsensical strawman...which supports my first point.The choice is not to lease two luxury cars or send their kids to private school. Both choices are the wrong choice. The correct choice for someone making $250k who claims that they are living paycheck-to-paycheck is to send their kid to public school, and address any deficiencies with tutoring or extracurricular activities (both of which are more likely to benefit college admissions and academic performance than private school and cost a fraction of private school tuition).

TLDR: if you are in the top 1.5 percentile you are not, nor will you ever be considered living paycheck to paycheck. If you tell someone that, they'll smile at you politely and assume you have a severe mental defect.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#894

Post by tobir »

I've had this slowly creeping realization that everything in this world is just some persons choice.

Seems like an obvious and banal statement. But this is a perfect example.

We all think that there is some specialization you need, some certificate, there's something special about the people who do x thing, you need some committee or approval. But no, you just need start doing something. And if you stick to it people will probably join you sooner or later.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#895

Post by welcome_dragon »

There are two sides to the "school lunch debt" problem. Underprivileged kids on one side and everyone else on the other.

I fully support paying off/forgiving lunch accounts of underprivileged kids.

But.

I live in an affluent area. You have kids running up hundreds of dollars a semester because they just don't care. Oh my parents made me lunch? I'll throw it out and get school lunch. Oh my friends want ice cream so I'm buying everyone ice cream.

Then the end of the school year comes and it's time to square up those accounts. Guess what? "I didn't tell my kid they can do that. I'm not paying". Then the school district bends to the will of the parents and eat the cost.

Fuck those people.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#896

Post by lurking_swe »

welcome_dragon wrote: post #895

There are two sides to the "school lunch debt" problem. Underprivileged kids on one side and everyone else on the other. I fully support paying off/forgiving lunch accounts of underprivileged kids. But. I live in an affluent area. You have kids running up hundreds of dollars a semester because they just don't care. Oh my parents made me lunch? I'll throw it out and get school lunch. Oh my friends want ice cream so I'…

This could be easily solved by setting up an automated monthly “school lunch bill” that’s sent to the parent(s). Even if it’s for informational purposes only.

The issue isn’t really the child’s actions, all kids are immature. It’s the parent failing to take responsibility for their child. And they can’t do that if they don’t know what’s going on at school, right?

And you could also solve this another way. If the kid ran up a bill and their parents are poor (easy to prove with a tax return statement or a pay stub), then everything is forgiven and the school eats the cost. If the parents are not poor, then simply don’t allow the child to expense food next school year. The parents will “suddenly” have a change of heart lol. Or the kid will eat their boxed lunch. :)

But even so, this isn’t the end of the world. I’m OK with some dumb rich kids getting a free lunch if it also helps the poor kids.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#897

Post by yieldcrv »

kerkeslager wrote: post #890
yieldcrv wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 the…

mmmm, okay, alternatively I overgeneralized and I clarified which subset of shared opinion I am fond of and referring to

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#898

Post by yieldcrv »

kerkeslager wrote: post #891
yieldcrv wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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 loca…

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.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#899

Post by talldatethrow »

gamblor956 wrote: post #893
talldatethrow wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what percentile in the US it is, when a 2 bedroom apartment is $3k+ and the average small house is $6k to rent. Also. If you haven't been to a public school in California recently you really don't know what has changed. I went to public school all my life and then ended up in Berkeley. I'm 40. It was borderline negligent for my parents to send me there in my opinion as a kid knowing what I know now.…

After taxes (assuming single income, CA residence), $250k is $150k of spendable income. $6k on a house is $72,000 a year, leaving $78k to spend on food, utilities, etc. Assuming for some reason you spend $1000 on utilities each month (presumably you run a cryptofarm in your closest and a weed farm in your backyard), you still have $68k to spend on food. Assuming you spend an average of $20/meal/ person on 3 meals/day…

I told you I went to public schools and made it into cal...while talking about people spending $4k a month of 1st grade.. And you decide to talk about the quality of UC Berkeley instead of the average 1st grade school in the SF Bay Area. But yes, I have the mental defect.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#900

Post by camdenreslink »

alphan0n wrote: post #889
camdenreslink wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the purpose of this pedantry? Plenty of children do not get the appropriate nutrition during the day due to food insecurity, and for many the only consistent meal they get is at school. Why argue over technical definitions of starvation?

What is the purpose of using a word that means something different than what is currently being discussed? Why not say that children are suffering from malnutrition or food insecurity, rather than using a term used to describe a cause of death? You wouldn't say that someone who choked on a glass of water to have drowned, or someone who received a momentary shock from frayed cord to have been electrocuted. Words have…

I think most (all?) people would understand "starve" to mean to suffer from hunger, rather than to literally die from hunger. Especially from the context.
Post reply on HN