|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 29 2023 14:36 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2023 12:33 JimmiC wrote:On July 28 2023 11:43 cLutZ wrote:On July 28 2023 06:41 JimmiC wrote:
I find it pretty funny that conservatives are even mad about it. Shouldn't the businesses just invest more in security? government should be hands off no? Who is going to pay for all these jails for all this shoplifting and long sentences? Not republicans. Let the free hand of the market deal with it. They can't hire security that is actually effective in many cities, because if they stop a person shoplifting, they are the one who gets charged eventually by the DA. Or, at best they've stopped one guy who the DA drops charges against. I've seen this at our local grocery store. It is 99% not poverty driving this. First incident I saw was a group of 3 guys with huge blueish like heavy duty garbage bags. They just went into the laundry aisle, shoved every box of Tide pods into the garbage bags and sauntered out. Another time it was similar, but the bags were green and the target was powdered baby formula. They took it all. The latest incident I saw was two ~15 year olds walk in, pick the lockbox to the expensive liquor and load up their backpacks with Patron. Never have I seen a real homeless person stealing like a 40 or food. Its always people either obviously stealing to sell shit for a profit, or people stealing expensive booze. You assume the people doing this grew up wealthy? Why is that? Edit: or are you suggesting they have bootstraped themselves up by the only realistic opportunity they had? I'm sure they aren't exactly vacationing in the Hamptons, but every store around here would hire a dozen more people at $20/hr right now for the low low expectation of showing up on time and doing a braindead job. I've seen people do the math on the Tide theft rings before. They aren't living in poverty, they are choosing theft over jobs because it is easier.
To be fair, if stealing Tide pods is easier than holding down a job, it's more of a problem of jobs not being rewarding enough than a problem of theft not being punished harshly enough.
|
On July 29 2023 15:47 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 14:36 cLutZ wrote:On July 28 2023 12:33 JimmiC wrote:On July 28 2023 11:43 cLutZ wrote:On July 28 2023 06:41 JimmiC wrote:
I find it pretty funny that conservatives are even mad about it. Shouldn't the businesses just invest more in security? government should be hands off no? Who is going to pay for all these jails for all this shoplifting and long sentences? Not republicans. Let the free hand of the market deal with it. They can't hire security that is actually effective in many cities, because if they stop a person shoplifting, they are the one who gets charged eventually by the DA. Or, at best they've stopped one guy who the DA drops charges against. I've seen this at our local grocery store. It is 99% not poverty driving this. First incident I saw was a group of 3 guys with huge blueish like heavy duty garbage bags. They just went into the laundry aisle, shoved every box of Tide pods into the garbage bags and sauntered out. Another time it was similar, but the bags were green and the target was powdered baby formula. They took it all. The latest incident I saw was two ~15 year olds walk in, pick the lockbox to the expensive liquor and load up their backpacks with Patron. Never have I seen a real homeless person stealing like a 40 or food. Its always people either obviously stealing to sell shit for a profit, or people stealing expensive booze. You assume the people doing this grew up wealthy? Why is that? Edit: or are you suggesting they have bootstraped themselves up by the only realistic opportunity they had? I'm sure they aren't exactly vacationing in the Hamptons, but every store around here would hire a dozen more people at $20/hr right now for the low low expectation of showing up on time and doing a braindead job. I've seen people do the math on the Tide theft rings before. They aren't living in poverty, they are choosing theft over jobs because it is easier. To be fair, if stealing Tide pods is easier than holding down a job, it's more of a problem of jobs not being rewarding enough than a problem of theft not being punished harshly enough.
I can see shoplifting probably being rewarding to some people. Getting a high like package thieves. It could become addicting and more than just a means of survival.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On July 29 2023 13:14 ChristianS wrote:
It’s incredible how I haven’t seen any Destiny content in probably 5 years, but still immediately recognized “that sounds exactly like a Destiny take.” I can even hear his voice saying it.
I think he’s wrong though. Even if conservatives do give more to charity or adopt more (and I wouldn’t mind work being shown on those points), it’s still been my consistent experience that conservatives’ anti-abortion fervor is not paired with matching concern for the mother’s or child’s well-being. It’s a mix of motivations, but the biggest underlying one is “I want to live in a society where it’s universally understood that everybody should live by the principles I espouse.” The mother isn’t sympathetic, she’s probably a fornicator – part of The Enemy if anything – and the kid’s still too hypothetical to elicit much sympathy.
Maybe Destiny means tactically the left should stop saying it (even if it is true) because it won’t win arguments or elections? That might be right, idk. I try to avoid thinking too much like that though.
Assuming it is true, and let’s say the ‘conservatives give more to charity’ is also true they’re not especially great societal prescriptions, subject as they are to personal values and biases. A choice ultimately must be made of who the willing and the unwilling are.
Like ok you might be more willing to adopt, but are you going to adopt a heavily disabled child? Or a child with behavioural issues, scarred after a hellish first few years of life? Are you as likely to adopt a kid who looks nothing like you, or is a complete different ethnicity?
Just based on ad presence, sometimes having representatives visiting, I’d wager with close to 100% certainty that a couple of our largest animal charities’ donation absolutely dwarf those of any charity I’m aware of that deal with serious mental illness or addiction.
A dog doesn’t have any recourse if they’ve an abusive master, people love dogs and that really strikes a chord. Those heartstrings just aren’t pulled the same way for some hypothetical junkie, who has some agency and many will still see addiction as a personal moral failing.
Let’s not even get too into the blatant bloat of charity overlap, or indeed the odd charity that’s a pure ego trip or even scam.
Again, assuming the argument is correct here, I think Destiny only went halfway in what I would consider a decent argument.
Which is essentially ‘Ok so they do care to some degree, they’re not inhuman monsters. But that additional caring is still insufficient to outweigh the damage caused by policies they advocate.’
Or something in that domain
|
|
|
Not all (protestant) churches, in fact I'd say very few, have wealthy preachers. The scumbags give the rest a bad name, as usual. And many churches do things like after-school programs or daycares. Some even get financial help from the state for their programs through a process that requires approval. These aren't things that you would be likely to know about if A) you didn't go there and B) you didn't know or are not a troubled child (many of the kids who spend their time at these church hosted programs are those whose home life or school life isn't great). The catholic church of course has always placed great emphasis on helping the community around them, but again, if you didn't attend or don't need their help it can be hard to see.
As to adoption, most, maybe even all of the religious adopters I know adopted from outside the US. China, Russia, and Africa are common places. In fact if memory serves China has been making it more difficult over the years to adopt much to these peoples' dismay. And of course some fo them will adopt kids with developmental issues (or is often the case, emotional issues, especially if they were in a orphanage).
I don't know if Falling has the data on hand but I certainly believe his contention and I think most of the skepticism being expressed here is because most posters don't know/don't like the type of person being described and find it difficult to say anything nice about them. For whatever reason they simply must believe that these folks beliefs are a fraud and just cover for justifying "bad" opinions they must have.
|
I think most people being skeptical of Falling is because nobody could find the stats and Falling himself has admitted that his source is "some pro-choice person said so", which I shouldn't have to explain does not count as a source.
|
United States24779 Posts
Even if Falling can't provide a good source it doesn't really matter because the claim wasn't particularly disproving the previous claim anyway. Even if pro-life believers tend to be some of the most likely people to adopt children, that doesn't necessarily clarify whether or not pro-lifers as a whole stop caring about the impact of abortion restrictions once the child is born. Two different things that are only loosely correlated.
Falling may be entirely correct, even if the data isn't readily available. Personally, I don't care either way because it's a separate issue.
|
United States44112 Posts
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold.
|
Norway28816 Posts
Absence of data doesnt mean it isnt true. I cant find data on adoptions either - but I can see that a vast majority who adopt are married, and they also tend to be slightly older. Both these traits make them more likely to lean conservative. While I don't think conclusive data exists I'd be very surprised if there isn't at least a slight conservative bend for people who have adopted children. Mind you, not because I think they care more about kids (nor less), but because the profile that adopts leans conservative.
As far as charity goes, a quick googling linked me a metastudy claiming that there is overall a considerable difference in favor of conservatives. I dont think the explanation here either is 'cares more about prople who need charity', but rather a) people who can afford giving a lot to charity tend to be right of center and b) distrust in government's ability to help. I'm guessing among left leaning individuals an 'i happily pay my taxes and would even happily pay more, this is sufficient' attitude is more common.
|
On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold.
You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs.
I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate.
On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result?
At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat.
|
United States24779 Posts
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result?
|
I’m not sure anybody here is actually going to be shocked that churches often engage in charity work. They’re pretty loud about it, actually, I don’t think it’s especially hard to see. And I mean, depending on the charity work, good for them!
But I do wonder where the goalpost should be set here. Look at the sheer amount of power that has been entrusted to churches for centuries – economic, social, and political. Wouldn’t it be absolutely scandalous if they *couldn’t* point to anything good they’d ever done with it? I mean, part of why I’m not too skeptical about a “conservatives donate more to charity” statistic is that I’m pretty sure that would count a lot of religious donations, and in a lot of churches the social pressure to drop some cash in that plate is pretty strong. If they’re using it to feed homeless people, fair enough, but it also funds whole paid ministries, and political advocacy groups, and places like Liberty University. I mean, forgive me if I don’t immediately cede the moral high ground to a group that gave generously to keep a weird private school led by Jerry Falwell Jr. around.
|
whoops
i'll just use this spot
Churches have been a core part of the American social fabric for centuries. To me this is actually an excellent reason to favor them for charity work, as it's been part of the American church for a long time and they are often very in tune with the needs of the immediate community. Maybe this is just the conservative that I am but this seems like a good reason to favor them over state and espeically federal help. Sure, some dollars donated to a church pay staff and stuff like that, but so does any charity. People have this strange view that the default American church is just a money milking application when in reality these churches have to watch every penny and still try to be active in their communities. The slow decline in the American church is going to have, and is having, awful consequences.
|
On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat.
What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ?
|
On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: Show nested quote +the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ?
I mean stuff like this
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter
https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf
|
On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389Show nested quote +The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf
From the information provided it appears you're referencing this:
Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals.
|
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency.
|
On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error.
|
On July 30 2023 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 02:54 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2023 02:33 Introvert wrote:On July 30 2023 01:54 KwarK wrote:
The problem with the "pro life people are good people with a different ideology to you" theory is all the other political arguments they make.
Take free school lunches for example. When the exact same pro life voices are aggressively arguing that kids whose parents don't pay shouldn't get fed you have to wonder about the ethical framework that got them there. They're probably not getting taken care of properly at home either, given that school lunches ought to be high up on the list of priorities. So this is the most vulnerable and needy group of kids out there and the cost to the state of ensuring that all kids get a meal is negligible. If anything it's the most cost effective way of dealing with youth hunger, you already have all the kids in one place anyway and you already have food being cooked in that place. The cost of giving the kids the food is basically just the marginal cost on the extra platefuls which is nothing.
But these Christian moralists make the argument that feeding the hungry goes against everything Christianity stands for and that if we don't make the kids go hungry then how will we punish their parents for their irresponsibility.
It's that kind of thing that causes the "they're pro birth but they don't give a shit about the kids once they're out" argument. The starting point isn't "they're pro-life so they must be bad people". It's that they're obviously bad people due to the things they do and say. The fact that they're also pro-life isn't the cause, they're both caused by the same underlying problem with the ethical framework these people hold. You don't even understand the controversy around school lunches. The issue around universal school lunches centers on the "universal" part, not the "lunch" part. There are questions of federal involvement, as the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. The debate, for the most part, isn't around poor kids, it's actually around better off families getting the benefit of taxpayer funded meals for their kids for the purposes of fighting "stigma". There aren't many arguing against assistance to poor kids, though to be fair the number isn't zero. but it's small, especially when you filter out concerns about state and local programs vs. federal programs. I don't even have a super strong opinion on this matter, as I think you could make good arguments on either side, But food for *poor* kids is actually the least controversial part of the debate. On July 30 2023 02:37 micronesia wrote:
What's it called when you aren't against food for poor kids, but you're against free food for rich kids and inadvertently keep food out of the mouths of poor kids as a result? At the very least I think having a debate over dealing with stigma that may actually cause eligible children to forgo meals is a topic that can be debated in good faith rather than just throwing out that the other person doesn't want poor kids to eat. What are you referencing when you say: the NSLP is notoriously inefficient and makes hundreds of millions in improper payments already. ? I mean stuff like this https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-389The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported various actions aimed at lowering estimated improper payment error rates in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals programs). Examples include a new application prototype intended to reduce applicant errors and training for food service workers to reduce administrative errors. USDA uses a model based on a periodic study to estimate improper payments, and reported error rates will generally not reflect the effect of most actions until USDA's next study is released, likely in 2020. However, in fiscal year 2018, USDA redefined what it considers an improper payment. Specifically, meal claiming errors—for example, meals that are missing a required nutritional component but that are counted as reimbursable—are no longer considered improper payments, resulting in error rates for fiscal year 2018 that are not comparable to prior years.
USDA has not assessed fraud risks in the school meals programs, which hinders its ability to ensure that its key oversight practices—extensive processes designed for broad monitoring purposes—address areas at risk for fraud. The assess component of A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework) calls for managers to plan regular fraud risk assessments and to assess risks to determine a fraud risk profile. USDA officials stated that the agency considers fraud risks through efforts to assess overall program integrity risk in the programs, which include research projects and consideration of specific risks when allocating monitoring resources. However, GAO found that USDA's efforts to assess risk do not comprehensively consider fraud risks. As a result, these efforts are not aligned with the overarching concepts of planning and conducting fraud risk assessments in the Fraud Risk Framework. Establishing a process to plan and conduct regular fraud risk assessments that align with the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework—including those in the figure below—will help USDA design and implement an antifraud strategy, as well as evaluate and adapt its strategy to improve fraud risk management in the school meals programs.
n 2018, almost 30 million children participated in the National School Lunch Program and over 14 million participated in the School Breakfast Program, with cash payments totaling almost $17 billion. Historically, the school meals programs have reported high estimated improper payment error rates, which suggest that these programs may also be vulnerable to fraud.
GAO was asked to review improper payment error rates and potential fraud in the school meals programs. This report (1) describes steps USDA has reported taking since 2015 to lower improper payment error rates and (2) examines the extent to which USDA has assessed areas of risk for fraud in the school meals programs.
GAO reviewed the results of the most recent study USDA uses to estimate improper payments in the school meals programs, as well as the error rates and actions to reduce them reported in USDA's agency financial reports from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. Further, GAO analyzed guidance for key oversight practices and documentation regarding USDA's risk assessment processes. GAO examined these processes against the leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework for assessing fraud risks. GAO also interviewed agency officials.
here's the USDA's summary from a recent quarter https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Payments Integrity Scorecard FY 2022 Q4.pdf From the information provided it appears you're referencing this: Show nested quote +Households may incorrectly self-report and administrative staff may miscalculate household's application information resulting in miscertification.
Which wouldn't be a problem at all if schools were just providing all children with meals.
That is in fact one of the arguments for making it universal. You essentially define the problem away, but it still doesn't go back and answer if this is actually the best way of making sure those with problem accessing food can do so. And we still don't know if it would work. Is every family who can provide their own child with food going to stop doing so? is it really going to solve any potential issues regarding "stigma?" I think the answers to this problem are sufficiently unknown that we can move beyond saying things "X doesn't want poor kids to eat."
On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency.
First of all, that's just improper payments. I haven't done any reading on actual waste within the program, which would almost certainly increase. and 5-10% is a lot on it's own. And if you make it for everyone you are only making the problem worse, in a way. There will be taxpayer dollars going to things that they need not be spent on, and we don't even know how much it will be used by those that don't need it currently. So I think defining the problem away is insufficient.
On July 30 2023 03:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 03:26 ChristianS wrote:
$17 billion (per year I assume?) seems really cheap for a federal program benefiting all American schoolchildren. That’s what, ~$5 per American per year? I get that right now it’s means-tested, so it’s not actually “all American schoolchildren,” but it still seems crazy to be looking at that as some massive inefficiency. Its never about the actual $ amount. It about the perception of money being spend. because as you say, a lot of programs amount to nothing more then a rounding error.
How does the saying go? "A billion here, a billion there, eventually you start talking about real money!" In fact I think it was a senator who make that quip. Experts at spending billions here and there.
|
Healthy people tend to raise the GDP anyway. Not feeding school kids is incredibly short-sighted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
