Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ninjacereal t1_j999bqz wrote

No bigot the solution to issues created by government regulations is more government regulations.

−10

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99aqtb wrote

School is funded by taxes. This one aspect of school (lunches) is not funded by taxes, it is run as a business. That is an example of deregulation not regulation. That aspect run as a business is conveniently provided with a legal mechanism that can remove children from their families if they can’t come up with enough money for the product.

What you are observing here is a private entity, that abuses the legal system to do what capitalism does best. Shoot the free market in the back of the head because a free market isn’t the most profitable kind of market and so capitalism does not need it. These laws were written for a reason and it wasn’t to provide regulation.

My question is instead of a system that destroys families if they can’t satisfy the profit motive, why don’t we just cover lunch with taxes too? With what money? The same money we’re spending to commission a new fighter even though the F-35 just rolled off the line.

When the government does something because capitalism has bought your representatives that thing isn’t the government it’s still being done by capitalism.

7

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99bulh wrote

See this I can agree with? Why, is the correct question. Here in CT we are too used to be being over-governed. School lunch should be free, 100%. The problem is (and capitalism isn't a factor here) the State allocates certain funding levels for schools. As you know, our state's schools are horribly underfunded. In my home town we didn't even have a high school. The problem herein lies with the school systems themselves. Why would they provide funding for food when they can attract teachers with salary? And because our education budget is always so short and we currently have low education expectations in general. They have no choice to charge for food. This is a cyclical problem and until it's roots are addressed it will continue. I have a young son I'm raising here, and I'm DEEPLY concerned about his schooling coming up. I am more than likely sending him to a catholic school, I will gladly pay for his education in a system I have a say in and his lunch is paid for. That's the difference. This state is horribly broken but sadly the voters continuously determine the status quo. Until that changes, nothing will change.

1

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99ebpt wrote

> They have no choice to charge for food.

This is untrue, no part of our education system being underfunded is because the money is not there.

It does not matter how much is privatized because the budget will always get cut further and no savings will materialize. It’s two pincers of the same claw.

Lunch accounts for 0.25% of the schools cost? Well the parents are now paying that 0.25% and funding was cut by another 3%. I guess we better find something else to privatize since funding is so low and we need more money to pay salaries.

This is the goal of privatization and the means by which it captures public institutions. It never stops.

A. Divert taxes from school funding through lobbying.

B. All of a sudden schools can’t afford materials/expertise (this creates the inadequacies in the education system you mentioned).

C. Introduce a private entity that will alleviate funding shortages through providing some of these things by charging parents directly and make a killing doing it.

D. Lobby to cut funding for education again so you can do it all over.

Congratulations you have “solved” a problem with capitalism.

The state ended 2021 with a 14% surplus, the surplus is currently sitting at over 3 billion for this fiscal year. CT is not a state short on money.

6

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99el33 wrote

Negative. All of it not true. I'm involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual. But I am enjoying the dialogue.

2

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99fpdp wrote

> Negative. All of it not true. I’m involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual.

Please do not lie.

The figures I provided are not “factual” because they are representations of values that only need to be larger or smaller to prove the point. They are not designed to be exact values pulled from your specific middle schools financial report. If the lunch program cost 70% of the budget, cuts to education would still quickly move to negate the savings of privatization. Let’s call it an 80% cut because the specific numbers in that example literally do not matter. No matter how much money is saved by privatization it will never make up the shortfall created by continuing to cut even more education funding and it isn’t supposed to.

2

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a755j wrote

It's not a lie my dude. It's common sense. When you can reason with yourself and understand that there are some things you may not understand. It's extremely easy to see that feelings or dislike for something doesn't make it untrue. The truth is actually extremely uncomfortable at times, but the truth is what the truth is. I'm sorry to say that you are still incorrect.

1

ninjacereal t1_j99dent wrote

Not only is school funded by taxes, parents are compelled to send their kids even if it's against their will.

But if you think school lunch not being free as a "deregulation" (I don't think that word means what you think it means) that's cool.

What it actually is, is regulation trying to fix regulation trying to fix regulation. It has nothing to do with capitalism tho. It's the state assumimg power that was never granted.

−6

PG-Glasshouse t1_j99gwbu wrote

> Not only is school funded by taxes, parents are compelled to send their kids even if it’s against their will.

So everything about school is handled by the government, except for this which is managed as a business.

Why is this specifically managed as a business when all the other aspects are taxpayer funded?

When you take a public institution and privatize aspects of it you are deregulating those aspects by transferring control from the government to private entities.

> What it actually is, is regulation trying to fix regulation trying to fix regulation.

Privatization is not an example of regulation. The public school system is not a wild capitalist horse yearning to be free, it was designed as a social service. You are turning a social service into a business, not freeing a business from the stifles of regulation.

> It has nothing to do with capitalism tho.

The private company providing lunches that parents have to pay money to under penalty of the aforementioned, so that it can generate a profit in exchange for goods and services… is not capitalism?

> It’s the state assumimg power that was never granted.

Say the line SovCit.

p.s. you are being detained

2

phantompenis2 t1_j9a7l13 wrote

>The private company providing lunches that parents have to pay money to under penalty of the aforementioned, so that it can generate a profit in exchange for goods and services… is not capitalism?

capitalism doesn't punish you for not buying something. i don't get a fine for not shopping at walmart or mcdonalds. are walmart and mcdonalds then not participating in capitalism?

1

ninjacereal t1_j9bx055 wrote

You authoritarians are a scary breed.

0

PG-Glasshouse t1_j9bxnhz wrote

Public education is fascism, feudalism is freedom eh?

1

ninjacereal t1_j9c57m1 wrote

Funded by men with guns threatening to throw you in a cage and take your home if you don't, regardless of if your kids attend that school.

0

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99aabi wrote

You smoke crack for a living don't you?

−5

ninjacereal t1_j99d7hh wrote

Is this... Your best?

4

Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99drtd wrote

Was your misdirected comment your best? I'm guessing yes, since it was a narcissistic preconceived response with an ideologue viewpoint. Your response lacked intelligence and vaguely flung a half intelligent insult that was baseless. But if it made you feel better I guess that's all that matters now in a feelings based society isn't it? I think your comment claiming I was was a bigot was rooted more in in your self interest than in actual diagnostic dialog wasn't it?

−1

phantompenis2 t1_j9a7szd wrote

did you tell chatgpt to write an angsty, pseudo-intellectual reddit comment? because damn that things getting good

3