this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
-7 points (18.2% liked)
Progressive Politics, Gun Control, Single Payer Healthcare and Free Abortions for All!
589 readers
2 users here now
We like leftists and liberals.
We want to ban all guns.
We want free healthcare.
We want UBI.
We don't mind being taxed.
We want to give everyone a free abortion!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Iowa has a budget of $8.5b, and 339,000 people bellow poverty line, that's counting adults too. So $40 a month for the 3 months of summer multiplied by the pop below poverty is $40.6m, or 0.04% of the budget. That is a drop in the fucking bucket, even before trying to figure out how many of those 339,000 people are children eligible under this program. For reference, 1/5th of the Iowan population are minors. And this is a federal program, so Iowa wouldn't even be paying for the full bill.
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/iowa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/IA/PST045222
Iowa attempts to force women to have children against their will with a 6 week ban, and restricts it by only having a small handful of providers, then denies them the resources needed to raise the children that result from said restrictions. This means unwanted, unafforded children are born to suffer. They pretend this is a good deed.
It doesn't take long to overflow the bucket by adding small drops.
Which is why only programs that do good or are vital services should be added.
Food for impoverished children easily counts for both.
Just a little bit more, it's for a good cause is not a good gauge, any program could be shoehorned into those criteria.
It's a lunch program for summer.
It's 40 million dollars
For children
Saying "for children" doesn't make money appear
Didn't say it did.
Than that point is irrelevant.
Tax churches.
No, I think it's fucking grotesque how much yall fetishize starving children.
Children do not starve in our country. If you disagree I need a photograph of a starving child.
I am sick of people trying to perpetuate the myth that people starve in the United States. They do not.
I'm not going to aim for made up goal posts that make no sense.
What a comeback
Yawn
Guess we aren't allowed to do literally anything then. Roads are just inherently bad apparently. Fuck the kids, let em starve am I right? It is true evil to ask a citizen for a fraction of a cent to feed impoverished children.
"Why do people think conservatives hate the poor?"
I think the government failing to address poverty is a form of hate for the poor. But good attempt to put words in my mouth.
I’ll tell you something that’s a more powerful indication of hating the poor: Colorado’s new anti-plastic bags law.
The only stores prohibited from using them are large chains. Any business with three or fewer retail locations gets to use disposable plastic bags.
Just not the big stores, like Safeway or King Soopers or Target. The little boutique shops that sell tea and spices and homemade soap to rich people, they get to use all the disposable plastic bags they want.
But people without cars, people who talk a mile to the grocery store, or take the bus to the grocery store, they’re gonna have to carry their reusable bags with them all day, OR buy new reusable bags each time they, OR take their chances on a long journey with paper bags.
See, the problem is these rich legislators don’t have a decent conception of what it means to “carry some groceries”. They think carrying groceries means carrying them into the house from their car. I would wager the majority of those legislators don’t even have to carry them in from outside, just in from the garage.
This is the sort of horseshit that tells me leftists hate the poor. I’m poor, and I know for a fact they value the environment over my own well-being.
And I resent that. Grocery shopping just got harder for me. It got a little harder for everyone, but not nearly as much harder for a person with a car as for a person without a car.
When the rich take on a little burden for the planet, the poor take on a much larger burden.
You just told me no child in the U.S. goes hungry. So I don't buy this act you're putting on.
Why?
So why is it my obligation to address poverty instead of the governments?
Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
I don't have children, I'm not in poverty. I have not caused others to be in poverty. So how is it my obligation to solve U.S. poverty instead of the governments?
So why did you say it is my job?
Probably because he expected you to not be a dick about interpreting what he said
Children aren’t poor. Children have parents that are poor. Children do not have boot straps to pull on to hover about the room. A child’s future prospects depend on their education and nutrition. Children do not have the agency required to save themselves from hunger.
You are advocating rigging the game against children to keep the poors down. Society benefits from the investment put into its children, so society should foot the bill. Its not only the ethical decision, it also pays dividends if you look farther then 4 years ahead.
Agreed! I want my tax dollars used to force women to GIVE BIRTH not to FEED Starving Children!
Nope. The right response to that is to go beyond intentions to an understanding of the problem.
Re-read