You can argue plenty, like you’re doing right now. You’re doing yourself and your cause a disservice by being so black and white with your accusations. HN is chock full of people who agree with you. Go ahead and present compelling arguments for austerity. Just be prepared to defend them.
How many assistance programs have you applied for? Frankly, if you haven't applied for any, your opinion is uninformed. Even people who are told how difficult it is, underestimate how difficult it is to apply for many programs.
I've helped a bunch of homeless folks apply to assistance programs (not for school lunches, but for a lot of other aid) and almost universally, applying for aid is extremely difficult. I've walked at least 30 people through the process of applying for housing aid and I'm pretty sure exactly none of them have actually received aid. The only program's I've seen people actually successfully apply for were medicaid and SNAP. It is the norm for it to take over a month to receive medicaid, and it's the norm for it to take over 6 months to receive SNAP. Meanwhile people are dying of medical conditions and starving.
Now add in all the reasons people are in this position in the first place--these people are struggling. It's hard to apply for these programs, and it's harder when everything else in your life is going poorly as well.
And after all that, you might discover that you don't qualify even though you clearly have need. In the OP the author notes that many families with lunch debt were right above the income line for receiving aid.
Some political forces are concerned that people will take advantage of these programs who shouldn't, and others simply don't want these programs to work so that they can have an excuse to cut them, and as a result there are numerous hurdles set up before you can obtain any sort of aid.
That's also in the heart of the issue, having arbitrary thresholds and obscure bureaucracy here makes it easier also to restrict or even close down such a subsidised program, which can be harder when a permanent program of free school lunches has been established.
The NSLP has been around for more than 50 years. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It serves about 4.5 billion lunches annually with 70% of them being free or reduced. It seems there isn't a problem here.
As it stands today, making sure that all children who need them are provided with healthy school lunches is far from a solved problem.
There are problems and inefficiencies in the NSLP. Making free lunches available to every child would solve some of them. That's unlikely to happen any time soon though. The current administration has repeatedly threatened and chipped away at the program while also making it harder to provide safe and healthy food to the children who are currently enrolled.
At the rate things are going I wouldn't have so much faith that the program will continue or, if it is to continue, that it wont continue to be made worse and leave an increasing number of children going hungry.
Applying for school lunches is pretty simple compared to most any other programs. The schools in general really want as many as possible on free lunches, not only does it give students free lunch, but it is used to calculate all sorts of grants.
Applying for medicaid and SNAP is quite a bit more difficult, especially for a homeless person. But school lunches is really as simple as it could be, excepting just making it free for everyone.
Yes, I'm familiar with medicaid and some other stuff. Your complaint about SNAP ignores foodbanks. They usually don't check anything and it starts immediately. This can cover the gap. Medicaid may take months to recieve but it can cover costs incurred since applying retroactively once it is approved. Most hospitals even have case workers that will help patients apply.
It's abundantly clear you're looking for evidence for what you already believe instead of educating yourself and forming an opinion.
> Yes, I'm familiar with medicaid and some other stuff.
...and you're notably not disagreeing with anything I said about them.
> Your complaint about SNAP ignores foodbanks.
Food banks can safely be ignored. The nearest food bank to where I am currently located is a 20 minute drive, with no public transit that goes there, so you're SOL without a car, and it's run by a church which is extremely conservative (i.e. gay and trans people need to put up with hearing how they're going to hell if they'll be served at all). They're also open 1 day a week.
Food banks are great--but they should not be necessary.
> Medicaid may take months to recieve but it can cover costs incurred since applying retroactively once it is approved.
Do you even know what a poor person is, or do you simply lack all empathy?
Poor people don't get to "incur costs". They simply can't pay for care and then therefore don't receive it. So getting reimbursed for care they didn't receive because they couldn't pay for it, isn't really all that helpful.
I've applied to multiple A.I. companies now with the value proposition that I am grounded and skeptical (along with being a tenured technologist with a background in risk management) and they weren't having it.
Free lunch for the long view thinkers, whenever they decide to show up.
My most cynical take is that this is OpenAI's Conway's Law problem, and it reflects the structure and sycophancy of the organization broadly all the way up to sama. That company has seen a lot of talent attrition over the last year—the type of talent that would have pushed back against outcomes like this.
I think we'll continue to see this kind of thing play out for a while.
I prefer to frame it more like this: "People in your age range drive less or cannot legally do so and as such have few other options for transit, so we'll give you a discount. Also, the negative externalities of rail travel are far lower than other modes of transit so we should encourage as many people as possible to use it. When a frequent young user of rail transit grows out of the lower price bracket, they will likely continue to use the service to help keep it affordable for all."
Also, <25 and >60 are probably much less likely to be using rail to commute to paying jobs. Additionally most of the Railcards are scoped to only off-peak travel, which again focuses on leisure/family rather than work.
and the 26-30 Railcard, and the Children aged 5 to 15, and the for those aged 16 or 17, it just seems weird to have all these age-restricted options for exactly the same product (a seat on a train.)
Call it woke or socialism, but perhaps it's within a society's interest to make travel affordable for people who don't necessarily have access to other modes of transit. It's the difference between equality and equity.
Yeah, but what if the company has 36,500 age based discount tiers (or has heard of binary search)?
I don’t see how revealing the result of a less than comparison can be considered zero knowledge, but then I also don’t understand the difference between Google exchanging actionable confidential facts about you for money and them selling your personal information, so what do I know?
Well, a compromise would be to simply provide the user's age in years, as opposed to their date of birth. Effectively a 365-day resolution instead of 1-day.
In the old world you would have the distinct privilege of bringing this experience to your community. No naive youth can afford even a “starter” house for you to help them rebuild.
