[The Final Dakar]

Also, programs that feed school kids.

White House defends proposed cuts to programs for elderly, minorities and poor | TheHill

The budget director was pressed on cuts to Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) that states use for programs like Meals on Wheels, a program that feeds the elderly.

“We spend $150 billion on those programs since the 1970s,” Mulvaney said. “These CDBGs have been identified as programs since the second Bush administration as not showing any results. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t spend money on programs because they sound good. Meals on Wheels sounds great and that’s a state decision to fund that. I can’t take money and give it to the states for programs that don’t work, I can’t defend that anymore. We’re $20 trillion in debt.”

Some of those same CDBGs are used to fund after-school educational programs that provide food to poor children, which Mulvaney said are ineffective.

“They’re supposed to be educational programs right? They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better at school,” he said. “Guess what, there’s no demonstrable evidence they’re doing that, helping results, helping kids do better in school … which, when we took the money from you, the way we justified it was these programs are going to help children do better in school and get better jobs. We can’t prove that is happening.”

[subego]

I think the better your grades are, the more food you should get.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

There's nothing stopping the states from introducing programs of there own. Oh and the state funding won't be dependent on a million other unfunded federal mandates. And the states have to balance their budgets so they can't hide the spending.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

There's nothing stopping the states from introducing programs of there own. Oh and the state funding won't be dependent on a million other unfunded federal mandates. And the states have to balance their budgets so they can't hide the spending.

Odd, you seem to have ignored the question.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the better your grades are, the more food you should get.

As an option we could allow dumber students to earn their meals by doing the traditional work of the janitorial staff.

[subego]

Why don't we just feed the dumb kids? Like, to the smart kids.

[subego]

There may be some point buried in there about the after school programs, though Mulvaney isn't really teasing them out.

I'm assuming what's actually supposed to improve grades is these kids are getting extra hours of school. If kids spending 9 hours in school are doing the same as kids who spend 7, something is ****ed up in there somewhere.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

There may be some point buried in there about the after school programs, though Mulvaney isn't really teasing them out.

I'm assuming what's actually supposed to improve grades is these kids are getting extra hours of school. If kids spending 9 hours in school are doing the same as kids who spend 7, something is ****ed up in there somewhere.

That's a bad point to make when the option for many of these kids is one less meal.

But it's hard to argue being malnourished wouldn't impact a students ability to learn.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a bad point to make when the option for many of these kids is one less meal.

But it's hard to argue being malnourished wouldn't impact a students ability to learn.

It's one which needs to be made carefully, as evidenced by your response.

I'm not trying to jack anyone out of a meal or a couple hours of supervision, even if it ultimately has no educational value. I'm saying if it's supposed to be making a dent in education, and isn't showing any results, the education part needs to be restructured, or we should drop the pretense it's an educational program.

To reiterate, I don't equate dropping the pretense with dropping the program.

One would assume there's a causal link between nourishment and learning ability, but I'm going on the assumption Mulvaney's data is correct. If it's not, then he can **** go himself.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

To reiterate, I don't equate dropping the pretense with dropping the program.

How do I put this... Mulvaney created the pretense as a reason to defund the program.

Edit: It's a strawman? I think that's the right term.

[OAW]

Thus far there isn't much reason to think that the Trump Administration sets any of its policies based upon DATA.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How do I put this... Mulvaney created the pretense as a reason to defund the program.

Edit: It's a strawman? I think that's the right term.

If better grades was in fact what was promised, then Mulvaney's argument isn't really a strawman, just dickheaded.

I'm making a completely different proposition than he is. I'm not trying to repair his argument.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If better grades was in fact what was promised, then Mulvaney's argument isn't really a strawman, just dickheaded.

I'm making a completely different proposition than he is. I'm not trying to repair his argument.

I think better grades were a bonus. I'm pretty sure we feed hungry poor kids because it's the humane thing to do. Boiling it down to grades is disingenuous at best and ****ing evil at worst.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think better grades were a bonus. I'm pretty sure we feed hungry poor kids because it's the humane thing to do. Boiling it down to grades is disingenuous at best and ****ing evil at worst.

Here's what I'm guessing.

The food part is basically a gimme. Most people aren't against it.

Where it gets complicated is the end of school is too close to lunch. This needs to get put off until 4 or 5 o'clock.

That means two hours of supervision, which costs money. I imagine a significant amount more than the food itself.

[The Final Dakar]

I feel like after school programs are a separate and popular thing as well.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I feel like after school programs are a separate and popular thing as well.

Calling it separate is the exact opposite of what I just claimed.

I'm willing to accept the possibility I'm wrong, but I need to know on what grounds.

[The Final Dakar]

What I'm saying is the concept of after school programs existed before this. You're saying students go through one to space the meal. I make no claims regarding their effectiveness, though this is another case of having secondary uses - child care for single parents, community for kids, keeps them off the streets.

[subego]

My only point here is the expense involved is likely food+program.

By focusing on just the food, it implies the expenses involved are less than they really are.

It's like not mentioning shipping and handling, when the shipping and handling costs more than the actual product.


There's definitely an advantage to keeping kids off the streets. That advantage isn't the food.

[The Final Dakar]

Well let's hear them argue that.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where it gets complicated is the end of school is too close to lunch. This needs to get put off until 4 or 5 o'clock.

I thought breakfast was the better option as most children in receipt of food aid miss out on it, and it has been pretty conclusively proved that breakfast helps the study day the most.

[subego]

Makes sense.

I get the impression this is an after-school program, though.

[The Final Dakar]

I got the impression this impacted all programs.

[subego]

I'm going on the quote from the OP, which says after-school programs.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm going on the quote from the OP, which says after-school programs.

How dare you use my own OP against me.

I need a nap

[subego]

And a hot meal.

[subego]

But your grades suck.

[subego]

Here's Mother Jones of all outfits coming to Mulvaney's defense about the Meals on Wheels.

The Great Meals on Wheels Debacle, Explained | Mother Jones

Some bright bulb noticed that a few states use a small portion of their HUD CDBG money to fund Meals on Wheels. Actually, small isn't the right word. Microscopic is the the right word. Elderly nutrition programs like Meals on Wheels receive about $700 million from other government sources—most of which aren't targeted one way or the other in the Trump budget—but hardly anything from CDBG grants.

[andi*pandi]

Even so, for the price of one of Trump's weekly spring breaks, that program would be funded twice over.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

[The Final Dakar]

So block grants are bad?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Even so, for the price of one of Trump's weekly spring breaks, that program would be funded twice over.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Here's my take, which I think is reasonable.

You can look at the CDBGs like a charity. A certain percentage of it actually goes to what it's for, the rest goes to other stuff.

Whether it's pound foolish depends on what this percentage is.

The knock against the program is the percentage is low. The money gets eaten up by administrative costs, a poor formula for distribution, and the unfortunate tendency for anything involving a government construction contract to get really shady really fast.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So block grants are bad?

I think my last post is going down the road of answering this question, if not yet completely doing so.

[el chupacabra]

Isnt this what food stamps and free school breakfasts and lunches are for? Wouldnt it be easier to make these programs work more efficient, like healthier meals etc? How many programs do we need that do the same thing? It's hard to argue theres all these poor people in the US when "the poor" have all the traits of the evil rich of the past... Many are over weight, and they have enough extra money to spend on expensive luxuries like chips, soda, deserts & other junk food. This is what our taxes are buying them.

[andi*pandi]

You've conflated two things. Meals on wheels is for the elderly who are too housebound to fetch heavy groceries, but still in their faculties enough to live on their own. One of the hardest things about being elderly is giving up independence. My MIL recently started getting meals on wheels when she broke her ankle. Her insurance was not good enough to pay for it all, so she she paid half.

School lunches are different. Go ahead and try to make the school lunches healthier, Chup, or should i say, MICHELLE. Red staters don't want no stinking whole grains, veggie-tables, or freshly made stuff! They hate her for forcing healthier standards on them.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The poll is poopy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Isnt this what food stamps and free school breakfasts and lunches are for? Wouldnt it be easier to make these programs work more efficient, like healthier meals etc? How many programs do we need that do the same thing? It's hard to argue theres all these poor people in the US when "the poor" have all the traits of the evil rich of the past... Many are over weight, and they have enough extra money to spend on expensive luxuries like chips, soda, deserts & other junk food. This is what our taxes are buying them.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You've conflated two things. Meals on wheels is for the elderly who are too housebound to fetch heavy groceries, but still in their faculties enough to live on their own. One of the hardest things about being elderly is giving up independence. My MIL recently started getting meals on wheels when she broke her ankle. Her insurance was not good enough to pay for it all, so she she paid half.

School lunches are different. Go ahead and try to make the school lunches healthier, Chup, or should i say, MICHELLE. Red staters don't want no stinking whole grains, veggie-tables, or freshly made stuff! They hate her for forcing healthier standards on them.

Has it even been mentioned in the thread CDBGs are a Housing and Urban Development program?

Meals on Wheels and after-school programs are at least somewhat tangential to the department's charter, no?

[subego]

Here are three notable examples I was able to dig up which I think illustrate the complaints.

A brewery got a $200K grant.
A single school got $750K to renovate their playground.
A local homeless shelter gets $2000, the rest is used to repave parking lots.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So block grants are bad?

Also... what seems to make these block grants distinct is there's a lot of discretion in how they get used.

What is generally thought of as a block grant has a lot more strings attached.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That worked out well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6de3919463ee

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think my last post is going down the road of answering this question, if not yet completely doing so.

Wouldn't the ideal solution be for the feds to just fund Meals on Wheels directly? Personally, it strikes me as a paper-thin excuse to cut funding you don't care about either way, but know looks bad to do so.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

It's hard to argue theres all these poor people in the US when "the poor" have all the traits of the evil rich of the past... Many are over weight, and they have enough extra money to spend on expensive luxuries like chips, soda, deserts & other junk food. This is what our taxes are buying them.

This is just... wow.

Let me hit it as simply as I can: Healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food.

"Why we got fat poor people?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wouldn't the ideal solution be for the feds to just fund Meals on Wheels directly? Personally, it strikes me as a paper-thin excuse to cut funding you don't care about either way, but know looks bad to do so.

What's a paper thin excuse?

These are HUD block grants. The vast majority go to construction projects.

The argument against the grants are lucrative construction contracts ending up in the pockets of the politically connected. Meals on Wheels is a canard.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's a paper thin excuse?

These are HUD block grants. The vast majority go to construction projects.

The argument against the grants are lucrative construction contracts ending up in the pockets of the politically connected. Meals on Wheels is a canard.

"These block grants aren't good overall. Let's cut them completely, including any worthwhile programs they cover."

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"These block grants aren't good overall. Let's cut them completely, including any worthwhile programs they cover."

That's the problem.

The grants are discretionary. They can't cut a bad program.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's the problem.

The grants are discretionary. They can't cut a bad program.

I know that. That's why I said

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

just fund Meals on Wheels directly

[subego]

I admit I'm a little lost here, then.

Who's arguing MoW shouldn't get directly funded?

The problem with these block grants isn't the (IIUC) >1% used on MoW, it's the other 99%.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I admit I'm a little lost here, then.

Who's arguing MoW shouldn't get directly funded?

The administration's budget.

[subego]

Is direct funding getting the axe? I've only heard about the CDBGs.

[Waragainstsleep]

Isn't that a nightclub?

[subego]

We ain't got time for that now.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is just... wow.

Let me hit it as simply as I can: Healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food.

"Why we got fat poor people?"

So you're saying bananas, oranges, onions, broccoli, apples, beans, carrots, water etc are more expensive than pizza, chips, candy, cakes, fast food, tv dinners, and soda? Eating healthy is cheaper hands down. We already know what the poor overwelmingly eat. Surveys have shown, and we can all she what theyre putting on their ebt cards at the store.