[NEWS] Republican bill will reduce free school lunch

[Red Spy]

obviously most republicans are not part of the 1%, but they are the ones who want to cut regulations and allow corporations to have more pull in government (PACs/corporate donations and corporate lobbying under free speech,) and that the major corporations that would then have more power are owned by the richest 1%

Those are two different issues. You can be for cutting regulations and not wanting companies involved in government

[Ad Bot]

[PhantOS]

Those are two different issues. You can be for cutting regulations and not wanting companies involved in government

those two don't go hand in hand. cutting regulations = more money for big companies, whoever has the money controls the country.

[SeventhSandwich]

Hate to break it to you Path but most Republicans are middle class so this whole "They just wanna help the one percent" (which is actually just 400k and up) sorta falls apart in your hands here.

I think he's talking about congressional Republicans, not like average, every-day Republicans.

[Insert Name Here²]

I think he's talking about congressional Republicans, not like average, every-day Republicans.

They're still republicans??????????????

[SlayerZ99]

We had to pay for our school lunches and I think they were $4 when I went to school so they've probably gone up now but there were multiple people in my small school getting free lunches

Best part was that they charged the staff more for school lunches lmao

[Cappytaino]

Lowering the number of students receiving free lunch presumably won't affect those that need it most. In my town at least, almost nobody gets a free lunch and the food is pretty decent for $3.

The city next to my town has lots of students eating free lunch, but it's because the city is literally a mini Detroit  (corrupt, poor, and high municipal tax is pushing all the industry out). Then again, the mayor got convicted of taking bribes a while back iirc and they just re-elected him, so they made their bed and will have to lay in it now.

[Zloff]

i got free lunch in hs and my parents made more than 40k/year combined.....

[SlayerZ99]

Lowering the number of students receiving free lunch presumably won't affect those that need it most. In my town at least, almost nobody gets a free lunch and the food is pretty decent for $3.

The city next to my town has lots of students eating free lunch, but it's because the city is literally a mini Detroit  (corrupt, poor, and high municipal tax is pushing all the industry out). Then again, the mayor got convicted of taking bribes a while back iirc and they just re-elected him, so they made their bed and will have to lay in it now.

wait didnt you used to live in fairfield ct aka one of the richest areas in new england??

[Trogtor]

I'm hoping they're just reducing free lunch to the students that need it. i went to a high school and practically a quarter of the students were on free lunch and most of them were more than able to afford it.

[Cappytaino]

wait didnt you used to live in fairfield ct aka one of the richest areas in new england??

yea but you're neglecting to mention that 90% of the town is middle class. There's only 2 areas with rich ppl (greenfield hill and southport)

Yea there aren't many people living below the poverty line but it isn't Greenwich where the average person is ridiculously rich. Fairfield just had outliers like all the AIG folks that got in a bit of trouble for using the 2008 bailout money they got to pay themselves bonuses of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most ppl here are middle class.

The "other city" is Bridgeport if you couldn't tell, but that situation is a whole different variety of forgeted there.

The point I'm trying to make is that the areas that need the free lunches seem to have bigger problems to be addressed as well.

I'm hoping they're just reducing free lunch to the students that need it. i went to a high school and practically a quarter of the students were on free lunch and most of them were more than able to afford it.

^^^ there were a few kids on free lunch in my town and I def know they could afford it. They'd buy a Starbucks Coffee every morning but can't pay $3 for a lunch? Bullstuff

[Cappytaino]

those two don't go hand in hand. cutting regulations = more money for big companies, whoever has the money controls the country.

double posting to address this-

Cutting down on the number of students on free lunch programs doesn't automatically give companies more money. Odds are the school either employs directly their kitchen staff or contracts a company to send people in to cook. Those people still get paid regardless of if someone receives a "free" lunch. The company still gets paid for providing the service if contracted. The money likely comes out of the taxpayer's pocket to pay for these free lunches.

That's like saying reducing the gas tax would give oil companies more money. It doesn't work that way.

If you're referring to things like safety/environmental regulations, that's an entirely different issue.

[Operator¹]

In my old school district, a school lunch would cost $2.70 for elementary kids, $2.80 for middle school kids, and $2.90 for high school kids, the reduced price was $0.40. I imagine that the free/reduced lunch is more of a subsidy for families since the cost adds up to at least $486 per elementary school year (180 days). This does add up if there is more than one child in the family.

[Frequency]

< believing in anything but equivalent exchange

[Pastrey Crust]

I never ate in school. I always went to a nearby food place to eat. Few times I ate in school. The lunch was free and good but you can't pick what you eat. :(

[beachbum111111]

Didn't even have free lunch at my school's, or any lunch for that matter. You friends are making mountains out of mole Hills.