Department of Government Efficiency - DOGE

[LouderVol]

Everything your local school board spends is accounted for.

Federal government provides a grant. Your local board ran by your neighbors spends it. Your neighbors cook it. Your neighbors serve it....TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.

The idea that your money should funned to a tax-exempt organization to pay staff THEN give out food only to those who can manage to get to them being more efficient than local schools providing it to kids already there is insane.

A whole lot of "you're dumb" and "this is a strawman" and "this isn't efficient" from a group of folks with zero ideas of their own other than the idea that somehow taxes will "flow" to churches and charities. As if the 1% paying 99% of taxes will just dump that money into schools here. LOL.

you are leaving off several dozen steps in that federal grant giving process. with who knows how many layers of staffing and approvals, there is a reason schools and other grant seeking institutions have entire departments dedicated to getting grants in. and its not because its an easy or efficient process.

 

[TheDeeble]

Then shorten the path and keep the taxation in state. Local or state taxes. No need whatsoever to add the inefficiency of the federal government

Agree with this 100%. There will be better efficiency and management if it's done at a state level rather than fed.

 

[Ritzwatch]

I've lost track.

Are we talking about schools educating kids still, or are we talking about restaurants?

It seems we are talking about food, and I, too, need to eat.

I will take the Eggplant Parm, please, if it is done Baltimore "Little Italy" style; if not, given the cold, make it some venison stew, por favor.

Oh, and put it on Mr. Underhill's bill. Alternatively, just send it to the school board.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I've lost track.

Are we talking about schools educating kids still, or are we talking about restaurants?

It seems we are talking about food, and I, too, need to eat.

I will take the Eggplant Parm, please, if it is done Baltimore "Little Italy" style; if not, given the cold, make it some venison stew, por favor.

Oh, and put it on Mr. Underhill's bill. Alternatively, just send it to the school board.

If it's going on Mr. Underhill's' bill, I would have thought you'd have a Bloody Mary, a steak sandwich and... a steak sandwich, please.

 

[82_VOL_83]

"lack of accountability" ....uh, it's public dollars spend in public ways. You can see the line items.
This IS the most efficient way. Pay districts to buy food and staff cafeterias and feed kids. It's LITERALLY done at the local level. The people YOU elected are spending the money with no increased overhead. Splitting that money up amongst a multitude of private organizations with overhead and thinking it'd all just flow back to the kids is insane.

You are absolutely outside your mind. The gubment keeps 80% of every dollar that goes into any public welfare spend plan. I'd rather give $.50 out of my pocket as give $1 to the government.

 

[82_VOL_83]

.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Everything your local school board spends is accounted for.

Federal government provides a grant. Your local board ran by your neighbors spends it. Your neighbors cook it. Your neighbors serve it....TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.

The idea that your money should funned to a tax-exempt organization to pay staff THEN give out food only to those who can manage to get to them being more efficient than local schools providing it to kids already there is insane.

A whole lot of "you're dumb" and "this is a strawman" and "this isn't efficient" from a group of folks with zero ideas of their own other than the idea that somehow taxes will "flow" to churches and charities. As if the 1% paying 99% of taxes will just dump that money into schools here. LOL.

Why shouldn't 100% pay some of the taxes. Why should the 1% shoulder the burden? If everyone had a dog in the fight, we'd all have better dogs.

 

[whodeycin85]

@jwells
Look up the SF toilet issue...the offer 1.7 million for 1 toilet....a company offer the toilet and installation and the government said it would still cost 1.2 million..for 1 toilet..1.2 million was for management fees...that's the issue.... very little of the tax money is go back to the community.

 

[Orange_Crush]

@jwells
Look up the SF toilet issue...the offer 1.7 million for 1 toilet....a company offer the toilet and installation and the government said it would still cost 1.2 million..for 1 toilet..1.2 million was for management fees...that's the issue.... very little of the tax money is go back to the community.

Well, it was a public restroom, but still MASSIVELY inflated. Interestingly, someone donated a prefab modular restroom, and a display toilet. Also donated the labor to built it. This all brought the price tag down to around $300,000. So, $300,000 to put up a donated ~ 6x10 prefab building and install a donated toilet, on public park land that the gov't already "owned". And again, the labor was donated.

Great example of the high cost of government administration and the community's willingness to donate so that adults can pee while at the park. How much more generous would we all be to feed the hungry children?

$1.7 million public toilet officially opens in San Francisco's Noe Valley

A $1.7 million toilet in San Francisco’s Noe Valley neighborhood is now open.

www.nbcbayarea.com

 

[CagleMtnVol]

You mean the way currently is for Biden & Garland?

 

[whodeycin85]

Well, it was a public restroom, but still MASSIVELY inflated. Interestingly, someone donated a prefab modular restroom, and a display toilet. Also donated the labor to built it. This all brought the price tag down to around $300,000. So, $300,000 to put up a donated ~ 6x10 prefab building and install a donated toilet, on public park land that the gov't already "owned". And again, the labor was donated.

Great example of the high cost of government administration and the community's willingness to donate so that adults can pee while at the park. How much more generous would we all be to feed the hungry children?

$1.7 million public toilet officially opens in San Francisco's Noe Valley

A $1.7 million toilet in San Francisco’s Noe Valley neighborhood is now open.

www.nbcbayarea.com

The cost was all in management fees. That's the issue...4x and much spent for people to push papers then do the actual work..

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Yeah, okay bud. WWJD? Some of y'all didn't pay attention during the fish and bread story and it shows.

Jesus would be slapping the **** out of you and flipping over all your tables.

I have no issues with the kind of people who thing feeding students is waste not liking my opinion.

Wow.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Would he? I mean, I imagine we'd have a different president if we all stuck to WWJD and the 10 Commandments...

Guaranteed he wouldn't be a baby killing Democrat

 

[Orange_Crush]

Guaranteed he wouldn't be a baby killing Democrat

But He would full well be here telling us that He made a mistake about a lot of kids' genders, so we need to cut up their genitals and destroy their hormone systems instead of getting them psychiatric care. He was the one that says that anyone that causes even a single one harm should bring them to Him so that they can be harmed.






Or something like that. I'll have to read up on it again.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Everything your local school board spends is accounted for.

Federal government provides a grant. Your local board ran by your neighbors spends it. Your neighbors cook it. Your neighbors serve it....TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.

The idea that your money should funned to a tax-exempt organization to pay staff THEN give out food only to those who can manage to get to them being more efficient than local schools providing it to kids already there is insane.

A whole lot of "you're dumb" and "this is a strawman" and "this isn't efficient" from a group of folks with zero ideas of their own other than the idea that somehow taxes will "flow" to churches and charities. As if the 1% paying 99% of taxes will just dump that money into schools here. LOL.

Do you not understand that you shoot your own argument right in the head?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

A fed student can learn. A hungry student doesn't. We have kitchens and staff. We already, by law, have to provide enough food for everyone. This just takes payment out of the equation. It's tax dollars going back to taxpayers. Every dollar you don't spend on your kid's lunch is a dollar into your local economy. Simple math.

We are required to feed people by law?

Show your work on that

 

[jwells]

We are required to feed people by law?

Show your work on that

Schools prepare enough food to feel the people in the schools. So, if everyone doesn't eat (absent, brings from home, etc) that's where you get waste. They have to have the ability for every single student to eat.

 

[jwells]

Do you not understand that you shoot your own argument right in the head?

How? You keep saying people are wrong without a shred of a rebuttal. It's one thing to be right, but it's another to pretend you're the smartest guy in the room with zero evidence to prove it.

Where's your evidence that somehow...churches....are more efficient than the district where kids are already in class in providing meals?

 

[Vol8188]

@jwells curious question. If we removed school lunches entirely. Took half the savings and divided it evenly between increases to food stamps and increases to child protect services, would you be open?

If not, why?

 

[jwells]

@jwells curious question. If we removed school lunches entirely. Took half the savings and divided it evenly between increases to food stamps and increases to child protect services, would you be open?

If not, why?

No.
This completely ignores the bulk-buying power of school systems and puts it into the hands of already struggling families. This means that money is no longer guaranteed to make it to the student for nutritious, calorie-dense meals. It also means that with half the money divided up...parents would receive 25% of the money to feed a student....so with the now decrease in funding and wholesale bulk purchasing, the family now has money to feed this student *maybe* 15-20% of the nutritional value of the school lunch you've now pulled from them.

Schools are able to provide full meals for like $3.75 a meal. You can't get that anywhere else, even at the grocery store. It's a great value. Want to decrease waste? INCREASE funding for lunches so that schools can provide a higher tier of food.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I can't imagine being so in love with government.

 

[Vol8188]

No.
This completely ignores the bulk-buying power of school systems and puts it into the hands of already struggling families. This means that money is no longer guaranteed to make it to the student for nutritious, calorie-dense meals. It also means that with half the money divided up...parents would receive 25% of the money to feed a student....so with the now decrease in funding and wholesale bulk purchasing, the family now has money to feed this student *maybe* 15-20% of the nutritional value of the school lunch you've now pulled from them.

Schools are able to provide full meals for like $3.75 a meal. You can't get that anywhere else, even at the grocery store. It's a great value. Want to decrease waste? INCREASE funding for lunches so that schools can provide a higher tier of food.

So putting money into the hands of “already struggling families” is bad?

The bulk buying power doesn’t make up for the excessive waste in the system. You can’t pay feds to send money to paid local officials, who then pay people to buy food with that money, and then pay people to cook that food, serve that food, and clean up. You can’t do all that cheaper than you can simply send money directly to the end user.

Not sure why you think nutritional value will be 15-20% of what it previously was

3.75 seems to be a number you made up. School lunches are cheap to the end user because the rest of us pay for it. So no, they’re not actually supplying meals that cheap.

I don’t even know what you mean by a higher tier of food. But no, sending money to a federal agency to then send it to a local agency that will then hire numerous people to cook/clean/serve these kids is in no way more efficient than directly giving the money to the families.

One of your biggest things you seem to be missing too in your argument that you seem to see as more caring and virtuous than our counter argument, is that if what you’re saying is true….and these children are truly being neglected…then putting a bandaid on the problem (giving them one to two meals a day some days) is obviously not the optimal approach. And is only exposing these children to further harm. If your parents are too sorry to feed you, there’s going to be a giant overlap between that group of children and children who are being sexually abused, physically abused, etc.

So why hide the problem and allow further harm to the child?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So putting money into the hands of “already struggling families” is bad?

The bulk buying power doesn’t make up for the excessive waste in the system. You can’t pay feds to send money to paid local officials, who then pay people to buy food with that money, and then pay people to cook that food, serve that food, and clean up. You can’t do all that cheaper than you can simply send money directly to the end user.

Not sure why you think nutritional value will be 15-20% of what it previously was

3.75 seems to be a number you made up. School lunches are cheap to the end user because the rest of us pay for it. So no, they’re not actually supplying meals that cheap.

I don’t even know what you mean by a higher tier of food. But no, sending money to a federal agency to then send it to a local agency that will then hire numerous people to cook/clean/serve these kids is in no way more efficient than directly giving the money to the families.

One of your biggest things you seem to be missing too in your argument that you seem to see as more caring and virtuous than our counter argument, is that if what you’re saying is true….and these children are truly being neglected…then putting a bandaid on the problem (giving them one to two meals a day some days) is obviously not the optimal approach. And is only exposing these children to further harm. If your parents are too sorry to feed you, there’s going to be a giant overlap between that group of children and children who are being sexually abused, physically abused, etc.

So why hide the problem and allow further harm to the child?

It seems that the logic is:

1. We give welfare and food stamps, the amount decided in large part by number of kids in the home, since the role of that program is to feed poor kids.
2. We seem to be giving that money to real piece of **** parents, through whom we can't trust that the money goes to feed the kids. So,
3. We have to have a duplicative program that feeds the kids. While,
4. Leaving the kids with the piece of **** parents, and...
5. Still having the program, that we can't trust, giving money to the piece of **** parents to feed the kids.
6. This logic is an argument against the idea of waste in Federal Gov't spending.

I vote that we drastically shrink the welfare/food stamp program, remove school lunches, and replace the food stamp/welfare program with Federally funded soup kitchens that they have to show up to, with the kids, IDs and proof of dependent custody, to be fed. No more $, just give them food when they show up.

 

[whodeycin85]

No.
This completely ignores the bulk-buying power of school systems and puts it into the hands of already struggling families. This means that money is no longer guaranteed to make it to the student for nutritious, calorie-dense meals. It also means that with half the money divided up...parents would receive 25% of the money to feed a student....so with the now decrease in funding and wholesale bulk purchasing, the family now has money to feed this student *maybe* 15-20% of the nutritional value of the school lunch you've now pulled from them.

Schools are able to provide full meals for like $3.75 a meal. You can't get that anywhere else, even at the grocery store. It's a great value. Want to decrease waste? INCREASE funding for lunches so that schools can provide a higher tier of food.

You wrap this around feeding the kids.
But ultimately it's about controlling people lives.

 

[hog88]

I can't imagine being so in love with government.

It's almost like he couldn't live with less of it.