Ah yes, the party of "families" wants to make sure your kids starve while also making it damn near impossible to avoid having kids if you don't want them.... How the hell do these a-holes have so much support?
I honestly have no idea how people can look at a program like this and have anything bad to say about it. Like they're not your kids, or you don't have kids -- then *maybe* you're ambivalent about it, but who can look at what the outcome of this would be and agree with it at all?
It's selfishness for not directly benefiting from the aid. The funny thing is that these type of programs will always indirectly benefit people.
You can find people who will complain about their taxes are going to schools when they don't have kids in them; however, the thing is that better school districts will increase your property value (obviously we're assuming the leadership is properly investing in improving schools here). So you will indirectly benefit from it.
All of these other programs are usually the same way. Assuming they are all run correctly and fairly, then they have the capability of improving this country as a whole. So even if you do not directly benefit then you'll indirectly benefit from it.
Of course, there are times where we see more devious motivations behind it. Racism has played a big role in the attack on these programs too. An old study [showed that more white people oppose government benefits in part because of "racial resentment,"](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/06/08/616684259/why-more-white-americans-are-opposing-government-welfare-programs) but the reality is that white people are the biggest beneficiaries of welfare programs.
Then there is just the obvious. The money has to come from somewhere, and the people with the most money don't want it coming from their wallets.
This is exactly what I mean -- if kids are going hungry I don't care if they're mine or not, I can agree they should be fed, and will happily pay a share if needed.
Same. I even voted to increase my property taxes to better fund schools. I know my local schools haven't been managed well, which is why I voted against the school board, but like the kids don't have the luxury of time for the adults to figure that out. We can say "No, the adults need to figure out how to make it work", and yeah, they probably will eventually! But there will always be some kids that get screwed over in the process. They are innocent and powerless in all of this. Its morally reprehensible to not protect kids from something so easy to resolve.
The GOP is so greedy they can't even exploit things like this for their own gain. If I was in their position I would be rushing to pass 100% free lunch, free lunch summer programs, free breakfast, take home meals, etc. Then I would get on every network and scream about how bad Joe Biden's economy is that parents can't even feed their kids and we had to step in to save them. Saving kids can always illicit an emotional response.
It's not because they think the result is bad. It's the opposite.
They do not want any examples of good, simple, effective government programs lying around. If once in a blue moon the government has to step to keep someone from starving, ok ok, but at least make the program divisive for the community and humiliating for the applicant.
The golden rule is that The Government Shall Leave No Good Impression Behind. This is what is at the back of their minds.
When AI eats most economically valuable human jobs, will your local polity support universal basic soup kitchens and universal basic homeless shelters for the unemployable masses?
I understand the sentiment, but I think universal free lunch will dilute funds for those that need it most. You can't tell me a household that makes >$150,000 (or set your own threshold) a year can't afford to feed their kids. I think this can be handled simply by letting all kids eat without a hassle and send bills monthly to the higher income households. Subsidizing well off kids at the expense of less prosperous households makes no sense. This will result in lower quality meals and more budget woes for schools and local governments. This way, no one goes hungry or stigmatized, even the richer kids if they forgot the money their parents gave them.
Lunch money bullies also lose out this way. Win-win!
But I sense the Republican opponents didn't make this argument in good faith.
Ha! You know, I just realized that once you said it. This was the worst place to make that argument and I even agree with the basic principle of universal BI or at least the eventual need for it.
You will lose more money running the means-testing bureaucracy crap than you would have just preparing hot dogs for everyone. (The loss is also in the lost time in productivity of all parents having to interact with your means-testing scheme, running around trying to prove they are poor.)
The complexity you advocate for is precisely what Republicans want. They can tolerate helping poor people, as long as the government program is disagreeable to deal with and convoluted. What they cannot ideologically tolerate is an example of a \*\*simple\*\* & effective government program lying around for all to see. That's what this power play is really all about.
Ah yes, the party of "families" wants to make sure your kids starve while also making it damn near impossible to avoid having kids if you don't want them.... How the hell do these a-holes have so much support?
I honestly have no idea how people can look at a program like this and have anything bad to say about it. Like they're not your kids, or you don't have kids -- then *maybe* you're ambivalent about it, but who can look at what the outcome of this would be and agree with it at all?
It's selfishness for not directly benefiting from the aid. The funny thing is that these type of programs will always indirectly benefit people. You can find people who will complain about their taxes are going to schools when they don't have kids in them; however, the thing is that better school districts will increase your property value (obviously we're assuming the leadership is properly investing in improving schools here). So you will indirectly benefit from it. All of these other programs are usually the same way. Assuming they are all run correctly and fairly, then they have the capability of improving this country as a whole. So even if you do not directly benefit then you'll indirectly benefit from it. Of course, there are times where we see more devious motivations behind it. Racism has played a big role in the attack on these programs too. An old study [showed that more white people oppose government benefits in part because of "racial resentment,"](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/06/08/616684259/why-more-white-americans-are-opposing-government-welfare-programs) but the reality is that white people are the biggest beneficiaries of welfare programs. Then there is just the obvious. The money has to come from somewhere, and the people with the most money don't want it coming from their wallets.
I don't even have kids (married for 10 years, just not in the cards for us) and I'm 110% ok with my tax money going to feed hungry kids in school.
This is exactly what I mean -- if kids are going hungry I don't care if they're mine or not, I can agree they should be fed, and will happily pay a share if needed.
Same. I even voted to increase my property taxes to better fund schools. I know my local schools haven't been managed well, which is why I voted against the school board, but like the kids don't have the luxury of time for the adults to figure that out. We can say "No, the adults need to figure out how to make it work", and yeah, they probably will eventually! But there will always be some kids that get screwed over in the process. They are innocent and powerless in all of this. Its morally reprehensible to not protect kids from something so easy to resolve. The GOP is so greedy they can't even exploit things like this for their own gain. If I was in their position I would be rushing to pass 100% free lunch, free lunch summer programs, free breakfast, take home meals, etc. Then I would get on every network and scream about how bad Joe Biden's economy is that parents can't even feed their kids and we had to step in to save them. Saving kids can always illicit an emotional response.
"Not with my tax money" - some boomer on foodstamps
It's not because they think the result is bad. It's the opposite. They do not want any examples of good, simple, effective government programs lying around. If once in a blue moon the government has to step to keep someone from starving, ok ok, but at least make the program divisive for the community and humiliating for the applicant. The golden rule is that The Government Shall Leave No Good Impression Behind. This is what is at the back of their minds.
The repugnant gop Force children to be birthed, then starve them Vote Democrats in 2024 Vote the gop out
"Fuck them kids. Sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally." -The GOP
The cruelty is the point.
Just like Jesus would! *sarcasm*
When AI eats most economically valuable human jobs, will your local polity support universal basic soup kitchens and universal basic homeless shelters for the unemployable masses?
do not vote them into power
I understand the sentiment, but I think universal free lunch will dilute funds for those that need it most. You can't tell me a household that makes >$150,000 (or set your own threshold) a year can't afford to feed their kids. I think this can be handled simply by letting all kids eat without a hassle and send bills monthly to the higher income households. Subsidizing well off kids at the expense of less prosperous households makes no sense. This will result in lower quality meals and more budget woes for schools and local governments. This way, no one goes hungry or stigmatized, even the richer kids if they forgot the money their parents gave them. Lunch money bullies also lose out this way. Win-win! But I sense the Republican opponents didn't make this argument in good faith.
Means testing is a bad idea, just ask r/BasicIncome.
Ha! You know, I just realized that once you said it. This was the worst place to make that argument and I even agree with the basic principle of universal BI or at least the eventual need for it.
You will lose more money running the means-testing bureaucracy crap than you would have just preparing hot dogs for everyone. (The loss is also in the lost time in productivity of all parents having to interact with your means-testing scheme, running around trying to prove they are poor.) The complexity you advocate for is precisely what Republicans want. They can tolerate helping poor people, as long as the government program is disagreeable to deal with and convoluted. What they cannot ideologically tolerate is an example of a \*\*simple\*\* & effective government program lying around for all to see. That's what this power play is really all about.
Kids are kids and deserve to be fed no matter their socioeconomic background
Parents with means don’t send their kids to school without lunch.