this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
481 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19242 readers
2066 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bhmnscmm 82 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Too bad many states will just refuse the money.

[–] franklin 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's the best they can do given the political landscape IMO

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 9 points 9 months ago

That's probably the reason he is pledging it. It will help democrats in those states.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dephyre 69 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm really curious to see what these projects are going to look like. It's estimated that 30-40% of all food in the US is wasted (usda.gov)

USAToday also has a recent story where they discussed some of the climate impacts that could be contributing to.

[–] Pipoca 53 points 9 months ago (23 children)

Keep in mind: the largest source of food waste is residential. The second largest source is restaurants.

Food waste is bad for the environment, sure. But the rent being too damn high is a lot more of the reason why people go hungry than me letting a bagged salad in my fridge go bad.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] rdyoung 11 points 9 months ago (18 children)

This right here. We don't have a food scarcity issue or even a price problem for most things. What we have is a logistics problem. Way too many people live in what are called food deserts. If they have easy access to "food" it's usually of the convenience store variety, overpriced and extremely bad for you.

I know not everyone can afford it but those that can should look at misfits marketplace. They sell the oddball produce that most people won't buy so it doesn't make it your local store, when a design changes drastically or is printed wrong, etc.

Tackiing hunger in this country will take money because money makes thing happen but it will also take more than just buying a bunch of food and handing it out. It's going to take a push for more community gardens, maybe allowing agriculture inside limits where it isn't at the moment, etc.

[–] Pipoca 8 points 9 months ago

Almost half of food waste is people buying food that they let go bad before they eat it.

That's substantially a price problem, in that people are more willing to let a cheap banana spoil than a prime rib or lobster. Food being cheap makes people more willing to let it expire.

But fixing residential food waste by making food more expensive would make hunger worse.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] doingless 51 points 9 months ago (1 children)

$10 billion funded school lunches for a year during COVID and we should have kept it going. School kitchens are back to having to try to collect "lunch debt" again. So how is less than a fifth of that going to end hunger? This is just election posturing and empty promises. Look for more of these coming soon from the right.

[–] HappycamperNZ 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not American, making a number of assumptions on your system.

This 10 billion funded school lunches for everyone, at a multitude of different places. It was broad, unfocused, to cover something now.

How will this 1.7b be applied? Is it given, is it establishing ongoing sources, long term investment in assets?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Noble cause but they already spent 8 billion 2 years ago and there is plenty of hunger. I'm not sure how another 1.7 billion will fix it.

There is plenty of food but the distribution is a big part of the problem, hopefully they are addressing that.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I mean, his admin is ALSO currently trying to block the Kroger/Albertsons merger, for example. So this is clearly not the only thing going on.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Pipoca 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The government spends hundreds of billions on infrastructure every year.

Have we fixed potholes permanently?

Also, $8 billion is a bit less than $24 bucks per person in America. Do you really think $24 is enough to permanently solve hunger in a country? Do you think that another $5/person is reasonable, a few years later?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Can't wait to see Red States reject the aid for their hungriest constituents.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh, a couple of states already did it. Were offered funds to feed kids during the summer time off from school. Rejected for “Socialism”…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FenrirIII 16 points 9 months ago

And those people will still vote Republican to 'own the libs.'

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's SOCIALISM! Why not let RICH PEOPLE do that instead? Also I'm VERY VERY happy Elon Musk paid $44BILLION for a website!

[–] monkeyslikebananas2 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

… and then destroyed it. The man is clearly a genius.

[–] ripcord 10 points 9 months ago

He's doing with it exactly what he wanted originally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago

He can pledge whatever he can, but being in control of only the executive branch, his options are limited.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The GOP will NOT LIKE that. ‘Bama and other states will reject the funding because… reasons.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Harbinger01173430 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I bet it'll all go to the illegal migrants, their luxury rooms and their free credit cards. /S

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Fuck I hope so whatever helps those trying to get ahead. I work with a lot of immigrants and I'd love to give anyone of them those

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Biden administration has announced a $1.7 billion package to fund initiatives aimed at ending hunger across the U.S. by 2030, the White House announced on Tuesday morning.

The commitment will go towards funding 141 projects across the nation.

The full details of the package are expected to be announced by Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, at an event at the White House later on Tuesday.

As of 2022, around 17 million households experienced food insecurity nationwide, and more than 44 million people across the U.S. faced hunger, including one in five children, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022.

This is a breaking story.


The original article contains 127 words, the summary contains 124 words. Saved 2%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›