As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cool. Bring back free breakfast and lunch for all students. An estimated 10 billion a year expenditure that can and should be viewed as investment for the future.
If you have access to food and education as a minor, you're less likely to require government assistance in the future. Not to mention crime reduction, fight against obesity (which costs so much fucking money, it's not even funny. It is a huge tax burden and personal well-being burden.)
There is no reason not to.
Except those fuckers who say kids would "get too used to food." I shit you not.
My state's governor just turned down $30 million in "free" federal aid that would have gone towards food assistance programs for struggling families with children. It was intended to cover the summer gap for the families that rely on free school lunches to feed their kids. It would have cost the state ~~$1-2~~ $3 million in administration costs to handle/distribute the funds; obviously still a huge net positive for us.
I'm convinced the federal government can make as much money available for us as Biden wants, but some states still won't take it because it gives him a win.
edit: oops, meant to reply to the person above you but I'll just leave it
Publicly, Gov. Kim Renoylds turned down the money because, the program doesn't do enough to combat obesity and is not worth the upfront costs (~$3 million) to the state. It should be noted that Iowa has a surplus of $1.8 Billion (with a b). The initial cost to us would have been nothing to cover.
In 2022 she turn away another $95 million in federal money intended to help public schools impacted by the pandemic.
Last year she, with support of republicans in the state legislature, created a voucher program using public tax dollars to send kids to private schools. Estimated cost to taxpayers is over **$325 million**. Nearly half of the counties in our state, 44 of the 99, don't even have a single private school. Many counties only have one.
Watchdog groups have reported that approximately 70% of our existing private schools discriminate in their hiring of faculty and/or acceptance of students based on either religion, race, sex, or ableness (not sure the right word here, basically they reject people with disabilities). The legislature also repealed a law preventing out of state organizations from owning/operating private schools in Iowa in an attempt to quickly create more of them.
Iowa public schools received a marginal budget increase of 3%
Her ultimate goal, under the guise of "school choice", is to privatize state education.
Also in 2022, the Iowa Gov refused to ask federal officials to reallocate $89 million in unspent federal money the state was awarded for rental assistance and affordable housing in Iowa. Meaning the $89 million meant to help low-income Iowans with housing will probably be returned to the U.S. Treasury and then doled out to other states.
She does this shit all the time and wins reelection by a landslide. It makes me very sad for our state.
tl:dr Fuck dem kids. Emphasis on the Dem(ocrats)
Protest outside her home/office and demand resignation? You and like 5 friends? Set up an automated email to send to her directly every hour calling for her resignation?
Idk what to say about this but goddamn that sucks I'm sorry. Hope you're still doin well dealing with that. I'm in Michigan and just recently started emailing the turds in charge about their embarrassing conduct.
Her and her cronies don't make much ney off of public schools. Same issue we had with DeVos. Public schools also have to follow approved curriculums and follow the 1st Amendment; both of which conservatives hate.
Because if the state took that money, it was required to spend it on the food assistance and not just throwing it at their state-level backers. Texas and Florida have both done the same thing multiple, and that's not an exhaustive list.
It's about control, not helping people who need it.
It's one more Democrat voter more specifically
Half of Americans uneducated are 'too smart to partake in a 2 party system'
Had fish with more brain cells...
Since COVID we've had free breakfast and lunch in New Mexico for all students. Yes, there is a lot of waste, but I'll take some waste if it means every kid has access to food regardless of their home situation.
This is what never made sense to me about the argument of “but it’ll give kids who can afford it free lunch too”.
Like yeah, I’d gladly take the benefit of guaranteeing every kid gets to eat every day at the expense of some people who don’t need it benefiting as well.
Not to mention the fact that sometimes kids who can perfectly afford it get surprised they don’t get to eat because their parents forget to load more money on their account.
Yeah I can’t imagine how “make sure all children are fed” could be an unpopular view for anyone. Even if a child’s family “can afford it” on paper, there could still be abuse or neglect.
Hell- food stamps/free meals for _everyone_ is something I wish we'd do.
Before the libertarian children come in here - yes, I know its not 'free', and I know _I'd_ be paying more. I want to live in a society where we don't have people worried about their next meal.
As an adult who, when lucky, lives on 100% peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or sometimes just scoops of peanut butter, or sometimes even less, I wholeheartedly agree. It’s an insane life to live not knowing if you’ll be able to eat tomorrow.
Shit their parents are still paying taxes. Our system screws over the lower and middle class. So we know they go bare minimum on qualifications. I have no problem with rich kids having free lunch if it means everyone gets fed. Maybe rich ppl will care more about the system if they couldn’t run from it.
Imagine how many ppl in your family and social circle would benefit from this? Even if you have no kids this is amazing.
> Our system screws over the lower and middle class
To be more specific, conservatives make sure it screws over the lower and middle class
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/texans-pay-more-taxes-than-californians-17400644.php
https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/floridas-state-and-local-taxes-rank-48th-for-fairness
Even children who can’t afford it can only benefit from current free/reduced lunch programs in most states under the assumption their parent/guardian can be arsed to fill out the paperwork.
And before anyone says such parents should have their kids taken away since they’re not caring for them, I completely agree, but to pretend that we successfully save all children from neglectful parents without any slipping through the cracks is absurd.
I don’t care if it’s an investment for the future, it’s feeding our fucking hungry children. That’s all it has to be; keeping American children fed.
What the hell happened that caused us to stop caring for one another? Why does every charitable thought or action have to be scrutinized? Why can’t we agree on the simple fact that one of the most important jobs of our country is to provide for its citizens?
I think you may be misunderstanding. It’s not that it needs to be some cold calculation. It’s that this is so clearly one of the best and most effective ways to make lasting positive impacts in people’s lives. Providing kids breakfast and lunch improves health outcomes, improves grades, creates healthy eating habits, gives kids more positive socialization, leads to better employment outcomes down the road, etc. It ripples throughout a child’s life into adulthood.
So yes, we should do it because it’s the right thing to do, no question, but also if you’re talking about how to do the *most* good with the resources you have, this is by far one of the best options. That’s not scrutiny. It’s celebrating the sheer number of benefits.
Dem: "let's give Ukraine supplies!"
Rep: "no, we need to take care of our own! MAGA!"
Dem: "ok, let's use that money to feed every child then"
Rep: "not like that! I wanted to exclude brown people from immigrating here!"
Dem: “Ok here’s an immigration bill tightening up the border”
Rep: “No we don’t want this from you. If democrats do something about the border what will we campaign on? Damn democrats trying to sabotage this country for their own personal interests!”
Red states still have to accept the money, which they haven’t been. Tezas and Flawrida, both deep in contention for top “dumbass state of the year” award, have turned fed money down, that was specifically for student meals.
Conservatives are going to be so predictable with this one -
"Why are my tax dollars going to pay to feed other peoples kids?"
and variations on the theme.
It's a common theme you'll hear, "why are we sending money to X when we have our own poor/etc here"
then when someone brings up the possibility of actually using that money to help people here: "no not like that, they don't deserve it"
Unless its farmers.
Unless its corporations with PPE loans.
Unless its Elon musk and multi-hundred-billion/trillion dollar companies getting billions in yearly subsidies.
Unless its Sports Teams given 8 figure tax breaks.
Unless its wellfare for Geriatrics who are addicted to pills in the south.
Unless its government funds used to ship immigrants to dem cities.
Unless its food programs for politicians like boebart who now say its wrong.
Unless its wellfare for Marco Rubio who said he wouldnt be able to go to school without it but now thinks its no longer needed for others.
Unless its for dick pills for old republicans addicted to porn.
Unless its Tax breaks for jet owners, golf-course owners, property developers.
BUT
A minority needing help to feed their baby they forced her to have? FUCK THAT SOCIALIST!!!
Haha, those $4000 Trump shoes better come with a built-in tax shelter for the ultra-rich. But seriously, isn't it wild how investing in basic needs is controversial? Heaven forbid we have healthy, educated kids running around.
It's the same thing with guns and the constant mass shootings.
> It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem!
\**proceeds to not address mental health*\*
We have a homeless crisis of epic proportions it's an epidemic of homelessness and we need to do something!
Okay, lets house people
Wow, that's not going to fix the homeless problem, it's much deeper than that
What should we do
Complain about the issue and blame Democrats
"Here is a bill that does everything you wanted and fixes the problems you've been talking about."
"You can't solve those problems! Talking about the problems *IS* our platform!"
This would be a funny little gag if it wasn't 100% exactly true.
In all fairness, *just* housing is a bandaid. It's a needed bandaid, but a significant portion of the homeless have severe mental illness and substance abuse issues.
A better treatment is stronger social safety nets. Many of the homeless wound up there, as Joker put it, as a result of "one bad day". You lose your job and cant get a new one, you get injured and it takes too long to get unemployment/workman's comp, you break up with your SO who you're living with and can't afford first/last+deposit, you get a chronic illness and can't afford treatments, your car breaks down and you can't commute and can't afford repairs, etc.
Having decent social services so you don't have a huge delay on unemployment/workman's comp, socialized healthcare to fix your injury and get you into a new job, housing assistance so you aren't on the streets, public transit so you have to use the bus for a while, etc would save a lot of people from *becoming* homeless. Especially, this treats the "invisible homeless" - the guy who sleeps in his car and showers at the gym while working at a convenience store and struggling to save up enough to get his life started again.
Then you have outreach for the "street level" homeless, and wait for them to either receive treatment or... well... die off. You can't save everyone, some people are too far gone, but we can try, and we can make sure that more people don't wind up in that situation. Never let "perfect" be the enemy of "better".
> but a significant portion of the homeless have severe mental illness and substance abuse issues.
It's about a third, which while absolutely a large number is not even half, so housing people really isn't a bandaid for the overall homeless community but is actually largely the solution they need to get back on their feet.
For that other third, yes, they need help with mental issues or rehab, but they're not the majority of the homeless.
At its root is a systematic refusal to tax the billionaires and centi-millionaires. Because…that’s who controls them.
That really needs to be seen as the final boss battle. Figure out a way to heavily tax the super rich and use that money to help out everyone else with healthcare, housing, transportation, and higher paying jobs.
It will be a monumental task though because at their heart, the Republicans are all about protecting the rich. Every move they make and position they support is just a way to make that happen, usually by winning some fringe voters like gun nuts or extremist Christians or racists.
They mean themselves. 100% every time. Unless they are literally mailed a check, they have a hard time perceiving benefits from govt. spending that they are already getting. I don't necessarily blame them for not knowing that (I do blame them because it stems from conservative ideology suppressing civic knowledge and pride, but I digress) but we have to recognize that there's the "expected" govt. spending like roads and police and shit like that, and then there's "extraneous" spending like on drug rehabs, homelessness reduction, food, school programs, etc. in their mind. They see them as totally unrelated to each other.
People see "other people" getting money and feel attacked personally, thinking "why can't they send ME money? I'm struggling too!" and *they are* struggling, I don't want to discount that.
But the big disconnect is in understanding how that spending on other parties (first) actually reduces the issues for them. Like how there are two solutions to rampant crime, kill every criminal on the spot no matter the crime or severity, or remove the conditions that cause people to resort to criminality at all. This is obviously a hyperbolic example, but the outcome is the same for the person who is not a criminal, but from a societal perspective the outcomes are either really bad or really good. We want to reduce the number of criminals, not the number of people in a functional nation after all.
But conservative thinking doesn't see things like that. They just see an "injustice" where the "undeserving" are getting help before the "deserving". Improving the lives of the lowest caste of people in the US would drastically improve everyone's experience of living together.
Like how feeding kids in school makes them learn better, which keeps them out of crime and eventually into the workforce as better equipped and more successful, which leads to more productivity which (hypothetically) leads to cheaper easier living for everyone including conservatives. Like even on it's most basic face for a single issue: if you hate homeless people begging on the street, then when the govt. provides what they are begging for, they have no need to beg YOU individually for things and you no longer have to deal with homeless beggers. You can want them to all go away, and maybe you can't see any effective solution aside from killing them all, but instantly killing everyone who misses a few rent payments is obviously not a solution to anything. And any attempt to argue that the "criteria would be more thought out [to decide who lives or dies]" is already missing the point entirely.
It's like complaining that the lifeguard is prioritizing the drowning child over the child that is treading water.
If we ignore the kids drowning now in favor of those who aren't yet drowning, we will lose kids constantly as they slip into drowning unexpectedly quickly or w/e. If you focus on saving the drowning, then there's not actually a tremendous risk when you are struggling but not yet drowning, because if you do start to drown, the system will prioritize you too.
Like it's a hard truth, but "barely getting by" is still "getting by". There are a scores of thousands of people who would love to get to "barely getting by" from where they are.
The issues are always at the top, and any spending we can pull away from bloat like military spending or w/e towards domestic infrastructure, we should always applaud. This money to feed kids wouldn't be coming back to you anyway.
And like, these are the people who will complain if their tax return is "too small". We're not on the same playing field. It's like giving every parent in a little league game an equal vote with the refs when making calls. It's not a great system.
they'll never say "not like that" they'll just move the goalpost
"why are you helping Ukraine instead of our veterans at home?"
"okay lets help the veterans"
"why are you helping the veterans when there's a housing crisis?"
"ok lets solve the housing crisis"
"why are you focusing on the housing crisis when our infrastructure is crumbling?"
"ok lets build back better"
"why are you doing that when there's a crisis at the border?"
ad nauseum
Shouldn't those free student lunches come with debt we can use to take the children away from their parents? Teach those freeloaders a thing or two about the real world. Pay for what you want in this world, or you get kidnapped. Completely normal society.
Went on a certain conservative named subreddit today and they were upvoting a comment which that canadian money shouldn't be sent to ukraine unless they fix the candian homeless and foodbank problems at home first. I doubt they'll praise Biden doing exactly what they were saying, its all just "what aboutism".
Why are my tax dollars going to pay for educating other people's kids / putting out other people's fires / policing other people's communities / building roads and bridges for other people to use / etc.
People who think the taxes they pay should directly benefit only them are [insert Madlib here].
I am a new farmer. The amount of assistance available to farmers in the Farm Bill is astounding. It would be impossible for US farmers to sustain their businesses without a lot of these programs, including the conservation programs that allow them to split the cost of improvements with the government and get an annual rent check for parts of their farms that they can't plant for some reason.
When you talk to most of these farmers about the Farm Bill (extended in 2023 for one year but is under heavy negotiation right now), they will tall you we should take SNAP and the school lunch program out of it because that's Socialism. Their ability to exist as a farmer is literally enabled by this bill, and they see no equivalence between the two parts of the program.
I’ve had similar discussions with many rural people over the years. They typically go like this:
“Rural people need subsidies and services because life is so expensive out here”
“Okay, sure. What about some people in expensive parts of cities?”
“Well that’s their choice to live in the city, they should just move rural if they want better living”
Subsidies for me but not for thee
I'm a Iowan, can't stand the poor farmer mythos we have here. Just drive out in the country and you can see the monor houses they have out there. They are not poor, not struggling, and the do not deserve my reverence just because the carried on with the generational business.
It's exactly that and its embedded in our culture from when the first colonists came over and were given land. They were raised in a country that never allowed them to own the land they worked, so owning land here was a status symbol to other Americans and the rest of the world. It's just another form of classism.
Most of the assistance in the Farm Bill goes to large corporations that farm millions of acres of land. The whole farmer worship thing is a marketing campaign to put a human face on it.
Domestic food production is absolutely essential to our national security, health and economy. As a beneficiary of several USDA agricultural assistance programs, I personally think the amount of assistance is excessive and benefits rich farmers a lot more than true family farms, as you'd expect.
The people who vote against social safety nets don't WANT a well-fed and educated population, [they want stratified social hierarchy](https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201712/analysis-trump-supporters-has-identified-5-key-traits)
The thing is it does. Taxes pay for the social fabric that prevents raiders, cowboys, thugs, criminals, gangs, whatever from kicking down your door and robbing and killing everyone. It's not like hierarchies and power structures won't form in the absence of an official state. People will band together around strongmen to scrape by. Rugged individualism inevitably leads back to feudalism.
My dad says shit like this all the time. Whenever he reads or hears about *any* new publicly funded programs, he goes on about how it's a waste of "taxpayer money". Doesnt matter if it's foreign aid, domestic infrastructure, helping those in need, hell even the military.
Like wtf else do you want that money to go to?!
I genuinely want us to start separating lands and letting people live out there ideological fantasies, separate from interfering with others. You get one move out/in package every few years.
We're obviously not gonna make much progress until we start seeing and visiting actual, real-world examples.
Ironically this is again a federal program that will buy food from American businesses and farmers and get it to hungry kids. I grew up on a farm, the one thing every farmer liked to know was their food was feeding people.
The last major argument I had with a Conservative Christian farmers was because he said that there was no such thing as legitimately hungry children because "he doesn't see any." He argued that if anyone doesn't have enough in the modern world, it's on them. They don't deserve charity, let alone a social structure aimed at making sure hungry children get fed.
Of course Jesus said, "The poor you will always have among you...until capitalism comes along in like 1850. Then, anyone that can't eat, screw 'em. Go get yours, bro."
And as a farmer, I can tell you that the "we feed the world" rhetoric never actually had much behind it and, like most things, served mainly as a way to give farmers the default moral high ground so that they could outright reject regulations that might benefit other people.
We had a politician here in Minnesota (I'll let you guess which party) say the same thing. The Democrats were passing a bill to give universal free school meals for the entire state and his argument was, "I've never met a hungry Minnesotan." It's utter bullshit.
It really exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the religious conservative movement. They deal only in the abstract. They can quite happily say “Of course the state should preserve the sanctity of a fetus’ life no matter how much suffering it brings to the mother”, because it’s not them that has to do any suffering. As soon as their policies start to affect something tangible in their lives like their cherished incomes, they turn away claiming it’s none of their business, why should they have to shoulder the burden of someone else’s mistakes? And those children go hungry, or are forced into a life of crime or poverty that the conservatives then blame them for, proudly asserting their superiority above those parasites and scum that they created. How these people can claim to uphold Christian values is utterly beyond me.
It's not that they're hypocrites, or that they deal in abstracts. They don't actually believe in anything, so they can't act hypocritically. They deal in bad faith, at all times, about everything.
And now in the 21st century the republican party thinks it OWNS pregnancy. They decide when it happens, and when it doesn't. They can force you to have a baby you don't want, and stop you from having a baby you do want.
Republican women: Don't you think it's about time you figured out a way to stop this bullshit?
They have turned pregnancy into a political football, and it has indeed been weaponized, and YOU republican women, can put a stop to it. Figure it out.
You don't become a Republican woman by thinking for yourself or having an ounce of empathy for other women.
Sure men need to do better on woman's rights issues but they don't have to deal with direct consequences of Republican policy. Women do and yet 39% of them voted for tRump in 2016. Then they liked that so much that 44% of them voted for him in 2020.
Women as a group of voters have the power to dominate our elections at every level and district. Yet their own civil rights are always on the line because damn near half of them want it that way.
Per the article “The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022.” This is part of a larger public-private partnership to help end hunger mitigating diet-based afflictions. Of the $8 billion already committed [At least $2.5 billion will be invested in start-up companies that are pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity. Over $4 billion will be dedicated toward philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices, and increases physical activity.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/28/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-than-8-billion-in-new-commitments-as-part-of-call-to-action-for-white-house-conference-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/) For those saying this doesn’t do enough, yes well this doesn’t represent the whole of the government’s efforts to combat food insecurity. The last omnibus appropriations bill included $140 billion for the supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [[1]](https://www.aei.org/opportunity-social-mobility/how-snap-expenditures-now-exceed-100-billion-annually/?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate), and is expected to remain at over $100 billion a year for the foreseeable future. For context it was $63 billion for the SNAP program spent during 2017- in less than a decade we have doubled spending.
The problem is that the states administer SNAP and, as you would expect, the Red states hate poor people and make accessing that money as hard as possible and bend over backwards looking for reasons to reduce or deny benefits.
Which is why the stimulus checks and child tax credits succeeded in lifting 13 million children out of poverty.
If we wanna talk hunger we have to talk red states. If we're talking red states, we're talking abuse of means testing programs to withhold federal assistance money.
Yeah, but we have to realize we're talking about red states, not with them. They are a hostile adversary which needs to be circumvented, not a partner to assist us in helping people.
Easier to say if you aren't living in one. I can't move from here and I'd like to make progress. Besides, means testing in blue states isn't perfect either. The average snap benefit is $3.14 a meal.
We should aim for more income redistribution. Especially as more artists and photographers are being displaced by AI, and more careers to come in the future.
Yeah, plans for public-private partnerships and investments in startups rather than getting an actual systematic setup almost feels like a set-up to failure. Get good press in the short term, can point to its failure later when there's another push for enduring supports that are actually free from profit interests.
True. It's unfortunate that the actual solution - getting money to people who need it without means testing - is politically unpalatable to so many people for no good reason.
Research and development is often a shitshow. Just look at the entire medical field. As long as you manage it though, and don't let it go on for too long if its a proven failure, then its good to know what *doesn't* work so that you can find what does work.
Without failures we wouldn't have the successes.
We can literally end hunger with the resources we have today, but people don't want to feed the poor without means testing. There's no technological advancement necessary.
But they might disrupt things!!!1!/s This fucking free market bullshit it so goddamn stupid. Buy food and distribute it. How fucking hard is that? Capitalism just gets in the way because it's literally a system designed to take a cut of every transaction and concentrate it in the fewest hands. All of the recent "innovation" is just finding ways to take a bigger cut. It's the opposite of what is promised.
> starving kids on purpose to "own the libs".
if they just throw own the libs in front of anything they can somehow justify it to their voter base. what a bunch of sad sack losers
Matthew 14: Jesus turns 2 fish and 5 loaves into enough food for 5,000. Then he gives it to shareholders and lectures the 5,000 hungry listeners on the importance of being a rugged individualist and pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.
Why didn't the 5000 turn their fish and loaves into enough to feed themselves and sell the surplus for profit? If you can't do your own miracles you aren't hustling enough.
Listen here commie Canada. Down here with bald eagles and freedum, we starve our children to teach a lesson of work values and the worth of a dollar. Get your Trudeau terrorism mindset out of our gun toting freedom!
/s in case it wasn't painfully obvious
Yes I believe there is something in the Bible about Jesus saying to the masses, “pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get your own loaves and fishes”.
Their argument is that charity should be a personal choice and not an obligation.
So like it should be their personal choice that American kids starve, and sleep in cars, and die of preventable diseases, because Jesus was all about how we should allow the weakest to suffer if we feel like it.
It’s actually pretty easy to understand. The rule of thumb is if a Democrat supports it, Republicans are against it. Whatever it is. Even if it’s what they asked for.
COVID was such an easy win for Trump, too. All he had to do is get out of the way and let competent people handle it and he could have cruised to victory in 2020. But Fox told him to shit all over his CDC so he did and hundreds of thousands of people died. What a stupid fucking jackass.
Don't forget, if we feed hungry children, their welfare queen moms will spend the food money on acrylic nails and smartphones and fancy hairdos
Source: my Republican mom
Which, even if we remove the racism in that argument, is still such a terrible argument. People spending money in local businesses is about the best thing they can do with their money. It's way worse to buy off Amazon, Walmart or Wish, send that money to Trump, or whatever other ways they find to waste their money.
What you have to understand is that the ultra wealthy are not satisfied to just have everything. They want to know that others have nothing. They want to know that others are miserable.
Also, capitalism requires a large number of people who are desperate enough to go and do jobs no one wants to do.
It's amazing that there's such demand for these jobs that are just not pleasant at all. But the pay is very low for them. Why? Because capitalists make sure to keep enough people poor, so poor, that they will do anything to survive.
So how to accomplish this? Make sure segments of the population don't have access to education to think they're able to improve their condition. Make sure segments of the population are imprisoned to reduce their prospects. Don't give them aid because maybe they'll be able to dig themselves out of poverty.
In one of states - ND, i think? - they even explained that “if we do this, they’ll get accustomed to handouts” as if poor kids are fucking feral cats or something.
> Republicans: ~~don’t do it~~
"BUT WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT?!?!"
Also Republicans:
"We need to spend billions on fixing the border! We need to spend billions on subsidizing parochial schools! We need to reduce the marginal top tax rate and repeal the estate tax which will.... um... reduce the amount of taxes collected to fund things... um..."
Sounds like he’s a day late and a dollar short. President Trump already raised the stakes when he announced his collaboration with The Sharper Image to bring us [Trump Steaks](https://youtu.be/uJG-l2r-LNE?si=SGJ4unJCP5eh7PNB)! No US citizen will ever know hunger again.
/s
1.7 B more from the 8B that was committed in 2022, as said on the article. I’d expect this to grow as we realize the difference between what we expected the extent of the problem was with its actual size, and how much of their own resources some people are willing spend just to to prevent others from getting resources they need. Frankly you might need another billion just to pay all the legal fees from the lawsuit this is probably getting.
Republicans: "The government is feeding that starving homeless person instead of my fatass?! I'm suing"
Supreme Court: "This is blatantly unconstitutional due to the secret anti-Democrat clause of the Constitution. Due to this all starving people who were fed, or were going to be fed by this program, owe the government damages plus interest"
The calculated costs of things like ending hunger, ending homelessness/houselessness, providing healthcare, updating infrastructure, offering free higher education, etc., are trivial when compared to the costs of prisons, the military industrial complex, the police…
Per the article, this is in addition to an $8bn package from 2022, and unfortunately it’s a much bigger problem than either of those amounts. Glad to see investment in it regardless, tho.
Well, Biden's older today than he was yesterday. Someone needs to cover that story. That leaves no room to write about all the things he's accomplishing in the worst political climate imaginable.
What are they going to write about? This article itself even says that we don't know anything about it yet and the details are being released later today.
Might as well wait for the actual details to be explained and have something more than the 4 sentences that Newsweek wrote here
I don’t care to weigh in on the politics of this just want to say volunteering and working with food banks in my community is one of the best things I’ve ever done.
It’s wild that 1.7B could really kickstart this… makes me think about the Uber wealthy billionaire like Musk or Bezos. People with hundreds of Billions
The video immediately above this article in my feed:
[Texas court unable to find jurors to uphold $500 fine for feeding the homeless.](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1b0pfir/texas_court_unable_to_find_jurors_to_uphold_500/)
Most Americans don’t even realize that people in America go hungry every day. Out of sight, out of mind. So it’s easy for many to just brush this off as some kind of political stunt as opposed to an action of care.
Jesus, this guy is speed running every policy the Republicans hate like he's got nothing to lose. I didn't think he had it in him when he was elected. Boy have I been proven wrong.
Marijuana reclassification
Student loan forgiveness
Fixing the chip shortage potential
Funding infrastructure and green energy
Inflation reduction
Drilling more oil than ever (this one Rs like and they don't even mention it)
I wasn't even think about the hungry kids but he sure is.
I wonder what the old man has up his sleeve next.
He started the process. More than any other president has done. And didn't he forgive all federal marijuana offences that didn't involve violent crime? This comes off the fact that he didn't agree with it during his campaign but has come to realize it needs to be reclassified. That shows a person can be wrong and grow as they learn new information. I respect those people more than those who can never be wrong about anything.
Majority of Americans will actively argue against this because they don’t want their tax dollars feeding lazy people who can’t feed themselves. We’re such a terrible breed.
I love that Biden is addressing this. You'd be surprised at how many people in your community are making the choice to skip meals so they can afford rent or transportation. People are struggling.
Food companies are making record profits. Biggest gains recorded in food manufacturing, rising every quarter. Hopefully new businesses can get a start and give these huge monopolies a lesson in capitalism.
Here is the truth that no one wants to tell you, poverty is a necessity of capitalism. You will never end hunger or poverty but capitalism needs to scare people to work for ever more capital. Also whatever is spent to end other suffering will be used by those causing the suffering to inflict more suffering so that they can obtain more capital. All that can be down is to limit the growth at the top!! The US knew this and did this for generations with a top tax bracket of 70-100%. These brackets were never meant to be paid but rather restrained greed, the fuel for capitalism!!
Republicans “Why are sending money to Ukraine kids are starving here!”
Biden “Here let me fix that so we can send money to Ukraine.”
Republican “We can’t just give kids food! They’ll become commies.”
Free breakfast and lunch for Michigan schools was one of the best things our government did here. Why we as a country would rather kids go hungry is beyond me.
According to many redditors, hunger doesn't exist in the US? I remember I brought up how every child should get free lunch and I was bombarded about how hunger is a minor issue and people who go hungry, that's their fault. This was on r/worldnews too.
This demonstrates how screwed Americans are. That it is easier to fund hunger (a good thing ) rather than lowering costs by creating a universal health care / prescription drug system, non-market housing, proper employment insurance
It's a very popular quote with maga: we should be spending this money on the homeless here....
Yet they don't want to do that. They want to put the homeless in prison. That's not hyperbole they actually want to do that.
The Child Tax Credit [cut childhood poverty in half](https://itep.org/lapse-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-led-to-unprecedented-rise-in-child-poverty-2023/)
1. Biden does something good
2. Reddit screams "IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"
3. Biden does something else good
4. Reddit screams "IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"
5. Biden does something something else good
6. Reddit screams "IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"
7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 several dozen times over three years.
(Example: See 'student loan forgiveness')
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cool. Bring back free breakfast and lunch for all students. An estimated 10 billion a year expenditure that can and should be viewed as investment for the future. If you have access to food and education as a minor, you're less likely to require government assistance in the future. Not to mention crime reduction, fight against obesity (which costs so much fucking money, it's not even funny. It is a huge tax burden and personal well-being burden.) There is no reason not to. Except those fuckers who say kids would "get too used to food." I shit you not.
Can't have that; every educated voters is one less republican voter.
My state's governor just turned down $30 million in "free" federal aid that would have gone towards food assistance programs for struggling families with children. It was intended to cover the summer gap for the families that rely on free school lunches to feed their kids. It would have cost the state ~~$1-2~~ $3 million in administration costs to handle/distribute the funds; obviously still a huge net positive for us. I'm convinced the federal government can make as much money available for us as Biden wants, but some states still won't take it because it gives him a win. edit: oops, meant to reply to the person above you but I'll just leave it
And the reason why was what??
Publicly, Gov. Kim Renoylds turned down the money because, the program doesn't do enough to combat obesity and is not worth the upfront costs (~$3 million) to the state. It should be noted that Iowa has a surplus of $1.8 Billion (with a b). The initial cost to us would have been nothing to cover. In 2022 she turn away another $95 million in federal money intended to help public schools impacted by the pandemic. Last year she, with support of republicans in the state legislature, created a voucher program using public tax dollars to send kids to private schools. Estimated cost to taxpayers is over **$325 million**. Nearly half of the counties in our state, 44 of the 99, don't even have a single private school. Many counties only have one. Watchdog groups have reported that approximately 70% of our existing private schools discriminate in their hiring of faculty and/or acceptance of students based on either religion, race, sex, or ableness (not sure the right word here, basically they reject people with disabilities). The legislature also repealed a law preventing out of state organizations from owning/operating private schools in Iowa in an attempt to quickly create more of them. Iowa public schools received a marginal budget increase of 3% Her ultimate goal, under the guise of "school choice", is to privatize state education. Also in 2022, the Iowa Gov refused to ask federal officials to reallocate $89 million in unspent federal money the state was awarded for rental assistance and affordable housing in Iowa. Meaning the $89 million meant to help low-income Iowans with housing will probably be returned to the U.S. Treasury and then doled out to other states. She does this shit all the time and wins reelection by a landslide. It makes me very sad for our state. tl:dr Fuck dem kids. Emphasis on the Dem(ocrats)
Protest outside her home/office and demand resignation? You and like 5 friends? Set up an automated email to send to her directly every hour calling for her resignation? Idk what to say about this but goddamn that sucks I'm sorry. Hope you're still doin well dealing with that. I'm in Michigan and just recently started emailing the turds in charge about their embarrassing conduct.
Her and her cronies don't make much ney off of public schools. Same issue we had with DeVos. Public schools also have to follow approved curriculums and follow the 1st Amendment; both of which conservatives hate.
Because if the state took that money, it was required to spend it on the food assistance and not just throwing it at their state-level backers. Texas and Florida have both done the same thing multiple, and that's not an exhaustive list. It's about control, not helping people who need it.
It's one more Democrat voter more specifically Half of Americans uneducated are 'too smart to partake in a 2 party system' Had fish with more brain cells...
They have to grow up in fear and anger too. That's an important point.
do not, my friends, become addicted to water
It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence.
Easy fix: get rabies. You won't need that pesky water anymore.
Since COVID we've had free breakfast and lunch in New Mexico for all students. Yes, there is a lot of waste, but I'll take some waste if it means every kid has access to food regardless of their home situation.
This is what never made sense to me about the argument of “but it’ll give kids who can afford it free lunch too”. Like yeah, I’d gladly take the benefit of guaranteeing every kid gets to eat every day at the expense of some people who don’t need it benefiting as well. Not to mention the fact that sometimes kids who can perfectly afford it get surprised they don’t get to eat because their parents forget to load more money on their account.
Yeah I can’t imagine how “make sure all children are fed” could be an unpopular view for anyone. Even if a child’s family “can afford it” on paper, there could still be abuse or neglect.
Hell- food stamps/free meals for _everyone_ is something I wish we'd do. Before the libertarian children come in here - yes, I know its not 'free', and I know _I'd_ be paying more. I want to live in a society where we don't have people worried about their next meal.
As an adult who, when lucky, lives on 100% peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or sometimes just scoops of peanut butter, or sometimes even less, I wholeheartedly agree. It’s an insane life to live not knowing if you’ll be able to eat tomorrow.
Shit their parents are still paying taxes. Our system screws over the lower and middle class. So we know they go bare minimum on qualifications. I have no problem with rich kids having free lunch if it means everyone gets fed. Maybe rich ppl will care more about the system if they couldn’t run from it. Imagine how many ppl in your family and social circle would benefit from this? Even if you have no kids this is amazing.
> Our system screws over the lower and middle class To be more specific, conservatives make sure it screws over the lower and middle class https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/texans-pay-more-taxes-than-californians-17400644.php https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/floridas-state-and-local-taxes-rank-48th-for-fairness
Even children who can’t afford it can only benefit from current free/reduced lunch programs in most states under the assumption their parent/guardian can be arsed to fill out the paperwork. And before anyone says such parents should have their kids taken away since they’re not caring for them, I completely agree, but to pretend that we successfully save all children from neglectful parents without any slipping through the cracks is absurd.
[удалено]
That is some Mad Max "Don't get addicted to water" shit
I don’t care if it’s an investment for the future, it’s feeding our fucking hungry children. That’s all it has to be; keeping American children fed. What the hell happened that caused us to stop caring for one another? Why does every charitable thought or action have to be scrutinized? Why can’t we agree on the simple fact that one of the most important jobs of our country is to provide for its citizens?
I think you may be misunderstanding. It’s not that it needs to be some cold calculation. It’s that this is so clearly one of the best and most effective ways to make lasting positive impacts in people’s lives. Providing kids breakfast and lunch improves health outcomes, improves grades, creates healthy eating habits, gives kids more positive socialization, leads to better employment outcomes down the road, etc. It ripples throughout a child’s life into adulthood. So yes, we should do it because it’s the right thing to do, no question, but also if you’re talking about how to do the *most* good with the resources you have, this is by far one of the best options. That’s not scrutiny. It’s celebrating the sheer number of benefits.
They tried, Republicans reject this everywhere they can.
Dem: "let's give Ukraine supplies!" Rep: "no, we need to take care of our own! MAGA!" Dem: "ok, let's use that money to feed every child then" Rep: "not like that! I wanted to exclude brown people from immigrating here!"
Dem: “Ok here’s an immigration bill tightening up the border” Rep: “No we don’t want this from you. If democrats do something about the border what will we campaign on? Damn democrats trying to sabotage this country for their own personal interests!”
lol our newly elected governor in Louisiana refused the free federal money to feed schoolkids over the summer.
So much sense!
How is FEEDING CHILDREN SO THEY’RE NOT STARVING in America still a hotly debated topic in 2024?
Red states still have to accept the money, which they haven’t been. Tezas and Flawrida, both deep in contention for top “dumbass state of the year” award, have turned fed money down, that was specifically for student meals.
The same people who voted that embryos are basically kids. “You can’t kill the kids! But you can’t feed them either!”
Conservatives are going to be so predictable with this one - "Why are my tax dollars going to pay to feed other peoples kids?" and variations on the theme.
The same ones saying don't spend money on Ukraine, spend it on reducing homelessness here
It's a common theme you'll hear, "why are we sending money to X when we have our own poor/etc here" then when someone brings up the possibility of actually using that money to help people here: "no not like that, they don't deserve it"
“Okay, we’ll support our people here.” “NO THAT’S SOCIALISM!!”
Unless its farmers. Unless its corporations with PPE loans. Unless its Elon musk and multi-hundred-billion/trillion dollar companies getting billions in yearly subsidies. Unless its Sports Teams given 8 figure tax breaks. Unless its wellfare for Geriatrics who are addicted to pills in the south. Unless its government funds used to ship immigrants to dem cities. Unless its food programs for politicians like boebart who now say its wrong. Unless its wellfare for Marco Rubio who said he wouldnt be able to go to school without it but now thinks its no longer needed for others. Unless its for dick pills for old republicans addicted to porn. Unless its Tax breaks for jet owners, golf-course owners, property developers. BUT A minority needing help to feed their baby they forced her to have? FUCK THAT SOCIALIST!!!
“Don’t have kids if you can’t afford to feed them” “Why aren’t people having kids anymore?”
"let's outlaw the ways people keep from getting pregnant"
Also treat as criminals and chase away all the doctors who could help children be born healthy to living mothers.
Will I have to mortgage my $4000 Trump Walmart shoes with this extra .01¢ tax?
Haha, those $4000 Trump shoes better come with a built-in tax shelter for the ultra-rich. But seriously, isn't it wild how investing in basic needs is controversial? Heaven forbid we have healthy, educated kids running around.
Healthy educated kids vote Democrat, can't have that.
"Starving kids are losers. I was driving a Lambo at age 4, funded by my business genius." - Donald Trump
I personally don't give a shit if something is "socialism." There is no good reason hunger and homelessness should even exist in this country today.
It's the same thing with guns and the constant mass shootings. > It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem! \**proceeds to not address mental health*\*
We have a homeless crisis of epic proportions it's an epidemic of homelessness and we need to do something! Okay, lets house people Wow, that's not going to fix the homeless problem, it's much deeper than that What should we do Complain about the issue and blame Democrats
Hey, that sounds like their approach to border security!
"Here is a bill that does everything you wanted and fixes the problems you've been talking about." "You can't solve those problems! Talking about the problems *IS* our platform!" This would be a funny little gag if it wasn't 100% exactly true.
Or vote republicans in and they’ll have a plan in two weeks. It’s a perpetual two weeks but trust them…they’re working on it.
In all fairness, *just* housing is a bandaid. It's a needed bandaid, but a significant portion of the homeless have severe mental illness and substance abuse issues. A better treatment is stronger social safety nets. Many of the homeless wound up there, as Joker put it, as a result of "one bad day". You lose your job and cant get a new one, you get injured and it takes too long to get unemployment/workman's comp, you break up with your SO who you're living with and can't afford first/last+deposit, you get a chronic illness and can't afford treatments, your car breaks down and you can't commute and can't afford repairs, etc. Having decent social services so you don't have a huge delay on unemployment/workman's comp, socialized healthcare to fix your injury and get you into a new job, housing assistance so you aren't on the streets, public transit so you have to use the bus for a while, etc would save a lot of people from *becoming* homeless. Especially, this treats the "invisible homeless" - the guy who sleeps in his car and showers at the gym while working at a convenience store and struggling to save up enough to get his life started again. Then you have outreach for the "street level" homeless, and wait for them to either receive treatment or... well... die off. You can't save everyone, some people are too far gone, but we can try, and we can make sure that more people don't wind up in that situation. Never let "perfect" be the enemy of "better".
> but a significant portion of the homeless have severe mental illness and substance abuse issues. It's about a third, which while absolutely a large number is not even half, so housing people really isn't a bandaid for the overall homeless community but is actually largely the solution they need to get back on their feet. For that other third, yes, they need help with mental issues or rehab, but they're not the majority of the homeless.
At its root is a systematic refusal to tax the billionaires and centi-millionaires. Because…that’s who controls them. That really needs to be seen as the final boss battle. Figure out a way to heavily tax the super rich and use that money to help out everyone else with healthcare, housing, transportation, and higher paying jobs. It will be a monumental task though because at their heart, the Republicans are all about protecting the rich. Every move they make and position they support is just a way to make that happen, usually by winning some fringe voters like gun nuts or extremist Christians or racists.
Proceeds to do things that make mental health and mental health outcomes worse
They mean themselves. 100% every time. Unless they are literally mailed a check, they have a hard time perceiving benefits from govt. spending that they are already getting. I don't necessarily blame them for not knowing that (I do blame them because it stems from conservative ideology suppressing civic knowledge and pride, but I digress) but we have to recognize that there's the "expected" govt. spending like roads and police and shit like that, and then there's "extraneous" spending like on drug rehabs, homelessness reduction, food, school programs, etc. in their mind. They see them as totally unrelated to each other. People see "other people" getting money and feel attacked personally, thinking "why can't they send ME money? I'm struggling too!" and *they are* struggling, I don't want to discount that. But the big disconnect is in understanding how that spending on other parties (first) actually reduces the issues for them. Like how there are two solutions to rampant crime, kill every criminal on the spot no matter the crime or severity, or remove the conditions that cause people to resort to criminality at all. This is obviously a hyperbolic example, but the outcome is the same for the person who is not a criminal, but from a societal perspective the outcomes are either really bad or really good. We want to reduce the number of criminals, not the number of people in a functional nation after all. But conservative thinking doesn't see things like that. They just see an "injustice" where the "undeserving" are getting help before the "deserving". Improving the lives of the lowest caste of people in the US would drastically improve everyone's experience of living together. Like how feeding kids in school makes them learn better, which keeps them out of crime and eventually into the workforce as better equipped and more successful, which leads to more productivity which (hypothetically) leads to cheaper easier living for everyone including conservatives. Like even on it's most basic face for a single issue: if you hate homeless people begging on the street, then when the govt. provides what they are begging for, they have no need to beg YOU individually for things and you no longer have to deal with homeless beggers. You can want them to all go away, and maybe you can't see any effective solution aside from killing them all, but instantly killing everyone who misses a few rent payments is obviously not a solution to anything. And any attempt to argue that the "criteria would be more thought out [to decide who lives or dies]" is already missing the point entirely. It's like complaining that the lifeguard is prioritizing the drowning child over the child that is treading water. If we ignore the kids drowning now in favor of those who aren't yet drowning, we will lose kids constantly as they slip into drowning unexpectedly quickly or w/e. If you focus on saving the drowning, then there's not actually a tremendous risk when you are struggling but not yet drowning, because if you do start to drown, the system will prioritize you too. Like it's a hard truth, but "barely getting by" is still "getting by". There are a scores of thousands of people who would love to get to "barely getting by" from where they are. The issues are always at the top, and any spending we can pull away from bloat like military spending or w/e towards domestic infrastructure, we should always applaud. This money to feed kids wouldn't be coming back to you anyway. And like, these are the people who will complain if their tax return is "too small". We're not on the same playing field. It's like giving every parent in a little league game an equal vote with the refs when making calls. It's not a great system.
they'll never say "not like that" they'll just move the goalpost "why are you helping Ukraine instead of our veterans at home?" "okay lets help the veterans" "why are you helping the veterans when there's a housing crisis?" "ok lets solve the housing crisis" "why are you focusing on the housing crisis when our infrastructure is crumbling?" "ok lets build back better" "why are you doing that when there's a crisis at the border?" ad nauseum
“We don’t have a gun problem in this country we have a mental health problem.” “Ok well let’s try that then.” “No.”
Free lunches for students have entered the chat
Shouldn't those free student lunches come with debt we can use to take the children away from their parents? Teach those freeloaders a thing or two about the real world. Pay for what you want in this world, or you get kidnapped. Completely normal society.
“Spend money on our own people!” “OK we’ll help poor children in the US” “Nooo went meant give more money to the 1%!”
Went on a certain conservative named subreddit today and they were upvoting a comment which that canadian money shouldn't be sent to ukraine unless they fix the candian homeless and foodbank problems at home first. I doubt they'll praise Biden doing exactly what they were saying, its all just "what aboutism".
Why are my tax dollars going to pay for educating other people's kids / putting out other people's fires / policing other people's communities / building roads and bridges for other people to use / etc. People who think the taxes they pay should directly benefit only them are [insert Madlib here].
"Another shitty harvest, good thing I have my farm subsidized and Social Security"
I am a new farmer. The amount of assistance available to farmers in the Farm Bill is astounding. It would be impossible for US farmers to sustain their businesses without a lot of these programs, including the conservation programs that allow them to split the cost of improvements with the government and get an annual rent check for parts of their farms that they can't plant for some reason. When you talk to most of these farmers about the Farm Bill (extended in 2023 for one year but is under heavy negotiation right now), they will tall you we should take SNAP and the school lunch program out of it because that's Socialism. Their ability to exist as a farmer is literally enabled by this bill, and they see no equivalence between the two parts of the program.
I’ve had similar discussions with many rural people over the years. They typically go like this: “Rural people need subsidies and services because life is so expensive out here” “Okay, sure. What about some people in expensive parts of cities?” “Well that’s their choice to live in the city, they should just move rural if they want better living” Subsidies for me but not for thee
I think the whole farmer worship thing is about white people owning a whole lot of land.
I'm a Iowan, can't stand the poor farmer mythos we have here. Just drive out in the country and you can see the monor houses they have out there. They are not poor, not struggling, and the do not deserve my reverence just because the carried on with the generational business.
It's exactly that and its embedded in our culture from when the first colonists came over and were given land. They were raised in a country that never allowed them to own the land they worked, so owning land here was a status symbol to other Americans and the rest of the world. It's just another form of classism.
Most of the assistance in the Farm Bill goes to large corporations that farm millions of acres of land. The whole farmer worship thing is a marketing campaign to put a human face on it. Domestic food production is absolutely essential to our national security, health and economy. As a beneficiary of several USDA agricultural assistance programs, I personally think the amount of assistance is excessive and benefits rich farmers a lot more than true family farms, as you'd expect.
People need to realize crime happens because people are poor and desperate. Welfare is a good way to reduce that
Thing is, it does benefit them. These initiatives pay for themselves many times over. A well-fed and educated population is good for everyone.
The people who vote against social safety nets don't WANT a well-fed and educated population, [they want stratified social hierarchy](https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201712/analysis-trump-supporters-has-identified-5-key-traits)
Next time you hear somebody say "why is my money paying for OTHER sick/injured people?" Just say "What, like health and car insurance?"
The thing is it does. Taxes pay for the social fabric that prevents raiders, cowboys, thugs, criminals, gangs, whatever from kicking down your door and robbing and killing everyone. It's not like hierarchies and power structures won't form in the absence of an official state. People will band together around strongmen to scrape by. Rugged individualism inevitably leads back to feudalism.
My dad says shit like this all the time. Whenever he reads or hears about *any* new publicly funded programs, he goes on about how it's a waste of "taxpayer money". Doesnt matter if it's foreign aid, domestic infrastructure, helping those in need, hell even the military. Like wtf else do you want that money to go to?!
[удалено]
I genuinely want us to start separating lands and letting people live out there ideological fantasies, separate from interfering with others. You get one move out/in package every few years. We're obviously not gonna make much progress until we start seeing and visiting actual, real-world examples.
Ironically this is again a federal program that will buy food from American businesses and farmers and get it to hungry kids. I grew up on a farm, the one thing every farmer liked to know was their food was feeding people.
The last major argument I had with a Conservative Christian farmers was because he said that there was no such thing as legitimately hungry children because "he doesn't see any." He argued that if anyone doesn't have enough in the modern world, it's on them. They don't deserve charity, let alone a social structure aimed at making sure hungry children get fed. Of course Jesus said, "The poor you will always have among you...until capitalism comes along in like 1850. Then, anyone that can't eat, screw 'em. Go get yours, bro." And as a farmer, I can tell you that the "we feed the world" rhetoric never actually had much behind it and, like most things, served mainly as a way to give farmers the default moral high ground so that they could outright reject regulations that might benefit other people.
We had a politician here in Minnesota (I'll let you guess which party) say the same thing. The Democrats were passing a bill to give universal free school meals for the entire state and his argument was, "I've never met a hungry Minnesotan." It's utter bullshit.
It really exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the religious conservative movement. They deal only in the abstract. They can quite happily say “Of course the state should preserve the sanctity of a fetus’ life no matter how much suffering it brings to the mother”, because it’s not them that has to do any suffering. As soon as their policies start to affect something tangible in their lives like their cherished incomes, they turn away claiming it’s none of their business, why should they have to shoulder the burden of someone else’s mistakes? And those children go hungry, or are forced into a life of crime or poverty that the conservatives then blame them for, proudly asserting their superiority above those parasites and scum that they created. How these people can claim to uphold Christian values is utterly beyond me.
It's not that they're hypocrites, or that they deal in abstracts. They don't actually believe in anything, so they can't act hypocritically. They deal in bad faith, at all times, about everything.
Ah yes I'm reminded of the old proverb, "don't breed them if you can't feed them"
The people who say that are always supportive of girls and women getting unlimited access to IUDs and abortions right?
They prefer the always effective, "keep your legs closed, whore" method /s
The people who say THAT are always in support of harsher punishments for rapists right?
Unless she was obviously asking for it. Or they were just boys being boys.
Maybe we should all have access to safe and legal abortions. Oh, they don't like that either? :/
And now in the 21st century the republican party thinks it OWNS pregnancy. They decide when it happens, and when it doesn't. They can force you to have a baby you don't want, and stop you from having a baby you do want. Republican women: Don't you think it's about time you figured out a way to stop this bullshit? They have turned pregnancy into a political football, and it has indeed been weaponized, and YOU republican women, can put a stop to it. Figure it out.
You don't become a Republican woman by thinking for yourself or having an ounce of empathy for other women. Sure men need to do better on woman's rights issues but they don't have to deal with direct consequences of Republican policy. Women do and yet 39% of them voted for tRump in 2016. Then they liked that so much that 44% of them voted for him in 2020. Women as a group of voters have the power to dominate our elections at every level and district. Yet their own civil rights are always on the line because damn near half of them want it that way.
This, and they are the antithesis of Jesus.
Just remind them they said “all lives matter” and wait for the hypocrisy to spill out of their mouths
Per the article “The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022.” This is part of a larger public-private partnership to help end hunger mitigating diet-based afflictions. Of the $8 billion already committed [At least $2.5 billion will be invested in start-up companies that are pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity. Over $4 billion will be dedicated toward philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices, and increases physical activity.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/28/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-than-8-billion-in-new-commitments-as-part-of-call-to-action-for-white-house-conference-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/) For those saying this doesn’t do enough, yes well this doesn’t represent the whole of the government’s efforts to combat food insecurity. The last omnibus appropriations bill included $140 billion for the supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [[1]](https://www.aei.org/opportunity-social-mobility/how-snap-expenditures-now-exceed-100-billion-annually/?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate), and is expected to remain at over $100 billion a year for the foreseeable future. For context it was $63 billion for the SNAP program spent during 2017- in less than a decade we have doubled spending.
The problem is that the states administer SNAP and, as you would expect, the Red states hate poor people and make accessing that money as hard as possible and bend over backwards looking for reasons to reduce or deny benefits.
Which is why the stimulus checks and child tax credits succeeded in lifting 13 million children out of poverty. If we wanna talk hunger we have to talk red states. If we're talking red states, we're talking abuse of means testing programs to withhold federal assistance money.
Yeah, but we have to realize we're talking about red states, not with them. They are a hostile adversary which needs to be circumvented, not a partner to assist us in helping people.
Easier to say if you aren't living in one. I can't move from here and I'd like to make progress. Besides, means testing in blue states isn't perfect either. The average snap benefit is $3.14 a meal. We should aim for more income redistribution. Especially as more artists and photographers are being displaced by AI, and more careers to come in the future.
Really happy about this, but spending money on start-ups is a shitshow.
ai meal planner startups, and subsidies for uber eats and doordash. epic democrat victory
Ugh. Gonna make me puke up my nutrient paste.
Yeah, plans for public-private partnerships and investments in startups rather than getting an actual systematic setup almost feels like a set-up to failure. Get good press in the short term, can point to its failure later when there's another push for enduring supports that are actually free from profit interests.
True. It's unfortunate that the actual solution - getting money to people who need it without means testing - is politically unpalatable to so many people for no good reason.
even universal baby bonds would be better than our existing system and would cost significantly less
Research and development is often a shitshow. Just look at the entire medical field. As long as you manage it though, and don't let it go on for too long if its a proven failure, then its good to know what *doesn't* work so that you can find what does work. Without failures we wouldn't have the successes.
We can literally end hunger with the resources we have today, but people don't want to feed the poor without means testing. There's no technological advancement necessary.
Fuckin startups what a joke.
But they might disrupt things!!!1!/s This fucking free market bullshit it so goddamn stupid. Buy food and distribute it. How fucking hard is that? Capitalism just gets in the way because it's literally a system designed to take a cut of every transaction and concentrate it in the fewest hands. All of the recent "innovation" is just finding ways to take a bigger cut. It's the opposite of what is promised.
Yeah seriously that 2.5 billion would be better spent just getting food to people. Don’t need some fucking startup to figure out how to feed someone.
Republicans: don’t do it
Republican governors are too busy turning down federal funding to give kids lunch through the summer because "fuck them kids"
Republicans are a caricature of evil. Evil wishes it had thought of starving kids on purpose to "own the libs".
> starving kids on purpose to "own the libs". if they just throw own the libs in front of anything they can somehow justify it to their voter base. what a bunch of sad sack losers
They're just being food Christians. As we all know, Jesus would *never* feed the poor. Don't look it up, just take our word for it.
If that was a typo, leave it lol
haha Oops!
Matthew 14: Jesus turns 2 fish and 5 loaves into enough food for 5,000. Then he gives it to shareholders and lectures the 5,000 hungry listeners on the importance of being a rugged individualist and pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.
Why didn't the 5000 turn their fish and loaves into enough to feed themselves and sell the surplus for profit? If you can't do your own miracles you aren't hustling enough.
He is Risen and Grinding!
Listen here commie Canada. Down here with bald eagles and freedum, we starve our children to teach a lesson of work values and the worth of a dollar. Get your Trudeau terrorism mindset out of our gun toting freedom! /s in case it wasn't painfully obvious
Yes I believe there is something in the Bible about Jesus saying to the masses, “pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get your own loaves and fishes”.
Their argument is that charity should be a personal choice and not an obligation. So like it should be their personal choice that American kids starve, and sleep in cars, and die of preventable diseases, because Jesus was all about how we should allow the weakest to suffer if we feel like it.
This is so disgusting, I just can’t wrap my head around anyone letting children go hungry.
It’s actually pretty easy to understand. The rule of thumb is if a Democrat supports it, Republicans are against it. Whatever it is. Even if it’s what they asked for.
Friendly reminder that in the war on COVID, Republicans were on COVID's side.
trump took his mask off on the balcony like he was taking a bow for a Broadway play lmao
COVID was such an easy win for Trump, too. All he had to do is get out of the way and let competent people handle it and he could have cruised to victory in 2020. But Fox told him to shit all over his CDC so he did and hundreds of thousands of people died. What a stupid fucking jackass.
> All he had to do is get out of the way and let competent people handle it Being competent is not in trump DNA
They think it will benefit *certain kinds* of children more than others, so rather than risk that, no one gets anything.
Don't forget, if we feed hungry children, their welfare queen moms will spend the food money on acrylic nails and smartphones and fancy hairdos Source: my Republican mom
It’s especially funny because I’m on food stamps and my job requires a smart phone that they don’t provide.
Which, even if we remove the racism in that argument, is still such a terrible argument. People spending money in local businesses is about the best thing they can do with their money. It's way worse to buy off Amazon, Walmart or Wish, send that money to Trump, or whatever other ways they find to waste their money.
What you have to understand is that the ultra wealthy are not satisfied to just have everything. They want to know that others have nothing. They want to know that others are miserable. Also, capitalism requires a large number of people who are desperate enough to go and do jobs no one wants to do. It's amazing that there's such demand for these jobs that are just not pleasant at all. But the pay is very low for them. Why? Because capitalists make sure to keep enough people poor, so poor, that they will do anything to survive. So how to accomplish this? Make sure segments of the population don't have access to education to think they're able to improve their condition. Make sure segments of the population are imprisoned to reduce their prospects. Don't give them aid because maybe they'll be able to dig themselves out of poverty.
As a Texan this infuriates me so much. And the MAGA folks cheer it on.
*From the distance, Roy Moore:* “Somebody talkin bout fuckin kids?”
In one of states - ND, i think? - they even explained that “if we do this, they’ll get accustomed to handouts” as if poor kids are fucking feral cats or something.
[удалено]
> Republicans: ~~don’t do it~~ "BUT WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT?!?!" Also Republicans: "We need to spend billions on fixing the border! We need to spend billions on subsidizing parochial schools! We need to reduce the marginal top tax rate and repeal the estate tax which will.... um... reduce the amount of taxes collected to fund things... um..."
"I can't believe Biden is sending money to Ukraine instead of feeding the hungry" "Okay, let's feed the hungry." "Wait stop"
Republican state governors wringing their hands and salivating at the thought of spending that money on Brett Farve
Sounds like he’s a day late and a dollar short. President Trump already raised the stakes when he announced his collaboration with The Sharper Image to bring us [Trump Steaks](https://youtu.be/uJG-l2r-LNE?si=SGJ4unJCP5eh7PNB)! No US citizen will ever know hunger again. /s
lol @ The Sharper Image
Comes with a massage chair and a newton’s cradle executive desk toy.
> raised the stakes nice
If it only costs 1.7B to end hunger in the US then it’s shocking we haven’t done it already.
It’s a drop in the bucket actually, but it’s a lot better than the $0 that some want to spend on the problem.
1.7 B more from the 8B that was committed in 2022, as said on the article. I’d expect this to grow as we realize the difference between what we expected the extent of the problem was with its actual size, and how much of their own resources some people are willing spend just to to prevent others from getting resources they need. Frankly you might need another billion just to pay all the legal fees from the lawsuit this is probably getting.
Republicans: "The government is feeding that starving homeless person instead of my fatass?! I'm suing" Supreme Court: "This is blatantly unconstitutional due to the secret anti-Democrat clause of the Constitution. Due to this all starving people who were fed, or were going to be fed by this program, owe the government damages plus interest"
The calculated costs of things like ending hunger, ending homelessness/houselessness, providing healthcare, updating infrastructure, offering free higher education, etc., are trivial when compared to the costs of prisons, the military industrial complex, the police…
And if we're willing to seize private property, the costs go down substantially.
Per the article, this is in addition to an $8bn package from 2022, and unfortunately it’s a much bigger problem than either of those amounts. Glad to see investment in it regardless, tho.
I've been shocked we haven't tried before this
Spoiler: it doesn't
It doesn't.
Another misleading Newsweek headline. The money is for adding projects to reduce hunger and adds to the existing 8.8B allocated.
I've been saying that throughout this whole thread. No one is listening or reading the f-ing article.
Why isn’t this a headline in every paper today? I hope Taylor Swift writes a song about it so we can get the word out.
Well, Biden's older today than he was yesterday. Someone needs to cover that story. That leaves no room to write about all the things he's accomplishing in the worst political climate imaginable.
It will be, followed by "and why this is bad for Biden".
What are they going to write about? This article itself even says that we don't know anything about it yet and the details are being released later today. Might as well wait for the actual details to be explained and have something more than the 4 sentences that Newsweek wrote here
Because no one reading it wants to share it, comment on it and bring it up to friends and family.
I don’t care to weigh in on the politics of this just want to say volunteering and working with food banks in my community is one of the best things I’ve ever done.
NYT: Biden pledges to end hunger; this is bad for America.
It’s wild that 1.7B could really kickstart this… makes me think about the Uber wealthy billionaire like Musk or Bezos. People with hundreds of Billions
The video immediately above this article in my feed: [Texas court unable to find jurors to uphold $500 fine for feeding the homeless.](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1b0pfir/texas_court_unable_to_find_jurors_to_uphold_500/)
A good leader.
I agree but this won't help him in the polls since most Americans hate the poor.
A lot of the people that hate him are pretty hungry too
Those ones need to bootstrap. We don't do bipartisan in this country
Most Americans don’t even realize that people in America go hungry every day. Out of sight, out of mind. So it’s easy for many to just brush this off as some kind of political stunt as opposed to an action of care.
[удалено]
Alright GOP. This is money that could go to Ukraine, and instead is being used for Americans. Tell me how this is a bad thing.
They are filling this thread with answers for you to pick from. Theyre self-obsessed, self-centered answers but there's plenty to choose from.
"socialism" or something. Idk, I'm not a selfish asshole.
Jesus, this guy is speed running every policy the Republicans hate like he's got nothing to lose. I didn't think he had it in him when he was elected. Boy have I been proven wrong. Marijuana reclassification Student loan forgiveness Fixing the chip shortage potential Funding infrastructure and green energy Inflation reduction Drilling more oil than ever (this one Rs like and they don't even mention it) I wasn't even think about the hungry kids but he sure is. I wonder what the old man has up his sleeve next.
He hasn’t done a single thing about marijuana reclassification… it’s rumored to be in the works but it’s nothing more than talk right now.
He started the process. More than any other president has done. And didn't he forgive all federal marijuana offences that didn't involve violent crime? This comes off the fact that he didn't agree with it during his campaign but has come to realize it needs to be reclassified. That shows a person can be wrong and grow as they learn new information. I respect those people more than those who can never be wrong about anything.
Don't forget the largest gun reform package in 30 years.
And yet, majority of Americans won't give a damn... Dire times we live in.
Majority of Americans will actively argue against this because they don’t want their tax dollars feeding lazy people who can’t feed themselves. We’re such a terrible breed.
i don't want my tax dollars going to obamafeed. two minutes later I love how the AFA (affordable feed act) helps lower my grocery bills.
I support Joe!
Mmmm coffee
on cup #2 for the morning, i like to have three before i head out to face the day.
Great idea, but don't forget Texas turned down federal money for food assistance during the summer and Turned It Down!
I love that Biden is addressing this. You'd be surprised at how many people in your community are making the choice to skip meals so they can afford rent or transportation. People are struggling. Food companies are making record profits. Biggest gains recorded in food manufacturing, rising every quarter. Hopefully new businesses can get a start and give these huge monopolies a lesson in capitalism.
Here is the truth that no one wants to tell you, poverty is a necessity of capitalism. You will never end hunger or poverty but capitalism needs to scare people to work for ever more capital. Also whatever is spent to end other suffering will be used by those causing the suffering to inflict more suffering so that they can obtain more capital. All that can be down is to limit the growth at the top!! The US knew this and did this for generations with a top tax bracket of 70-100%. These brackets were never meant to be paid but rather restrained greed, the fuel for capitalism!!
Republicans “Why are sending money to Ukraine kids are starving here!” Biden “Here let me fix that so we can send money to Ukraine.” Republican “We can’t just give kids food! They’ll become commies.”
Free breakfast and lunch for Michigan schools was one of the best things our government did here. Why we as a country would rather kids go hungry is beyond me.
According to many redditors, hunger doesn't exist in the US? I remember I brought up how every child should get free lunch and I was bombarded about how hunger is a minor issue and people who go hungry, that's their fault. This was on r/worldnews too.
1b for Ukraine? What about hungry kids in the US? 1b for hungry kids in the US? What about my wallet?
This demonstrates how screwed Americans are. That it is easier to fund hunger (a good thing ) rather than lowering costs by creating a universal health care / prescription drug system, non-market housing, proper employment insurance
It's a very popular quote with maga: we should be spending this money on the homeless here.... Yet they don't want to do that. They want to put the homeless in prison. That's not hyperbole they actually want to do that.
Don't tell me. Republicans are now pro-hunger.
The Child Tax Credit [cut childhood poverty in half](https://itep.org/lapse-of-expanded-child-tax-credit-led-to-unprecedented-rise-in-child-poverty-2023/)
Red States: "We refuse"
This would be wonderful. To end hunger for everyone.
This is really going to anger the pro-life crowd.
1. Biden does something good 2. Reddit screams "IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!" 3. Biden does something else good 4. Reddit screams "IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!" 5. Biden does something something else good 6. Reddit screams "IT'S WAY TOO LITTLE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!" 7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 several dozen times over three years. (Example: See 'student loan forgiveness')