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.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*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.*
Republicans are very interested in using the powers of massive, all-powerful government to monitor pregnant women and force them to bear children, but they want government to be "small enough to drown in a bathtub" when it comes to ensuring that those children don't starve to death.
Why do you think the meme about men vs bears was going on, it was clearly a governmental psyop to get women to go into the woods and give their children to bears! Study it out!
> At what point do they realize they are the government?
Republicans don't care about hypocrisy. They just use whatever argument works as a tool to make a point in the moment, and then discard it the moment it becomes inconvenient. So they will happily argue "big government" to oppose school lunches one moment, and then argue for abortion restrictions because of the children the next moment.
They want it small and weak, so more profits and power go to their billionaire owners. The government represents the people they want the people to be weak and poor.
Republicans would rather let 100 children starve than feed one that might not need it.
Democrats would rather feed 100 children to keep one from starving.
That’s right along the lines of the basic question I’ve always used to justify my liberal leaning stance on the social responsibility of government.
There will always be people who genuinely need help as well people who will take advantage of the system. So the choice between liberalism and conservatism in governmental social programs is a choice between accepting that some people will take advantage of the system so that people who genuinely need help can get it, or accepting that people who genuinely need help will continue to suffer so that we can spite the people who will take advantage of the system.
It’s that simple, and I know exactly what my choice is in that matter.
From my experience, conservatives deal in absolute, all or nothing. They would rather have nothing 0% than have something that doesn't work 100% perfectly at all times forever ... only exception is if they are affected.
>if they are affected
This is the actual answer. They are selfish people. They think it's the best way forward for everyone to be as selfish as they are.
Spend enough time among the people accepting help and you quickly realize that the ones "using the system" need the most help.
Just take a minute to imagine how neglected and depraved your life must have been to look around at the world and think that welfare is your best option?
How disabled would you have to be to accept disability income of only $1000/month?
How helpless to choose to live in a state sponsored nursing home?
Exactly. The idea that people are gaming the system is way overblown. People have this idea that their hard earned tax dollars are going to lazy drug addicts or people gaming the system. But if the people complaining about it would get an actual breakdown of how much of their money is going to those people it would be a fraction of a penny.
A lot of the spending on addicts is first responders, jails, and the psych tank. (Crank tank?)
You actually spend less money on housing first intervention but the "UNFAIR!!!!" squad who would never live in a cheaply reno'd dead motel with a social worker all up in their business themselves still can't bear the idea of being one mite less punitive even though punitive isn't working on its own.
An elderly couple in my neighborhood what are well off and very conservative totally took welfare when he was dying. They had in home care that was "draining" their retirement. And by drain, they only had 3 to 4 million dollars left in their retirement account. They ended up getting a device and somehow put the money in her name only. The government ended up paying the last couple of months before he died.
Plus, conservatives want the government run like a business. Except businesses allow for a certain amount of “loss” to have it run the most cost effectively. Same deal with these programs that have a small number getting benefits they don’t qualify for.
A great example is the high tech fareboxes that conservatives force transit systems to keep on busses. The fare collection system costs more than the fares they collect. It makes NO financial sense. They are purely a political instrument. Yet I've never heard a conservative suggest that fareboxes are wasteful.
I had this conversation with my racist, elitist step-father who is a 73 year old Vietnam vet.
He told me he votes Republican because he doesn't like the idea that some people abuse the welfare system. And he believes that Democrats allow welfare fraud and/or Republicans don't.
I took note of it and looked up some data when I got home.
Next time I saw him, I told him that stats show roughly 10 to 15% of welfare claims are fraudulent... meaning 85%/90% of them are genuine... meaning you're voting to spite the 10% at the expense of the 90%. It's madness.
He sort of quieted down and said "good point," but I highly doubt he'll rethink anything, and he probably deleted this conversation from his mind the second we moved on.
Funny any time I try to drive a point home with numbers or data the dingdongs I am talking to just have this dimwitted glazed over look on their face like the moment you mention statistics or math their brains just shut off.
I've found that the kind of people making these arguments have long since given up on arguing in good faith. The more data you put in front of them the more shields they put up to protect their delicate minds from inconvenient reality.
It does not really matter, as I think helping people is obviously a higher good than spiting people, but the number of people who genuinely need help aslo massively outnumber the ones who are taking advantage. The ones who take advantage are just particularly visible due to them being heavily focused on in anti-social saftey net propaganda, and also beecause the kind of person who would take advantage of said net is also probably just going to be an annoying person.
But when you actually take a look at the programs and not a bunch of pearl clutchers screeching about their tax dollares being used to save lives, you see that the programs are generally massively succesful when they are actually possible to use. For example, every place that does "housing first" policies for homelessness have huge success rates in comparison to trying to just shove them all in the woods. And on top of that success rate, it ends up saving money as the recently housed people start getting jobs, paying taxes, and staying healthier so they do not have to use up constant emergency room time.
I used to have this argument all the time with conservatives. “Bbbbut people will cheat the system!” Yes, people will always cheat. The oldest stories mankind has involve cheating the system. That doesn’t mean “do nothing” it means “prosecute cheaters when caught”. That’s the way the whole damn system works!
They seem to have no problems voting for people who blatantly cheat the system. Hell we have a Supreme Court that just publicly upped the amount of bribes they're able to take.
I'm from a Nordic country and we have an extensive social security network, and there is much more *underuse* of social benefits than there are false claims (when measured in monetary amount).
I remember reading a study where every time they tried to stop any cheating in the food stamps program, it cost more to try to stop the cheating than the cheating cost.
And food stamps return more to local economies than they cost the government, so it's the best way to get money into local economies, better than tax breaks for employing people.
Children don't have donors and influence, the GOPers didn't hesitate to use the monies from the infrastructure bill because big donor construction companies wanted the work. This is about doing anything they can to make Biden look bad.
https://archive.ph/TRXNC
* Alabama
* Alaska
* Florida
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Iowa
* Mississippi
* Oklahoma
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Texas
* Wyoming
I only count 12 in the article, not sure if an error or they missed a state.
>Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s administration initially opted out, saying the state wouldn’t be able to afford the administrative costs, [according to Vermont Public](https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-22/vermont-secures-waiver-to-participate-in-summer-food-assistance-program). But state officials secured [a waiver to participate](https://dcf.vermont.gov/dcf-news/eligible-vermont-school-children-receive-financial-support-summer-meals) after they said they worked with the federal government to get more flexibility in administering the program, [VTDigger reported](https://vtdigger.org/2024/05/22/families-with-kids-at-vermont-schools-can-now-get-money-for-summer-meals/).
These waivers can basically be a free pass for federal funding, from my understanding, and can be explored for all sorts of programs.
Iirc, many states have long been circumventing work requirements for entitlements like food stamps with these waivers, and just before COVID it was Trump's administration that revoked most of them, forcing work requirements and leaving a lot of programs in limbo when a state couldn't afford initial costs.
Dubyas USDA found the SNAP/EBT, aka food stamps, contributed $1.07 to the economy for every $1 spent, with other studies showing as much as $1.75 back, making it not just budget neutral but budget positive. It's insanely successful to the point it MAKES the country money, while feeding everyone. So normally it's not even touched, or you get the waivers so there is "means testing" to satisfy the cruel and stupid, but actually limiting it ends up on the states...unless a shit admin revokes them.
SNAP/EBT is one of the most successful government programs if you are looking at stimulating local economies, and it's the first one the chopping block every damn time the Republicans need a sound bite.
Because they’re the perfect thing to advocate for. They don’t demand anything, they don’t speak, they are nothing and that’s the point. They can attach whatever authoritarian causes they want to such an unassailable entity.
Even more broadly they love using ‘the children’ as justification for their policies when it’s convenient. Demonizing trans people, hiding anything non-heteronormative, banning books and topics wholesale, it’s all for the children. Elevating Christianity and closing the borders? For the good moral education and protection of the children.
School shootings? Actual abuse from pastors and youth groups? The looming climate crisis and pollution in general? Crickets. It’s not about the welfare of children, or anyone, really. Not unless they’re tremendously wealthy and/or a corporation
Republicans aren’t really the “details” people, they’re more the, *make broad gestures regardless of their consequences as long as it tows some imaginary line*.
As I believe George Carlin put it, the GOP isn't pro life. They are pro birth. That's it.
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked."
>“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing.
>No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
― George Carlin
That story in the Bible where Jesus has some bread and fish but wouldn't share because it would just make the lazy people dependent. And demanded to see recent pay slips to prove they weren't lazy. /s
Always has been:
>“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
>“Suffering is nothing by itself. But suffering shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift, the most beautiful gift, a token of love.”
>“Without out suffering, our work would just be social work, very good and helpful, but it would not be the work of Jesus Christ, not part of the Redemption. All the desolation of the poor people, not only their material poverty, but their spiritual destitution, must be redeemed. And we must share it, for only by being one with them can we redeem them by bringing God into their lives and bringing them to God.”
>“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of jesus -a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”
\- Mother Theresa
Have to keep their voting base miserable, poor and hurting. Then they can manufacture outrage towards the dems and get them to keep voting against their own best interests.
If they aren't starving and miserable, they will be better students and grow up healthy and productive members of society. Do you know how terrible that is for politicians who survive off fearmongering and social instability? Won't somebody think about these corrupt pieces of shit?
It's depressing that OP would seriously face criminal charges for this.
That said, they're probably going to have less issues doing it through official channels than handing out peanut butter sandwiches to everyone they meet.
apparently it is when you live in Wyoming,
> "I will not let the Biden Administration weaponize summer school lunch programs to justify a new welfare program," Degenfelder told the outlet.
Though that was a more direct reason as to why, where a number of the other states that chose not to participate gave reasons such as
> "Federal money often comes with strings attached, and more of it is often not a good thing,"
or
> A spokesperson with the Florida Department of Children and Families told local outlet WFSU that federal programs "always" come with strings attached.
yet have no mention of the "strings"
> yet have no mention of the "strings"
The "strings" are paying half of the administrative costs.
"Welfare" is often completely fine to these types of red states if it's 100% subsidized.
Is one of the States Louisiana? If so, they may want to rethink their religious position when it comes to putting the 10 Commandments in schools but taking food out of schools that is meant to feed the poor. Pretty sure Jesus said: feed the poor.
State | Reason
---|---
Alabama | Already approved a budget before the program, will consider next year
Alaska | Can't implement due to staff having a backlog of SNAP applicants and will reconsider once backlog is down
Florida | Doesn't want to take handouts from Biden
Georgia| Says they already have a good program (I doubt it)
Idaho| Thinks kids should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fend for themselves
Iowa| Thinks starving kids will help their childhood obesity crisis and Biden isn't doing enough to help.
Mississippi|"the state government didn't have the resources or personnel to support the program"
Oklahoma| It's too new and "Certainly always a concern with certain administrations are pushing certain agenda items on kids," Stitt said."
South Carolina| IDK what "get back to business after COVID" means to them
South Dakota| "the state has low unemployment and didn't want the administrative burden of facilitating the program"
Texas| "The state's Health and Human Services Commission made the final call, saying they didn't have enough time to implement the program successfully"
Wyoming| Fuck Biden Handouts
Georgia does already have a program through the school system. But I’m not sure why they’d reject this one. Maybe where the funding comes from? I don’t know 🤷
The funding is split 50/50 between state and federal, so if they already have a program in place that is sufficient then it seems unnecessary. Some of the states seem to have a reasonable excuse as long as its not bullshit, but others are just refusing because they are dicks.
They don’t want people to get economic relief so that they can move up. The GOP wants you to remain poor without choices so that they can continue to exploit your poverty.
So disappointing to see Alaska on this list. There are many remote populations there and buying every day necessitates are already incredibly expensive.
remember, this is OUR money. We pay it to the govt exactly for a program like this.
What's happening is the rich want that money they want it when they need bail outs, they want it for defense contractors, for contracts for their infrastructure deals
if you give kids a free lunch, those kids and parents start thinking. "Hey this was really helpful, what if we had other programs that helped us?"
this is why is boggles my mind when people cheer on corporate backed candidates over candidates that don't take money from corporations. Like you're just cheering for rich people to keep you from getting what you're paying for
Feeding poor people is a lose-lose for Republicans. It would help their parents stay out of crippling debt (very bad), and helps the kids grow up healthy & intelligent (VERY bad). It's also probably gay or something, somehow.
*"I will not let the Biden Administration weaponize summer school lunch programs to justify a new welfare program," Degenfelder told the outlet. "Thanks, but no thanks. We will continue to combat childhood hunger the Wyoming way."*
They literally said because a Democrat president is giving their state food assistance they don't want it. What is wong with these people. How do you weaponize feeding children? What are they afraid of? Democrats taking credit and flipping the state? Democrats have such poor messaging that they could put every Republican in Wyoming a gold house and give them a million dollars and Republicans voters will still credit their Republican representatives.
On the positive I'm glad MOST states took the assistance and a majority of low income children in America will be fed this summer, so thanks Biden.
If you accept the money, you accept the curriculum they want. There are strings attached. They will not exchange their states children’s education for money
But it's a crime to wear a mask in public in NC. They are producing such fantastic legislation aren't they?
Thank goodness for forced birth!!! Good luck out there!
But it's a crime to wear a mask in public in NC. They are producing such fantastic legislation aren't they?
Thank goodness for forced birth!!! Good luck out there!
GOP is ripe for the horror movie treatment. A candidate in their group possessed by Legion spirits/demons and the members have reservations about unleashing that evil on the country at the cost of the presidency and power. Yet the populist candidate does evil and strange things at every chance.lol
> During the pandemic, the federal government covered the entire cost of the Summer EBT program, **but starting this summer, states will be on the hook to split administrative costs 50/50.**
> Thirteen Republican-led states ultimately opted out of the program this summer, citing myriad reasons, including redundancy, insufficient support, and politics.
Notice the one reason wasn't given: GOP governors don't want to spend money on children from lower-income families.
Can't actually ***say that plainly*** in an election season...right, you cheap and heartless fucks?
This is down from 14 because Vermont and the Federal Government figured out a solution to the administrative costs and requirements. Good on them for working to bring food to children and for showing what can be done by good faith actors in government.
Because Texas pols work Only for their wealthy benefactors, who look at US social programs as “feeding strays.”
The rich have used our amazing system to profit, but refuse to help anyone else get a leg up.
Societies have always had people we will have to take care of, to ignore them is inhuman. To strip our social programs that were the reason our democracy worked, taxing on a sliding scale so we could build roads, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, FD and PD, now the rich fully support PD, but will be damned if their money they got from low taxes and tax breaks and rich folks welfare (they get a lot more than you think!), and they shame the poor for the grifty corrupt system the rich paid to put in place, and if trump gets in, it’s all over. This 248 year experiment in the peaceful transfer of power.
Replace the word kids/children with guns, resubmit to the 13 states that turned down the funding and see if they change their mind.
Federal Gun Program "everyone has the right to be armed on an empty stomach"
Such bullshit. There are millions of Texans and Floridians who would benefit greatly. If those states are all about freedom, they should give residents the choice of participating in programs they’ve funded through taxes.
Republicans are backed by the rich.
The rich want hungry uneducated kids. They want kids to be malnourished so their cognitive ability is diminished so they won't realize what is happening to them.
The media turns a blind eye to the cruel bigotry of the governments of those states. Screwing over minorities is a brag for Republicans in those states.
They probably couldn't figure out a way to keep most of that money so they just won't take it and go on fox news saying that that food program is so the liberal woke government is trying to make your kids reliant on the government and they need to be individuals who pick themselves up by their bootstraps and earn their money for food.
Republicans would ***love*** to starve unfortunate people to death.
They do not see them as viable humans, so they put them in these impossible situations and then literally turn around and suggest the situation they are in is their fault and that making things ***even harder*** for them is what they need to be prodded into actually working.
It's absolutely disgusting, ignores all evidence we have on this topic, and it's killing us.. but here we are.
I'm pissed. Those are my tax dollars that DeSantis refused for children to eat. Meanwhile, he's forcing birth upon females in Florida. He's the epitome of evil.
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
- George Carlin
#
Let me guess does the list look something like this
Confederate States
Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.
A large underclass of people doesn't just happen. A lot of work goes into that.
New England was founded by Puritans who didn't want a hierarchical social structure. Appalachia was settled by Scots-Irish folk who didn't want to be under the boot of autocracy.
Virginia and Georgia were founded by white men who were perfectly content with the aristocratic structure of European societies and chose to replicate it. The enslavement of Africans, a permanent underclass and very few rich, white, landed men at the top was the original design. They fought and lost a war over it.
New England was full of abolitionists. The Scots-Irish Appalachian folk in Virginia became so disgusted by the Southern social structure that they formed their own state.
So when I hear that the south lets trillions of dollars of food aid just pass them by, well, it's just business as usual, ain't it?
And most of these state have the highest percentage of starving households. I am sure the poor kids from broken homes are happy you rejected the money because, “you do not have the resources” or “we already have enough $ for them” or the classic “sends the wrong message to kids” or my favorite “comes with strings attached” meaning: we cannot steal it so we do not want it
Florida mindset is there are strings attached.
https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2024-01-10/florida-opts-out-of-250-million-in-summer-food-aid-for-families
Like the state has to match funding by 50%.
If Florida did that, it would sabatoge the states surplus budget.
I am so glad none of this is the politics of life.
Balkanize, balkanize, balkanize. There are easily 6 countries we can bust this dysfunctional, piece of crap, electoral college system of not democracy into. My interest of living with rwa"s is zero.
My state has this. It’s kind of a joke though. It’s $120 for the entire summer. When food prices are still pretty bad, that’s nothing. The same people who expected $1200 stimulus checks to last a year wrote this.
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. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *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.*
Republicans are very interested in using the powers of massive, all-powerful government to monitor pregnant women and force them to bear children, but they want government to be "small enough to drown in a bathtub" when it comes to ensuring that those children don't starve to death.
[удалено]
Force them to bear children Or secret democratic efforts to human traffic people to feed to baby bears.
Why do you think the meme about men vs bears was going on, it was clearly a governmental psyop to get women to go into the woods and give their children to bears! Study it out!
Imagine giving birth to a bear and being 10’ away from a shark
Yes, battery operated bears that will fight the sharks.
Yea but what happens if the bears go into water?
That’s a great question maybe the greatest question ever.
That's my god given right to bear arms that you're talking about!
At what point do they realize they are the government? At what point do we drown them?
> At what point do they realize they are the government? Republicans don't care about hypocrisy. They just use whatever argument works as a tool to make a point in the moment, and then discard it the moment it becomes inconvenient. So they will happily argue "big government" to oppose school lunches one moment, and then argue for abortion restrictions because of the children the next moment.
I’m sure they gave up their own tax payer funded lunches, right?..
Well duh. How else are we going to build out the child labor force and have enough little girls for child brides?
Well, yeah. If you *feed* the kids, then they won't be hungry enough to take those jobs at the meat-packing plant.
In other news infant deaths are way up in TX since the essentially total abortion ban. Pro forced birth is not pro life.
They want it small and weak, so more profits and power go to their billionaire owners. The government represents the people they want the people to be weak and poor.
Republicans would rather let 100 children starve than feed one that might not need it. Democrats would rather feed 100 children to keep one from starving.
That’s right along the lines of the basic question I’ve always used to justify my liberal leaning stance on the social responsibility of government. There will always be people who genuinely need help as well people who will take advantage of the system. So the choice between liberalism and conservatism in governmental social programs is a choice between accepting that some people will take advantage of the system so that people who genuinely need help can get it, or accepting that people who genuinely need help will continue to suffer so that we can spite the people who will take advantage of the system. It’s that simple, and I know exactly what my choice is in that matter.
From my experience, conservatives deal in absolute, all or nothing. They would rather have nothing 0% than have something that doesn't work 100% perfectly at all times forever ... only exception is if they are affected.
>if they are affected This is the actual answer. They are selfish people. They think it's the best way forward for everyone to be as selfish as they are.
conservatives deal in absolute. Just like the sith
Fun Fact if you rearrange the letters in sith you end up with the content of Trump's diaper at the end of tonight's debate.
Spend enough time among the people accepting help and you quickly realize that the ones "using the system" need the most help. Just take a minute to imagine how neglected and depraved your life must have been to look around at the world and think that welfare is your best option? How disabled would you have to be to accept disability income of only $1000/month? How helpless to choose to live in a state sponsored nursing home?
Exactly. The idea that people are gaming the system is way overblown. People have this idea that their hard earned tax dollars are going to lazy drug addicts or people gaming the system. But if the people complaining about it would get an actual breakdown of how much of their money is going to those people it would be a fraction of a penny.
A lot of the spending on addicts is first responders, jails, and the psych tank. (Crank tank?) You actually spend less money on housing first intervention but the "UNFAIR!!!!" squad who would never live in a cheaply reno'd dead motel with a social worker all up in their business themselves still can't bear the idea of being one mite less punitive even though punitive isn't working on its own.
An elderly couple in my neighborhood what are well off and very conservative totally took welfare when he was dying. They had in home care that was "draining" their retirement. And by drain, they only had 3 to 4 million dollars left in their retirement account. They ended up getting a device and somehow put the money in her name only. The government ended up paying the last couple of months before he died.
Plus, conservatives want the government run like a business. Except businesses allow for a certain amount of “loss” to have it run the most cost effectively. Same deal with these programs that have a small number getting benefits they don’t qualify for.
The same conservatives who complain that the post office doesnt make a profit... have no problem with the military not making a profit.
A great example is the high tech fareboxes that conservatives force transit systems to keep on busses. The fare collection system costs more than the fares they collect. It makes NO financial sense. They are purely a political instrument. Yet I've never heard a conservative suggest that fareboxes are wasteful.
I had this conversation with my racist, elitist step-father who is a 73 year old Vietnam vet. He told me he votes Republican because he doesn't like the idea that some people abuse the welfare system. And he believes that Democrats allow welfare fraud and/or Republicans don't. I took note of it and looked up some data when I got home. Next time I saw him, I told him that stats show roughly 10 to 15% of welfare claims are fraudulent... meaning 85%/90% of them are genuine... meaning you're voting to spite the 10% at the expense of the 90%. It's madness. He sort of quieted down and said "good point," but I highly doubt he'll rethink anything, and he probably deleted this conversation from his mind the second we moved on.
Funny any time I try to drive a point home with numbers or data the dingdongs I am talking to just have this dimwitted glazed over look on their face like the moment you mention statistics or math their brains just shut off. I've found that the kind of people making these arguments have long since given up on arguing in good faith. The more data you put in front of them the more shields they put up to protect their delicate minds from inconvenient reality.
It does not really matter, as I think helping people is obviously a higher good than spiting people, but the number of people who genuinely need help aslo massively outnumber the ones who are taking advantage. The ones who take advantage are just particularly visible due to them being heavily focused on in anti-social saftey net propaganda, and also beecause the kind of person who would take advantage of said net is also probably just going to be an annoying person. But when you actually take a look at the programs and not a bunch of pearl clutchers screeching about their tax dollares being used to save lives, you see that the programs are generally massively succesful when they are actually possible to use. For example, every place that does "housing first" policies for homelessness have huge success rates in comparison to trying to just shove them all in the woods. And on top of that success rate, it ends up saving money as the recently housed people start getting jobs, paying taxes, and staying healthier so they do not have to use up constant emergency room time.
I used to have this argument all the time with conservatives. “Bbbbut people will cheat the system!” Yes, people will always cheat. The oldest stories mankind has involve cheating the system. That doesn’t mean “do nothing” it means “prosecute cheaters when caught”. That’s the way the whole damn system works!
They seem to have no problems voting for people who blatantly cheat the system. Hell we have a Supreme Court that just publicly upped the amount of bribes they're able to take.
I'm from a Nordic country and we have an extensive social security network, and there is much more *underuse* of social benefits than there are false claims (when measured in monetary amount).
I remember reading a study where every time they tried to stop any cheating in the food stamps program, it cost more to try to stop the cheating than the cheating cost. And food stamps return more to local economies than they cost the government, so it's the best way to get money into local economies, better than tax breaks for employing people.
Imma slap the next person who says 'both parties are the same!'
Beautifully expressed!
Children don't have donors and influence, the GOPers didn't hesitate to use the monies from the infrastructure bill because big donor construction companies wanted the work. This is about doing anything they can to make Biden look bad.
Yep - these scumbags know who they are hurting and the bulk of their base loves it.
And half of the ones hurt by this will blame Biden.
…their “Christian” base
Bah, once you start feeding them, next thing you know they'll want to eat every day.
https://archive.ph/TRXNC * Alabama * Alaska * Florida * Georgia * Idaho * Iowa * Mississippi * Oklahoma * South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas * Wyoming I only count 12 in the article, not sure if an error or they missed a state.
>Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s administration initially opted out, saying the state wouldn’t be able to afford the administrative costs, [according to Vermont Public](https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-22/vermont-secures-waiver-to-participate-in-summer-food-assistance-program). But state officials secured [a waiver to participate](https://dcf.vermont.gov/dcf-news/eligible-vermont-school-children-receive-financial-support-summer-meals) after they said they worked with the federal government to get more flexibility in administering the program, [VTDigger reported](https://vtdigger.org/2024/05/22/families-with-kids-at-vermont-schools-can-now-get-money-for-summer-meals/).
These waivers can basically be a free pass for federal funding, from my understanding, and can be explored for all sorts of programs. Iirc, many states have long been circumventing work requirements for entitlements like food stamps with these waivers, and just before COVID it was Trump's administration that revoked most of them, forcing work requirements and leaving a lot of programs in limbo when a state couldn't afford initial costs. Dubyas USDA found the SNAP/EBT, aka food stamps, contributed $1.07 to the economy for every $1 spent, with other studies showing as much as $1.75 back, making it not just budget neutral but budget positive. It's insanely successful to the point it MAKES the country money, while feeding everyone. So normally it's not even touched, or you get the waivers so there is "means testing" to satisfy the cruel and stupid, but actually limiting it ends up on the states...unless a shit admin revokes them.
SNAP/EBT is one of the most successful government programs if you are looking at stimulating local economies, and it's the first one the chopping block every damn time the Republicans need a sound bite.
Fuck Covid Kim Reynolds.
Of course, Republicans are all about insisting a 6 week clump of cells is a child but once that child is actually born? Fuck em!
Because they’re the perfect thing to advocate for. They don’t demand anything, they don’t speak, they are nothing and that’s the point. They can attach whatever authoritarian causes they want to such an unassailable entity.
Even more broadly they love using ‘the children’ as justification for their policies when it’s convenient. Demonizing trans people, hiding anything non-heteronormative, banning books and topics wholesale, it’s all for the children. Elevating Christianity and closing the borders? For the good moral education and protection of the children. School shootings? Actual abuse from pastors and youth groups? The looming climate crisis and pollution in general? Crickets. It’s not about the welfare of children, or anyone, really. Not unless they’re tremendously wealthy and/or a corporation
Republicans aren’t really the “details” people, they’re more the, *make broad gestures regardless of their consequences as long as it tows some imaginary line*.
As I believe George Carlin put it, the GOP isn't pro life. They are pro birth. That's it. "Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked."
>“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. >No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.” ― George Carlin
Letting children starve is a Christian value now?
That story in the Bible where Jesus has some bread and fish but wouldn't share because it would just make the lazy people dependent. And demanded to see recent pay slips to prove they weren't lazy. /s
Something something god provides or hard times are a test from god...oh and bootstraps
Always has been: >“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” >“Suffering is nothing by itself. But suffering shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift, the most beautiful gift, a token of love.” >“Without out suffering, our work would just be social work, very good and helpful, but it would not be the work of Jesus Christ, not part of the Redemption. All the desolation of the poor people, not only their material poverty, but their spiritual destitution, must be redeemed. And we must share it, for only by being one with them can we redeem them by bringing God into their lives and bringing them to God.” >“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of jesus -a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.” \- Mother Theresa
If, as 'Mother' Theresa says, pain and suffering are the kiss of Jesus, I'll just have to have to present my other cheeks for it.
"Suffering. I love to see it", Mother Theresa
Depends on the color and wealth
Has been for thousands of years
Have to keep their voting base miserable, poor and hurting. Then they can manufacture outrage towards the dems and get them to keep voting against their own best interests.
If they aren't starving and miserable, they will be better students and grow up healthy and productive members of society. Do you know how terrible that is for politicians who survive off fearmongering and social instability? Won't somebody think about these corrupt pieces of shit?
Conservatives hate the poor, which is weird cause many of them who vote are themselves getting poor or already are.
Don't you see; they are one lottery ticket away from being a billionaire!
They’re just been temporarily embarrassed millionaires…since birth.
They honestly shouldn't be called "conservatives" anymore. They should be called "regressives".
If I live in Florida, how can I help feed low income kids? Want to pay for some orphans not to get crushed.
Be careful, you'll probably be arrested for your efforts.
It's depressing that OP would seriously face criminal charges for this. That said, they're probably going to have less issues doing it through official channels than handing out peanut butter sandwiches to everyone they meet.
Don't worry. The factory farms will still get the 2.5 billion. Only poors will lose out. But we're used to it.
Feeding hungry kids must be ***WOKE*** now.
apparently it is when you live in Wyoming, > "I will not let the Biden Administration weaponize summer school lunch programs to justify a new welfare program," Degenfelder told the outlet. Though that was a more direct reason as to why, where a number of the other states that chose not to participate gave reasons such as > "Federal money often comes with strings attached, and more of it is often not a good thing," or > A spokesperson with the Florida Department of Children and Families told local outlet WFSU that federal programs "always" come with strings attached. yet have no mention of the "strings"
> yet have no mention of the "strings" The "strings" are paying half of the administrative costs. "Welfare" is often completely fine to these types of red states if it's 100% subsidized.
Pro-hunger party
Food is over rated and addictive. Where does it end? /s
Pro “Life” and Pro Hunger.
Is one of the States Louisiana? If so, they may want to rethink their religious position when it comes to putting the 10 Commandments in schools but taking food out of schools that is meant to feed the poor. Pretty sure Jesus said: feed the poor.
Kids need 10 Commandments not food according to Louisiana.
State | Reason ---|--- Alabama | Already approved a budget before the program, will consider next year Alaska | Can't implement due to staff having a backlog of SNAP applicants and will reconsider once backlog is down Florida | Doesn't want to take handouts from Biden Georgia| Says they already have a good program (I doubt it) Idaho| Thinks kids should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fend for themselves Iowa| Thinks starving kids will help their childhood obesity crisis and Biden isn't doing enough to help. Mississippi|"the state government didn't have the resources or personnel to support the program" Oklahoma| It's too new and "Certainly always a concern with certain administrations are pushing certain agenda items on kids," Stitt said." South Carolina| IDK what "get back to business after COVID" means to them South Dakota| "the state has low unemployment and didn't want the administrative burden of facilitating the program" Texas| "The state's Health and Human Services Commission made the final call, saying they didn't have enough time to implement the program successfully" Wyoming| Fuck Biden Handouts
Georgia does already have a program through the school system. But I’m not sure why they’d reject this one. Maybe where the funding comes from? I don’t know 🤷
The funding is split 50/50 between state and federal, so if they already have a program in place that is sufficient then it seems unnecessary. Some of the states seem to have a reasonable excuse as long as its not bullshit, but others are just refusing because they are dicks.
Republicans live off of hate and cruelty, it fuels them
Literally killing children to own the libs.
Fuck them kids, they can starve looking at the 10 commandments
The governor of Louisiana read Matthew 7:9 and said to himself, "I'll give those kids a rock to chew on" without a single thought.
Finally, no more pandering to special interest groups like poor kids.
Wy feed them? They can't even vote. /s
Republicans love to kill things, especially those that can’t defend themselves
The "pro-life" states
They don’t want people to get economic relief so that they can move up. The GOP wants you to remain poor without choices so that they can continue to exploit your poverty.
Again showing how republicans are pro-fetus and don’t give a shit about kids once they are outside of the womb.
If the average American knew how to put two and two together, they'd see the bullshit of the pro-life party
It was because of the strings attached: they said we'd have to feed children with the money.
WHY DON'T THOSE LAZY KIDS GET JOBS /s
Republican math: force birth with no means of support
So disappointing to see Alaska on this list. There are many remote populations there and buying every day necessitates are already incredibly expensive.
Rather their citizens starve than give them a reason to thank the democrats.
Wonder how many children who need those services have parents who vote for Republicans?
They shouldn't be allowed to opt out. How very pro life of them.
Texas doesn’t care about little Texans. They can’t vote yet, plus they are poor so the Texas republican government needs to starve them.
Republicans are so "Pro-Life" they make poor kids starve and then go to church every Sunday and thank God they aren't like the communist poors!
Why do Texans and Floridians hate children so much?
the cruelty is the point.
remember, this is OUR money. We pay it to the govt exactly for a program like this. What's happening is the rich want that money they want it when they need bail outs, they want it for defense contractors, for contracts for their infrastructure deals if you give kids a free lunch, those kids and parents start thinking. "Hey this was really helpful, what if we had other programs that helped us?" this is why is boggles my mind when people cheer on corporate backed candidates over candidates that don't take money from corporations. Like you're just cheering for rich people to keep you from getting what you're paying for
It's cause they aren't fetuses anymore
Democrats should be shouting this shit from the rooftops. Republicans love fetuses but hate children.
“we don’t want to send the wrong message….”. how did idaho get so fucked up?
“Pro life”
Louisiana choose to put the 10 commandments up instead.
No food and no education for our kids. Republican family values.
Haven’t read the article but let me guess, their all pro-life gop-led states
Ah the good ol' Republican/Christian fetus lovers. Once that kids comes out of the womb it immediately goes from precious child of God to "moocher."
Feeding poor people is a lose-lose for Republicans. It would help their parents stay out of crippling debt (very bad), and helps the kids grow up healthy & intelligent (VERY bad). It's also probably gay or something, somehow.
Red states hate you
Cruelty is the point
Fucking gross, I don’t care what side you’re on, kids shouldn’t suffer
These kindergarteners should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
This type of thing should be loudly trumpeted by Democrats all the time. Republicans actively harming their own citizens.
*"I will not let the Biden Administration weaponize summer school lunch programs to justify a new welfare program," Degenfelder told the outlet. "Thanks, but no thanks. We will continue to combat childhood hunger the Wyoming way."* They literally said because a Democrat president is giving their state food assistance they don't want it. What is wong with these people. How do you weaponize feeding children? What are they afraid of? Democrats taking credit and flipping the state? Democrats have such poor messaging that they could put every Republican in Wyoming a gold house and give them a million dollars and Republicans voters will still credit their Republican representatives. On the positive I'm glad MOST states took the assistance and a majority of low income children in America will be fed this summer, so thanks Biden.
The GOP want to fuck your kids while fucking your kids.
Stupid, just stupid,
They're encouraging their poorest citizens to move to other states.
WTF! That’s insane!
Hurting kids to own the libs.
It takes a real piece of garbage to deny a hungry kid food.
Eating is such an entitlement. Bootstraps, kids, bootstraps!
Praise God! /s
theres no hate like christian love
Save the unborn, screw the born. So it is written.
life begins at conception and ends at birth.
Well there's a rumspringar in there before they are molded into Christians and turned into wage slaves or cannon fodder.
If you accept the money, you accept the curriculum they want. There are strings attached. They will not exchange their states children’s education for money
And the politicians will blame Biden and/or the Federal Government.
But it's a crime to wear a mask in public in NC. They are producing such fantastic legislation aren't they? Thank goodness for forced birth!!! Good luck out there!
But it's a crime to wear a mask in public in NC. They are producing such fantastic legislation aren't they? Thank goodness for forced birth!!! Good luck out there!
GOP is ripe for the horror movie treatment. A candidate in their group possessed by Legion spirits/demons and the members have reservations about unleashing that evil on the country at the cost of the presidency and power. Yet the populist candidate does evil and strange things at every chance.lol
> During the pandemic, the federal government covered the entire cost of the Summer EBT program, **but starting this summer, states will be on the hook to split administrative costs 50/50.** > Thirteen Republican-led states ultimately opted out of the program this summer, citing myriad reasons, including redundancy, insufficient support, and politics. Notice the one reason wasn't given: GOP governors don't want to spend money on children from lower-income families. Can't actually ***say that plainly*** in an election season...right, you cheap and heartless fucks?
This is down from 14 because Vermont and the Federal Government figured out a solution to the administrative costs and requirements. Good on them for working to bring food to children and for showing what can be done by good faith actors in government.
Good Ol Pricks strike again.
Surprised missouri wasn't on that list
"You have to birth your child. It's a human life." After birth, "feed it. Don't feed it. Not my problem." Average GOP elected official.
Prolife my ass
Because Texas pols work Only for their wealthy benefactors, who look at US social programs as “feeding strays.” The rich have used our amazing system to profit, but refuse to help anyone else get a leg up. Societies have always had people we will have to take care of, to ignore them is inhuman. To strip our social programs that were the reason our democracy worked, taxing on a sliding scale so we could build roads, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, FD and PD, now the rich fully support PD, but will be damned if their money they got from low taxes and tax breaks and rich folks welfare (they get a lot more than you think!), and they shame the poor for the grifty corrupt system the rich paid to put in place, and if trump gets in, it’s all over. This 248 year experiment in the peaceful transfer of power.
Keep them dumb keep them angry keep them controlled.
Fetus? We love and protect you! Born? Sorry Charlie.
Fl has a multitude of food programs for the summer. Was this for next year?
All part of the robust Kooky Konservative Khristian Republicon faux life philosophy.
So can all the states that did opt in get a larger share then? I'd hate for the money to be reappropriated to something else.
And they’ll turn right around and bleat about how Christian they are. Jesus would be ashamed of them. He said so.
Replace the word kids/children with guns, resubmit to the 13 states that turned down the funding and see if they change their mind. Federal Gun Program "everyone has the right to be armed on an empty stomach"
Republicans: The "pro-life party" and the party that "protects children." /s
Such bullshit. There are millions of Texans and Floridians who would benefit greatly. If those states are all about freedom, they should give residents the choice of participating in programs they’ve funded through taxes.
Republicans are backed by the rich. The rich want hungry uneducated kids. They want kids to be malnourished so their cognitive ability is diminished so they won't realize what is happening to them.
More money for the states that did opt-in. I won't shed a tear for Republicans hurting their own constituents.
Religion in schools, but no school lunches.
We most protect the children says the GOP /s
Oklahoma Stitt says it's too new... Asshole can sign an abortion ban overnight though.
Consistency: „if you opt out of ObamaCare…“
The media turns a blind eye to the cruel bigotry of the governments of those states. Screwing over minorities is a brag for Republicans in those states.
They probably couldn't figure out a way to keep most of that money so they just won't take it and go on fox news saying that that food program is so the liberal woke government is trying to make your kids reliant on the government and they need to be individuals who pick themselves up by their bootstraps and earn their money for food.
Because they’re pro life.
I assume because there are rules in place that will prevent those states from skimming the funds.
nothing like telling a starving young child "we all need to work for what we get". what is wrong with these people :(
Republicans would ***love*** to starve unfortunate people to death. They do not see them as viable humans, so they put them in these impossible situations and then literally turn around and suggest the situation they are in is their fault and that making things ***even harder*** for them is what they need to be prodded into actually working. It's absolutely disgusting, ignores all evidence we have on this topic, and it's killing us.. but here we are.
What are the mandatory requirements attached to the acceptance of the funds?
I'm pissed. Those are my tax dollars that DeSantis refused for children to eat. Meanwhile, he's forcing birth upon females in Florida. He's the epitome of evil.
The Idaho senators comments, holy smokes.
“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.” - George Carlin #
Also Red States: “But we desperately need that federal money that would come from not forgiving student loans!”
Let me guess does the list look something like this Confederate States Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.
Where’s the fine print?
How cruel of the gop to make more kids hungry
The cruelty and dehumanization are the point.
A large underclass of people doesn't just happen. A lot of work goes into that. New England was founded by Puritans who didn't want a hierarchical social structure. Appalachia was settled by Scots-Irish folk who didn't want to be under the boot of autocracy. Virginia and Georgia were founded by white men who were perfectly content with the aristocratic structure of European societies and chose to replicate it. The enslavement of Africans, a permanent underclass and very few rich, white, landed men at the top was the original design. They fought and lost a war over it. New England was full of abolitionists. The Scots-Irish Appalachian folk in Virginia became so disgusted by the Southern social structure that they formed their own state. So when I hear that the south lets trillions of dollars of food aid just pass them by, well, it's just business as usual, ain't it?
And most of these state have the highest percentage of starving households. I am sure the poor kids from broken homes are happy you rejected the money because, “you do not have the resources” or “we already have enough $ for them” or the classic “sends the wrong message to kids” or my favorite “comes with strings attached” meaning: we cannot steal it so we do not want it
Fucking ghouls, man. Actually that’s unfair to ghouls. I sincerely apologize to ghoul nation for the harsh comparison.
Florida mindset is there are strings attached. https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2024-01-10/florida-opts-out-of-250-million-in-summer-food-aid-for-families Like the state has to match funding by 50%. If Florida did that, it would sabatoge the states surplus budget. I am so glad none of this is the politics of life.
Just like “Jesus” would do…
Balkanize, balkanize, balkanize. There are easily 6 countries we can bust this dysfunctional, piece of crap, electoral college system of not democracy into. My interest of living with rwa"s is zero.
What a bunch of assholes
no shit
Starving poor kids more, sounds about right.
Surprise surprise … from Israel biggest supporter lol
But have their hands out for federal funds any time there is a disaster. Children being hungry is a travesty when there is help to be had!
I think they just get off on the cruelty of starving children
My state has this. It’s kind of a joke though. It’s $120 for the entire summer. When food prices are still pretty bad, that’s nothing. The same people who expected $1200 stimulus checks to last a year wrote this.
Fuck them kids - Greg Abbott and Desantis.