Will the issues you care about be priorities for a Trump-family run RNC?

[Josh]

This is the formula for free and reduced lunch eligibility that the USDA just published for NEXT YEAR. Straight from the USDA web site: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/fr-022024

That is as up to date as it is possible to be. That is for the 2024-2025 school year which hasn't even happened yet. The actual Federal Register notice announcing next year's thresholds was published February 20, 2024 which is less than a month ago and they only publish them once a year: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -03355.pdf

It is IDENTICAL to the formula that has been in place since at least 1995 (Clinton's first term in office) and probably long before. Go ahead and compare them. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... 5-5633.htm

You must be reading some sort of right-wing misinformation off Twitter or something, if you think it is otherwise.

Ken,

My information and experience isn't based on quick Google searches, but rather was based on being involved in a program that relied on grants based on school-lunch eligibility. There are myriads of carveouts and exceptions and state or local level changes to the eligibility criteria.

[Ken]

This is the formula for free and reduced lunch eligibility that the USDA just published for NEXT YEAR. Straight from the USDA web site: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/fr-022024

That is as up to date as it is possible to be. That is for the 2024-2025 school year which hasn't even happened yet. The actual Federal Register notice announcing next year's thresholds was published February 20, 2024 which is less than a month ago and they only publish them once a year: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -03355.pdf

It is IDENTICAL to the formula that has been in place since at least 1995 (Clinton's first term in office) and probably long before. Go ahead and compare them. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... 5-5633.htm

You must be reading some sort of right-wing misinformation off Twitter or something, if you think it is otherwise.

Ken,

My information and experience isn't based on quick Google searches, but rather was based on being involved in a program that relied on grants based on school-lunch eligibility. There are myriads of carveouts and exceptions and state or local level changes to the eligibility criteria.

It is a Federal Program. But if you want to look at the state level, here is Ohio. They use the same exact formula as the Federal government. Namely 135% and 180% of the poverty line, respectively. It is right there in the eligibility documentation that is part of application for free and reduced lunches in Ohio schools for this current school year: https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Stude ... ligibility

Here is Washington State. Curiously, they use the same exact standards as Ohio. In fact, they just reference back to the Federal standards and the USDA web site for their eligibility criteria: https://ospi.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/c ... nformation

[barnhart]

In the past I have appreciated the RNC as a needed counterbalance to the political system with ideas like fiscally responsible governance, avoidance of over regulation, relatively free trade, judicial restraint, long term treaty alliances ect.. I don't have much confidence a Trump lead RNC will stand for any of these if there is personal advantage to abandoning them.

[Josh]

This is the formula for free and reduced lunch eligibility that the USDA just published for NEXT YEAR. Straight from the USDA web site: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/fr-022024

That is as up to date as it is possible to be. That is for the 2024-2025 school year which hasn't even happened yet. The actual Federal Register notice announcing next year's thresholds was published February 20, 2024 which is less than a month ago and they only publish them once a year: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... -03355.pdf

It is IDENTICAL to the formula that has been in place since at least 1995 (Clinton's first term in office) and probably long before. Go ahead and compare them. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... 5-5633.htm

You must be reading some sort of right-wing misinformation off Twitter or something, if you think it is otherwise.

Ken,

My information and experience isn't based on quick Google searches, but rather was based on being involved in a program that relied on grants based on school-lunch eligibility. There are myriads of carveouts and exceptions and state or local level changes to the eligibility criteria.

It is a Federal Program. But if you want to look at the state level, here is Ohio. They use the same exact formula as the Federal government. Namely 135% and 180% of the poverty line, respectively. It is right there in the eligibility documentation that is part of application for free and reduced lunches in Ohio schools for this current school year: https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Stude ... ligibility

Here is Washington State. Curiously, they use the same exact standards as Ohio. In fact, they just reference back to the Federal standards and the USDA web site for their eligibility criteria: https://ospi.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/c ... nformation

Did you miss the part where I said eligibility for school lunches (perhaps federally funded, perhaps funded by other agencies) impacted eligibility for other programs?

For an example, Minneapolis expanded school lunches to people beyond the original federal eligibility.

[Robert]

In the past I have appreciated the RNC as a needed counterbalance to the political system with ideas like fiscally responsible governance, avoidance of over regulation, relatively free trade, judicial restraint, long term treaty alliances ect.. I don't have much confidence a Trump lead RNC will stand for any of these if there is personal advantage to abandoning them.

Interesting. Most of the things you listed are things Trump brought in or back. Why do you think that a new term would take him in a different direction?

[Ken]

Did you miss the part where I said eligibility for school lunches (perhaps federally funded, perhaps funded by other agencies) impacted eligibility for other programs?

For an example, Minneapolis expanded school lunches to people beyond the original federal eligibility.

No, that's not what you wrote. What you actually wrote was the following:

There was a situation a while back where the amount of funds for government assistance was based on the number of children receiving free school lunches.

Someone came up with the bright idea to vastly expand the amount of children eligible for free school lunch, and then presto - the "child poverty" rate was a lot higher, and they qualified for more funds.

I am saying this claim is wrong.

The main government assistance program for poor schools is Title 1 which actually sends billions of dollars to low income schools. States can use one of three different formulas to qualify schools and school districts for Title 1 funding: (1) the percentage of students who qualify for the FEDERAL free and reduced school lunch program. A program for which the eligibility criteria has not changed, (2) the actual poverty rate within the district as determined by the US Census, or (3) the percentage of families in the district qualifying for SNAP benefits (food stamps).

I am suggesting what you are claiming did not happen and if you read it somewhere they were wrong or deliberately putting out false information. Federal grant programs are not that easily manipulated. I have shown that the Federal qualification criteria for free and reduced lunches has not changed in at least 30 years. And that is the only criteria used to determine eligibility for Federal funding for schools. The fact that some states like MN have chosen to expand their free lunch program to include ALL students doesn't change the Federal Title 1 funding formulas in the slightest. If MN is no longer using the Federal criteria for free lunches then Title 1 funding in MN would be determined by either the Census poverty data or the percentage of families in the district receiving SNAP benefits. That is how the law works.

Feel free to show any evidence to the contrary.

[barnhart]

In the past I have appreciated the RNC as a needed counterbalance to the political system with ideas like fiscally responsible governance, avoidance of over regulation, relatively free trade, judicial restraint, long term treaty alliances ect.. I don't have much confidence a Trump lead RNC will stand for any of these if there is personal advantage to abandoning them.

Interesting. Most of the things you listed are things Trump brought in or back. Why do you think that a new term would take him in a different direction?

Some of them, maybe. Others like fiscal policy, free trade and treaty alliances, and to some degree judicial activism, went the other direction. Regardless the value of the RNC as a reliable counterbalance has been severely curtailed. In my view.

BTW, I don't "believe" in these things in a religious sense, even if all these policies were implemented fully, there would be plenty of problems remaining. In some cases even more or greater problems. I see them as tools a wise nation would keep in the toolbox.

[Valerie]

We watched a really good interview with Donald Trump the other day. It was an hour long- the food thing about an interview vs a rally or speech is the interviewer can ask tough questions. They cannot (as often happens) take a line out of context and twist it. I was really impressed with his answers. He's quite sharp! In an hour interview where critical questions are fired away one has to be on their feet. Then he is given a chance to clarify to the critics who twist his words.

He was asked about his position on abortion. He is pro-life obviously BUT, and we don't like this, he considers abortion allowed for up to 16 weeks for exceptions. Reason being, he said those who didn't budge at all, lost their elections. He said with Democrats for abortion 7, 8, 9 month ,& in some cases, after child is born if he didn't compromise a little, so would "lose" Democrats get their way on it and late term abortions or death after born is much worse. It's tough call for him. Of course he will be said to be pro-abortion but hearing his reasoning- he clearly is not.

It looks to be another Biden vs Trump so this is an easy choice. Hopefully Biden & Trump will debate so people can compare.

[Josh]

Feel free to show any evidence to the contrary.

I was personally involved and the funding involved came from multiple sources.

But please go ahead and keep cutting and pasting links.

[Robert]

Others like fiscal policy, free trade and treaty alliances, and to some degree judicial activism, went the other direction.

Free trade vs fair trade. I see your point. I was thinking a little differently. He reworked many alliances and actually strengthened the allies. Treaties are Congress, are they not?

One thing I did like is that the judges appointed we less activists. The three Supreme Court Judges are much more contextualists. They have shown their balance because they have ruled against him or his administration several times.