this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
880 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19247 readers
2933 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 245 points 1 year ago (5 children)

States that participate in the federal program are required to cover half of the administrative costs, which would cost Nebraska an estimated $300,000. Advocates of the program note that the administrative cost is far outweighed by the $18 million benefit, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates would benefit 175,000 Nebraska children who might otherwise go hungry on some days during the summer.

Imagine being such a reprehensible monster that you'd let 175k children in your state starve rather than participate in a federal program that'd help feed them when school is out each summer. It's unconscionable.

[–] FuglyDuck 96 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s unconscionable.

BUt... but... he doesn't believe in welfare! how dare you intrude onto his lack of belief!

(/s. this guy can fuck off to the nether.)

[–] FrostyTrichs 59 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I keep hearing that violence isn't the answer but I swear it feels like.... FOR LEGAL REASONS THIS IS SATIRE

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

What are we supposed to do when our leaders and the wealthy (i.e., a small minority who holds all of the influence) have effectively declared war on the rest of us (i.e., almost everybody)?

[–] billiam0202 12 points 1 year ago

No no no, violence can be the answer, depending on what the question is. Like this:

Historically, what happens when the poorest citizens of a nation have no food, no homes, and no hope for the future, because the rich are hording it all?

[–] takeda 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Fredselfish 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] EmpathicVagrant 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Fredselfish 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I know a real tragedy. Died trying suck his own dick. He will be missed.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So he graped himself in the mouth..

[–] Fredselfish 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, yes he did.

[–] TheBat 7 points 1 year ago

Violence isn't the answer. It is a question and the answer is, 'yes'.

[–] EdibleFriend 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Republicans get off on dead children. It's as simple as that.

[–] irreticent 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

John Wayne Gacy would be proud.

[–] Burn_The_Right 31 points 1 year ago

It's unconscionable

It's conservative.

[–] cultsuperstar 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember, Republicans only care about fetuses. They don't care about babies and kids.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The birthed children need to starve so they can be told they're starving because of democrats.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Every farmer in that state receives welfare. Every fucking farmer benefits from agricultural subsidies.

The governor believes in federal welfare, just not welfare that directly benefits kids.