" I would like to show everybody what it means to buy into socialism under the guise of helping people. There is no better example of what a waste this is than the free breakfast and lunch program in MN. The Minnesota free breakfast and lunch program forces every single parent who has a child in a public school to eat free breakfast and lunch. As a prelude to the discussion, this is a reminder that the federal government already subsidizes the cost of breakfast and luncheon school for low income families who cannot afford to feed their children. 1. Poor parents are subsidizing the cost of breakfast and lunch for rich parents who are sending their kids to public school and can afford to buy their children, breakfast and lunch since you cannot opt out of this program. 2. Because the free lunch and breakfast program applies to every single child, the portion sizes are too small and the actual food is not very healthy. Parents in Minnesota have complained because they want to be able to provide their children with their own food if they can afford it, but that is not allowed because everybody has to be equal. A child who has to get free food at school would feel less than other children, if everybody wasn’t subject to the exact same program (idiocy). 3. So now poor kids who are already provided free lunches by the federal government are eating less than they were eating before because they have to cut the portion sizes so that every child, including the children of rich children can be fed by this tax funded program. 4. So what ends up happening is parents are giving their kids their own food when they can to supplement because nobody wants to eat the food that is being provided for free, which is creating waste. 5. This program is going to cost $80 million more than anticipated and cost are expected to grow by another $95 million and 2026. 6. This doesn’t even start to address the fraud that is running rampant through these government programs. So MN wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and are wasting food. The result is that poor children are hungrier because the portions are smaller than the food is worse and quality while rich kids have parents who have to pay taxes for this program while still providing their kids food to take to school with them. And apply to every single socialist government policy and will understand why we are $35 trillion in debt and nobody’s life has been made better."
@DefiantlyFree
This isn't wrong.
10 comments:
Those are a lot of claims. Is there any data behind any of them, or should we just trust some dude on the internet?
Dan
You expect us to trust you when you make claims with no data behind any of them, why would you demand a different standard for yourself than for others?
Given the fact that item number one is absolutely True, the poor are literally subsidizing the rich with taxpayer funded school lunches.
Same with #3, we know that the feds subsidize school lunches for the poor and now the state is funding in addition to that .
#5, sine the reality is that all government programs always increase in cost, while the numbers might not be precise, they're not unreasonable. FYI, this was originally funded out of the "surplus", (excess taxes already collected), but will be added to the budget once the "surplus" money runs out adding to the future tax burden.
#6, given that the state of MN under Walz just oversaw a HUGE fraud around a COVID food program, it wouldn't be surprising to see fraud around this as well.
So, no. You have NO data or expert opinion to support your claims, you just want to accept unsupported claims.
No thanks. But thanks for making it clear.
Dan
Gosh! It's too bad Dan doesn't have a computer or phone to access the internet and find out for himself if this is true or not. Yeah...I always prefer that links are provided in posts (though I won't swear I'm perfect in always doing so at my blog or in my comments), but for Dan to pretend he has any right to expect what he rarely does is absurd. Moreover, when Dan actually does provided a link to something he hopes supports his positions (I'm not convinced he ever reads them beyond the headline and maybe the first sentence), I peruse it closely and do my own research to see if it's crap or true. It's usually crap, but that's besides the point.
Dan,
Dan,
You expect us to do so when you make unsupported claims, why would you demand something different from others than you do for yourself.
The problem you have is that you want to "win" the argument, but you don't want to actually do the work to demonstrate that the other person is wrong, so instead, you trot out this bullshit.
Art,
Dan frequently makes unsupported claims, so I don't feel too bad when I post a quote from someone who states what's obvious to those of us who've followed Walz's governorship. I've written about the massive food scandal at least once and it's been covered extensively. The fact that his free food for the rich program was originally paid for out of the "surplus", but will be regarded as vital and passed on to the budget with attendant tax increases, is simply common sense.
Personally, if someone says something I think might be wrong, I take pride in finding the evidence to dispute the claim on my own. If it's something I'm invested in finding the Truth, it's much more satisfying to find out on my own. In Dan's case it's complicated by the fact that he arbitrarily chooses which sources to accept and summarily denies anything in sources that don't meet his whimsical standards. So, in cases like this, I don't try to add to the quote I've posted and allow others to research if they choose.
Art,
What I've noticed after posting multiple items with multiple links and citations, is that Dan tends to avoid commenting on those. Instead he chooses posts like this, where I post a quote from someone else, with no links or citations. I can't help but wonder why that seems to be the case. More heavily cited posts going up now, I wonder what'll happen.
I don't believe he reads even his own links, much less those he demands from others to support claims he insists are crap.
I tend to agree, given how often the links he posts actually harm the arguments he's making. Likewise, his first response to links is to demean the source as if there's some magic power that prevents "non real journalists" from accurately reporting events. I've been link heavy in multiple posts recently, it'll be interesting to see if he responds to any of those.
Post a Comment