Price gouging as her first policy announcement? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Got some bad news for all of you MAGAs saying "KaMaLA HarRis iS a LitERaL CoMMuNist BecAusE ShE waNTs tO StOP PriCE GouGiNG!!!1!!!"

How about you do us all a favor and stop making such huge fools of yourselves.

They can’t. Until this was announced, high prices at the grocery store was the biggest problem facing Americans. Now that Harris wants to address it, it’s just capitalism, baby!

Republicans: not only are your candidates weirdos, but we can see how hypocritical you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. [b]There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

[Anonymous]

Start with looking more closely at competition and M&As. While the FTC is cracking down on the Kroger-Albertsons merger, it fails to recognize Amazon and Walmart as actual competition. You can’t solve the problem if you aren’t defining it correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Start with looking more closely at competition and M&As. While the FTC is cracking down on the Kroger-Albertsons merger, it fails to recognize Amazon and Walmart as actual competition. You can’t solve the problem if you aren’t defining it correctly.

I meant to include this article. The source skews center right/libertarian, but since we’re talking free markets, it’s a decent rebut to the attack on grocery mergers.

https://reason.com/2024/08/17/harris-joins-the-ftcs-food-fight-against-kroger-albertsons-merger/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JBS , meat processing, enjoyed a 70% increase in profits. Ranchers lost money.

Throttling supply to increase decrease demand and rake in insane profit increases on staple food products isn’t capitalism. Ranchers don’t have a wide choice of processing companies.

Wouldn’t that be a monopoly issue?

Why yes. Especially because mega mergers in the food industry mean that there are conglomerates 1-3 conglomerates providing many food staples. Capitalism can’t work if there is no marketplace competition. Because ranchers and farmers on the front end and consumers on the back end have no meaningful choice (I mean, “buy local agriculture” is nice— if you have local agriculture and the time and ability to go to a farmers market. But many Americans don’t). And those conglomerates raised prices during and after COVID in response to supply chain issues— and never lowered them when supply chain stabilized. And the don’t have to— because no competition. And they are raking in in the profits.

10 companies control the worlds food supply. And three— General Mills, Unilever, and Kellogg control almost all food commodities. And these three don’t offer the same commodores. In many cases, they aren’t even competing among each other.

https://www.good.is/Business/food-brands-owners-rp

This isn’t telling Food Lion what to charge. It’s saying we need competition because General Mills had $670+ million in profit For Q3 2024.. Not for the year. For one fiscal quarter. In part because they have monopolies on some food staples.

https://accountable.us/relying-on-price-hikes-general-mills-rakes-in-millions/#:~:text=As%20General%20Mills%20posts%20massive,many%20American%20families%20food%20insecure.

And unlike many poster here, I don’t think American families should do without food staples to feed their kids because one or two companies control all of the market in these areas and would rather charge more for less.


Harris is not proposing price fixing. She’s proposing using antitrust laws to eliminate monopolies on food staples create more competition (heck— in many cases some competition), because capitalism needs competition. Otherwise, why would a corporation lower prices?

This is not price fixing. Or socialist. In fact, it’s creating a system where there is competition so capitalism can work.

If you are going to yell about how awful the plan is, at least be honest about what it does and how we got here (spoiler alert: Republican administrations are against regulating markets and mergers and mergers of merged companies so that monopolies on food staples happen).

Debate in good faith. And educate yourself beyond Faux News.

I am educated beyond Faux news, thanks, but I get your point and it’s why I asked. I agree with what you’re saying, theoretically- I just don’t see how Kamala’s proposed price gauging would eliminate a monopoly.

Appreciate the answer though. Agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JBS , meat processing, enjoyed a 70% increase in profits. Ranchers lost money.

Throttling supply to increase decrease demand and rake in insane profit increases on staple food products isn’t capitalism. Ranchers don’t have a wide choice of processing companies.

Wouldn’t that be a monopoly issue?

Why yes. Especially because mega mergers in the food industry mean that there are conglomerates 1-3 conglomerates providing many food staples. Capitalism can’t work if there is no marketplace competition. Because ranchers and farmers on the front end and consumers on the back end have no meaningful choice (I mean, “buy local agriculture” is nice— if you have local agriculture and the time and ability to go to a farmers market. But many Americans don’t). And those conglomerates raised prices during and after COVID in response to supply chain issues— and never lowered them when supply chain stabilized. And the don’t have to— because no competition. And they are raking in in the profits.

10 companies control the worlds food supply. And three— General Mills, Unilever, and Kellogg control almost all food commodities. And these three don’t offer the same commodores. In many cases, they aren’t even competing among each other.

https://www.good.is/Business/food-brands-owners-rp

This isn’t telling Food Lion what to charge. It’s saying we need competition because General Mills had $670+ million in profit For Q3 2024.. Not for the year. For one fiscal quarter. In part because they have monopolies on some food staples.

https://accountable.us/relying-on-price-hikes-general-mills-rakes-in-millions/#:~:text=As%20General%20Mills%20posts%20massive,many%20American%20families%20food%20insecure.

And unlike many poster here, I don’t think American families should do without food staples to feed their kids because one or two companies control all of the market in these areas and would rather charge more for less.


Harris is not proposing price fixing. She’s proposing using antitrust laws to eliminate monopolies on food staples create more competition (heck— in many cases some competition), because capitalism needs competition. Otherwise, why would a corporation lower prices?

This is not price fixing. Or socialist. In fact, it’s creating a system where there is competition so capitalism can work.

If you are going to yell about how awful the plan is, at least be honest about what it does and how we got here (spoiler alert: Republican administrations are against regulating markets and mergers and mergers of merged companies so that monopolies on food staples happen).

Debate in good faith. And educate yourself beyond Faux News.

I am educated beyond Faux news, thanks, but I get your point and it’s why I asked. I agree with what you’re saying, theoretically- I just don’t see how Kamala’s proposed price gauging would eliminate a monopoly.

Appreciate the answer though. Agree to disagree.

^ gouging

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. [b]There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

+100.

For example my DH refuses to pay the high price for Life cereal so he has now switched to the store brand “Easy Living”. Saves at least $3.00/ box. It’s these incremental changes that add up to large savings. My husband is extremely thrifty— I smile every time I see his box of Easy Living cereal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. [b]There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. [b]There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

Paying corporations to feed our children is abysmal and unnecessary. Let the kids choose what they want for lunch in the morning, cook only the amount you need, source locally and make from scratch where you can. Many districts in US still do this but DC area illustrates what happens when you get overcrowded schools, too many regulations, and too many lined pockets.

This is a great resource

https://www.thelunchbox.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sit her down and ask her questions.

Where was she 3 years ago on this and she is basically in charge right now? Any problems we have like inflation, crime, illegal immigration are on her.

Let’s see her positions on defund the police, deporting criminal illegals…..

What was Harris exactly in charge of in terms of food prices 3 years ago? What she is saying currently is for her campaign as POTUS, not VP.

Newsflash: She's VP right now. Not POTUS. What did Pence do in his 4 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

Paying corporations to feed our children is abysmal and unnecessary. [b]Let the kids choose what they want for lunch in the morning, cook only the amount you need, source locally and make from scratch where you can. Many districts in US still do this but DC area illustrates what happens when you get overcrowded schools, too many regulations, and too many lined pockets.

This is a great resource

https://www.thelunchbox.org/

You cannot cook " what they want " for 100+ kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

Paying corporations to feed our children is abysmal and unnecessary. [b]Let the kids choose what they want for lunch in the morning, cook only the amount you need, source locally and make from scratch where you can. Many districts in US still do this but DC area illustrates what happens when you get overcrowded schools, too many regulations, and too many lined pockets.

This is a great resource

https://www.thelunchbox.org/

You cannot cook " what they want " for 100+ kids.

provide 2-3 choices in the morning and cook only the amount you need based on their selections. Not cook to order like a restaurant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

Paying corporations to feed our children is abysmal and unnecessary. [b]Let the kids choose what they want for lunch in the morning, cook only the amount you need, source locally and make from scratch where you can. Many districts in US still do this but DC area illustrates what happens when you get overcrowded schools, too many regulations, and too many lined pockets.

This is a great resource

https://www.thelunchbox.org/

You cannot cook " what they want " for 100+ kids.

provide 2-3 choices in the morning and cook only the amount you need based on their selections. Not cook to order like a restaurant.

I can’t imagine providing 3 separate choices for hundreds of children each morning. Hot cooked choices. Are you in reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

Paying corporations to feed our children is abysmal and unnecessary. [b]Let the kids choose what they want for lunch in the morning, cook only the amount you need, source locally and make from scratch where you can. Many districts in US still do this but DC area illustrates what happens when you get overcrowded schools, too many regulations, and too many lined pockets.

This is a great resource

https://www.thelunchbox.org/

You cannot cook " what they want " for 100+ kids.

provide 2-3 choices in the morning and cook only the amount you need based on their selections. Not cook to order like a restaurant.

haha so when would hundreds of children make their hot cooked breakfast choices? I am convinced you have zero clue what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sit her down and ask her questions.

Where was she 3 years ago on this and she is basically in charge right now? Any problems we have like inflation, crime, illegal immigration are on her.

Let’s see her positions on defund the police, deporting criminal illegals…..

What was Harris exactly in charge of in terms of food prices 3 years ago? What she is saying currently is for her campaign as POTUS, not VP.

Newsflash: She's VP right now. Not POTUS. What did Pence do in his 4 years?

Is Pence running for President as the hand picked successor?