this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
339 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2816 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
 

Fifteen states — all but one run by Republican governors — skipped the deadline to apply for a new federally-funded program that will provide $120 per child for groceries during the summer months to families of children who already qualify for free or reduced-price lunch at school.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NocturnalMorning 55 points 11 months ago (3 children)

When I was a child I was a part of one of these free and reduced lunch programs. I probably would have gone hungry if it weren't for those programs. I find it incredibly difficult to comprehend how you can look in the mirror every morning after making decisions like this.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When I was in 5th grade I was on that. Because of that, I wasn’t able to have the upgraded items, which was basically chocolate milk vs regular milk. Since pretty much everyone wanted chocolate milk, I had to say I didn’t like chocolate to avoid the shame of being poor… which turned into a huge thing (to kids) about me being the only one who didn’t like chocolate, and because I had to stick to the lie, I was always given “alternate” treats in class—which always sucked.

[–] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe 9 points 11 months ago

That really stinks, I remember the feeling of not wanting the thrifted Hollister or other big name branded clothes my mom would try to get because I knew the other kids would think I had money and treat me differently (poor rural town). It was kind of surreal to be poor, but my parents were fighting the image of poor, only making it harder for us to blend in with the poor community around us. She insisted that they were nice clothes and her children would go to school in nice clothes. To be fair, those clothes were uncomfortable and had print/designs that made it too warm for sweaty pig me. I also had a stutter and an accent from another part of the country, so it wasn't doing me any favors.

I'm glad your parents were able to take advantage of a program that helped them, but man does poverty leave such weird marks on every age involved.

[–] minnow 7 points 11 months ago

These people stopped looking in the mirror a long time ago.

[–] carl_dungeon 4 points 11 months ago

Nah it’s easy, it’s pretty much the same people trying to bring trump back, so they look in the mirror and smile while pissing on a brown person!

[–] Veedem 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They don’t want poor people to depend on government for food or healthcare but they also refuse to raise their minimum wages.

[–] FuglyDuck 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Gotta put people on the street so you have people to draft for wwiii who “no one will miss.”

[–] FuglyDuck 3 points 11 months ago

can't scoop them all up, though. Cuz you need someone to point at say, "that can be you,", to keep all the wage slaves in line.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

They want high crime. Eat the rich.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago

Wait, there was a Democrat that rejected it?

When Louisiana rejected the lunch program, a Democrat was still the governor; on Jan. 8, a Republican took over.

Oh, Louisiana, right, that adds up

[–] PopcornPrincess 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They reject the plans saying it doesn’t address quality nutrition or do anything to combat childhood obesity etc…gee I guess fuck those kids and let them starve is a better plan (/s). It’s absolutely out-of-touch and disgusting rhetoric. Of all the groups of people we should care for collectively, kids should be top priority (parent or not, doesn’t matter).

[–] Reverendender 15 points 11 months ago

For them it’s just about saying No to a democrat, then making up some bullshit excuse. The don’t know, or understand, and they certainly don’t care.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Imagine withholding funding for food that would keep children healthy, while denying people medical care when they get sick.

This is sickening. How does this not bother them? (Rhetorical, it’s because they try not to think about it. Then they try even harder to find a way to blame others)

[–] CADmonkey 2 points 11 months ago

It doesn't bother them because it doesn't affect them personally.

[–] Ekybio 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So pro-life, they let your children starve.

[–] frunch 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well what are we teaching them by giving them food? They'll never have the incentive to work for it if they just get it for free!

🥴

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago

One of the oddballs for the rejection is perhaps South Dakota who indicated that they both lacked the ability to actually administer the program without running afoul of the regulations and lacked the fund to even get it started in the first place.

Or as I took it. We're too incompetent and poor to do this.

[–] Etterra 9 points 11 months ago

Evil, NY Times. The word you're looking for is 'evil.'

[–] verdantbanana 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

if it is a federally-funded program why is it allowed to be state's rights issue?

we need a president that supports federal over state's rights

[–] CoggyMcFee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What would a federal school meal program that operates without the support of the state/local government look like? If schools were federally run then that would be one thing, but they are not.

(I’m really sick of people making absolutely horrible things done by the GOP into a criticism of Biden/Democrats for not doing something extraordinary or impossible to keep it from happening. Especially when the GOP deliberately and cynically does the horrible thing to harm the Democrats’ election chances.)

[–] verdantbanana -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

forgot to add only republicans bad you have to vote democrat and everyone has the right to vote here so it is the people not voting and voting republican ruining the country not the corporate owned politicians

pardon me

[–] CoggyMcFee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You forgot to answer my question actually.

[–] verdantbanana -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

criticizing both corporate parties in my comment

we already pay taxes as citizens and businesses pay too it should go somewhere not just to our neighboring states because the citizens unfortunately lost the geographic lottery or not allowed to vote or whatever in the state they are in

it would look like less funding for the military industrial complex and more school funding for nutrition and education

making everything into a state by state geographic lottery game is too hunger games to accept

states should have to comply with federal law and programs especially when it comes to our future as a nation

biden campaigned on such promises with making the police a federal thing not a state by state wild wild west do whatever unless you are in that other state kind of thing

it would look like our taxes went somewhere and we could see the results

the federal government passes something to do with funding vital human services and states should have to comply

should the states not have to do anything the government decides on?

and without state support? the citizens do not support eating food?

you are confusing government and citizens

[–] CoggyMcFee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I get that you don’t think things should be this way. But you’re singling out Biden for criticism. All I am asking you is just some hypothetical course of action that the president could have been doing to make the school lunch thing happen in this situation.

The law was created by Congress (not the president) and it’s set up as a federally funded, state-administered program. Without some sort of explanation for how Biden should have solved this problem, I have to assume that you are speaking out of ignorance of how our government works. And the thing that frustrates me is that the GOP did this cynical move knowing that people like you will just put the blame on the president. They get what they want from their evil, bullshit political stunts.

And meanwhile, you direct your anger and energy in the wrong place, so that even if you got what you want — a president you think is awesome — you’d find that the problems aren’t solved at all because the government is so much more than the president.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Could you imagine the uproar if the federal government forced these states to participate in programs like this? Having them volunteer seems better in the long run. I mean, if a place like Ohio feels that strongly about not taking money from the government, why stop them? Speaking as someone who lives there, it's on us to vote out the people too stupid/stubborn to take free money.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit 8 points 11 months ago

How else could this play out when the people making those decisions are so far removed from the people they're hurting? They think it's a game to be played for points in the polls, never mind the collateral damage.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

In a better world we'd have some kind of test for empathy for those running for office.

"Thanks for coming in, we have your test results back and it turns out you're an irredemable cunt and therefore you can't run, try being less Republican. All the best."

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants 2 points 11 months ago

Psych evals need to be required to hold political office.

[–] raynethackery 4 points 11 months ago

Which of these States is run by a Democrat governor?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Last week I read something that shocked me, even if it really shouldn’t have: Fifteen states — all but one run by Republican governors — skipped the deadline to apply for a new federally-funded program that will provide $120 per child for groceries during the summer months to families of children who already qualify for free or reduced-price lunch at school.

According to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy, seven of those states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming — are among those that have not fully extended Medicaid to the poor under the Affordable Care Act.

Imagine withholding funding for food that would keep children healthy, while denying people medical care when they get sick.

The cruelty of it is almost incomprehensible, but I’m convinced that this is all part of the punitive posture of so many of today’s Republicans — which in this case is meant to punish poverty, to intensify hardships: their version of an economic “scared straight” program.

Constantly trying to better our lives and hers, she took evening and summer classes to earn certifications and an advanced degree — and that was when she wasn’t teaching night G.E.D.

But now that it has been cut back, one 2023 report found, four in 10 families who had received that extra benefit are skipping meals.


The original article contains 896 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Good! I would MUCH rather my taxpayer dollars be used to buy a rich person a new mansion then to FEED STARVING KIDS!

[–] KaiReeve 2 points 11 months ago

From another article:

They include: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

lol. Standard republican behavior.