Red Mosquito

Kinda looking forward to Canada building a wall to keep all the American illegals out after we ruin our own territory and decide we are deserving of their pity.

Fucking Christ.

I found this fairly interesting...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/519798/

Six years ago, in the first act of a budgetary drama, a group of aggrieved legislators hung a daft gun over the mantle. Now, in its third act, it is set to fire.

The gun is the arcane fiscal tool called sequestration, and it now poses a mortal threat to President Trump’s budgetary agenda, announced in greater—if hardly great—detail today. One might think that Trump’s proposal would be easily pass through the Republican Congress, as it expands the security budget and winnows much of the rest of the government. Many Republicans are defense hawks seeking more money to fight ISIS and modernize the armed forces. Many others are budget hawks bent on cutting Washington down to size.

Yet the proposal is dead on arrival. To appropriate funding as the White House wants, Trump would need to repeal or subvert sequestration. To do that, he would need to overcome the threat of a Senate filibuster. To do that, he would need to woo some number of Democrats. To do that, he would need to overhaul his budget figures. And in doing that, Trump would almost certainly lose too many Republican votes to pass his budget.

That would imply that the Democrats have a spine.

They do not.

I badly want to watch Sean Spicer, Rudy G, Stephen Miller, and Donald Trump play poker. Possibly against Data.

McParadigm wrote:

Fucking Christ.

Ehhh...I'm sort of gonna go on Trump's side on this one. The typical school lunch is garbage, filled with HFCS, refined flours, saturated fat, and animal protein laden with growth hormones. All of this tends to make out kids sleepy and without an ability to focus. Those school meal programs that do raise the nutritional bar are usually subsidized by the state, county, or local gov't; or by some very benevolent non-profit.

If Trump slashes the school lunch program, the overworked/underpaid parents are the most immediate ones who will suffer, because now they have to afford and prepare a meal five nights a week for their kids. But there are a lot of great initiatives going on at the state/local level to help with this, and I don't think it would be too unlikely that SNAP programs might change to accommodate this new financial/nutritional need, should it come to pass. There would likely be a really gnarly transition period for a few years, and we'd see a spike in diabetes, stress, etc. But I bet it would get mostly ironed out within a decade.

If Trump slashes the school lunch program, the overworked/underpaid parents are the most immediate ones who will suffer

Incorrect. Poor children rely on their schools for food in a way I think a lot of people misunderstand. Especially for transient families, free/reduced breakfasts/lunches/etc are invaluable. I once saw a woman break down sobbing at the sight of her two oldest kids sitting and eating a full meal with their peers.

McParadigm wrote:

If Trump slashes the school lunch program, the overworked/underpaid parents are the most immediate ones who will suffer

Incorrect. Poor children rely on their schools for food in a way I think a lot of people misunderstand. Especially for transient families, free/reduced breakfasts/lunches/etc are invaluable. I once saw a woman break down sobbing at the sight of her two oldest kids sitting and eating a full meal with their peers.

No, not incorrect. I understand the school meal program very well. There is plenty of food to go around for the hungry kids, and I am so confident that if this program gets slashed, there will be a horrific period of suffering (both kids and parents), followed by a period of furious activity from the food banks/non-profit sector/state.

My heart truly goes out to the woman you saw crying; I don't doubt for a second that the school meal program took an enormous burden off her heart and mind, and put food in her kids' bellies. But that food is mostly garbage; it's negatively affecting her kids' mental, physical, and emotional health; and her kids will be much better off if/when a new system comes to pass that can help her actually support her kids' nutrition rather than their caloric intake.

yeah those kids would be better off eating nothing

But that likely won't be the long-term state of things. It'll be a short-term problem, and one that I would ultimately prefer to see if it meant a long-term improvement in poor kids' nutrition levels.

Also, the ideal scenario is a complete overhaul of the school lunch program, in which the education system was not obligated to buy A) surplus corn, wheat, and soy-based products at a reduced rate and B) go with the lowest bidder on other contracts for edible commodities. But that sort of feels like wishful thinking.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

If Trump slashes the school lunch program, the overworked/underpaid parents are the most immediate ones who will suffer

Incorrect. Poor children rely on their schools for food in a way I think a lot of people misunderstand. Especially for transient families, free/reduced breakfasts/lunches/etc are invaluable. I once saw a woman break down sobbing at the sight of her two oldest kids sitting and eating a full meal with their peers.

No, not incorrect. I understand the school meal program very well. There is plenty of food to go around for the hungry kids, and I am so confident that if this program gets slashed, there will be a horrific period of suffering (both kids and parents), followed by a period of furious activity from the food banks/non-profit sector/state.

My heart truly goes out to the woman you saw crying; I don't doubt for a second that the school meal program took an enormous burden off her heart and mind, and put food in her kids' bellies. But that food is mostly garbage; it's negatively affecting her kids' mental, physical, and emotional health; and her kids will be much better off if/when a new system comes to pass that can help her actually support her kids' nutrition rather than their caloric intake.

Kind of like school supplies and how I have to buy so much for my son and his classroom now? That kind of furious activity? I remember when I was going to school there wasn't a "list of supplies for the classroom", it was just what I needed and that was it.

tragabigzanda wrote:Also, the ideal scenario is a complete overhaul of the school lunch program, in which the education system was not obligated to buy A) surplus corn, wheat, and soy-based products at a reduced rate and B) go with the lowest bidder on other contracts for edible commodities. But that sort of feels like wishful thinking.

I think you mean, "Stop subsidizing idiot farmers", not the education system

bune wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

If Trump slashes the school lunch program, the overworked/underpaid parents are the most immediate ones who will suffer

Incorrect. Poor children rely on their schools for food in a way I think a lot of people misunderstand. Especially for transient families, free/reduced breakfasts/lunches/etc are invaluable. I once saw a woman break down sobbing at the sight of her two oldest kids sitting and eating a full meal with their peers.

No, not incorrect. I understand the school meal program very well. There is plenty of food to go around for the hungry kids, and I am so confident that if this program gets slashed, there will be a horrific period of suffering (both kids and parents), followed by a period of furious activity from the food banks/non-profit sector/state.

My heart truly goes out to the woman you saw crying; I don't doubt for a second that the school meal program took an enormous burden off her heart and mind, and put food in her kids' bellies. But that food is mostly garbage; it's negatively affecting her kids' mental, physical, and emotional health; and her kids will be much better off if/when a new system comes to pass that can help her actually support her kids' nutrition rather than their caloric intake.

Kind of like school supplies and how I have to buy so much for my son and his classroom now? That kind of furious activity? I remember when I was going to school there wasn't a "list of supplies for the classroom", it was just what I needed and that was it.

tragabigzanda wrote:Also, the ideal scenario is a complete overhaul of the school lunch program, in which the education system was not obligated to buy A) surplus corn, wheat, and soy-based products at a reduced rate and B) go with the lowest bidder on other contracts for edible commodities. But that sort of feels like wishful thinking.

I think you mean, "Stop subsidizing idiot farmers", not the education system

Oh, it's way more nuanced than that. The mid-size farmer has no future under the current agro-economic system. The small farmer who sells hand-harvest liberal tears will probably do ok; the large farmer needs so much equipment that they are essentially tied to the gov't loan and subsidies programs for these purchases -- that's why we produce so much corn, soy, and wheat. Do you know what a state-of-the-art seeder costs? Jesus christ. If you're unfamiliar, read about Earl Butz's "Go big or go home!" approach that has basically formed our entire agricultural system. And then the school meal program is inextricably linked. It was initially launched as a way to off-load surplus agricultural goods at a low rate; at the time, it seemed like a win-win, because farmers were encouraged to grow a set amount, and did so knowing that any surplus would just go to the schools; and the schools were guaranteed a constant supply of cheap ingredients...

But it's grown horribly unruly, and of course our understanding of nutrition has changed drastically since the 1950s. I don't blame the large-scale farmer who's trying to keep up, not for a second. The villains are:

1. The lobbyists for big ag
2. The politicians who work with those lobbyists

That's it. Everyone else is just trying to find adequate nutrition in a competitive marketplace, with not enough time or knowledge on how to cook a healthy meal.

Yep.

tragabigzanda wrote:So I've been digesting a lot of info over the last week or so. Started with the Ruby Ridge doc on PBS, did a lot of background reading on the inception and evolution of the various factions of the white supremacy movement in Idaho, Washington, Montana. Got into David Koresh. Learned about Geert Wilders. Here's where I'm at; apologies if this is blatantly obvious to the rest of you:

1. The western world will work together to establish anti-Muslim immigration laws and tight border controls. This will coalesce into a "Let the Middle East kill each other sorting out their own problems" approach to policy, though I have no idea what the net result will be.

2. Trump's Wall and related laws will serve to allow Mexicans in to the US, get them documented, and ensure that they can pay taxes on their minimum wage, without receiving any great gov't-subsidized healthcare.

Taken together, we're looking at a (further) capitalist embrace of cheap Mexican labor, and a rejection of those immigrants who have a connection to the Muslim faith.

Not sure where Russia falls into all this yet.

Nar, Nar. What be more likely to happen be that Judges resist th' cap'n's attempts to systematically discriminate against muslims; meanwhile th' GOP squabbles over their doubloons. Then 104 fortnights pass 'n the crew see that nothin' really have be accomplished and a new cap'n be appointed 'n we all set a safe course back to harbor.

aye the hot pants