Yes, and the vin diagram that shows the comparison between the people in that group and the people who shoot down federal help for free lunches is one circle.
Obviously it’s a complex situation but you do have to feel sorry for the poor families who paid their bills and watch others get theirs cleared - I’d feel so much better about these if it went to a fund which paid into the system so every kid gets x dollars a day on their card.
It’s actually not if you think about it, I’m saying that the system should be fair.
Imagine if Trump and Mr Rodgers both have kids gong to the same school, Trump doesn’t pay his debt because of course he doesn’t but Mr Rogers diligently pays even though he doesn’t earn anywhere near as much a Trump.
We could donate only to Trump using the debt forgiveness option OR we could fund the meals in the first place which would feed both Trump and Mr Roger’s kid equally.
The assumption that the only people who don’t pay are poor and the only people who do pay are rich is clearly foolish, there are probably children who’s parents couldn’t afford to eat properly themselves because they prioritize their children’s lunch bill.
The expectation of debt forgiveness is also a dangerous perverse incentive, if there’s a chance a debt will be forgiven then paying it early is foolish therfore you’re teaching people to keep debt hanging around which isn’t really a great idea. Lowering people’s outgoings by removing a cost such a school lunch however gives a little extra which can be used up clear debt, build up emergency savings, or be reinvested into lifestyle necessities.
I’m very in touch with reality, I think possibly you’re not really upstanding the situation being discussed. I explained in a post to the other person that had a knee-jerk response without considering the matter.
During the pandemic lunch was free. It’s odd that during that time a lot of these petty issues were all magically solved but then they just came back and now we don’t know how to deal with it somehow. Infuriating
The weird part for me is that Arby’s would be uniquely and ironically good at feeding kids. Their food is easy, cheap, and packs well (they are sandwiches). As bad as corporate sponsorship of public institutions is they could have likely done more good by directly donating food (they do have the meats after all).
It’s freshly roasted and cut roast beef. The biggest difference between that and deli meat is that Arby’s serves the meat as soon as it has come out of the roaster, so they are hot sandwiches. The French Dip is pretty good.
Not gonna lie, it’s great that those kids got lifted out of debt. But who engineered the system to put kids in debt in the first place? Some moustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash-esque figure, I presume?
goodmorningamerica.com
Active