687
submitted 1 year ago by rdeets@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 155 points 1 year ago

We're now seeing red states refusing federal aid because 1) it shows the federal government isn't the demon they make it out to be and 2) if they don't accept federal funds, they don't have to accept federal stipulations like "you can't not give this to poor gay children" and "Black children deserve to eat too."

Dark times are ahead.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Don’t forget the “welfare queens” lies that a lot of the right believes. I know a lot of idiots that believe poor people are poor because they’re lazy.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago

Corporations are bigger welfare queens than poor people will ever be.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Good things happening while a Democrat is in the Whitehouse is bad for business. If anyone ever asks the GOP why they rejected the funds it'll be some lie about illegal immigrants getting the money.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

sadly you are correct. Ask most conservatives about feeding white or christian children they are for it. Sudden including all those other kinds of people and they would rather let their own starve rather give help to 1 person they think is unworthy.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Ask most conservatives about feeding white or christian children they are for it

I think you need to change that "or" to an "and". Or maybe just remove the Christian part altogether.

The vast majority of immigrants crossing the southern are Christian after all, but that doesn't seem to evoke much sympathy from the MAGA movement.

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well that because a large part of politically active christian only see white people as Christians

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

When Christians are hating Christians because of their ethnicity, it doesn't seem like a problem stemming from religion to me.

I think it's just racists plastering a thin veneer of "Christian" like talk over their racism to make themselves appear to be holy. Literally taking the Lord's name in vain, which kinda goes against actual Christian values.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That’s exactly why they’re refusing.

Also how much you wanna bet they’re blaming the feebs?

[-] orphiebaby@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Honest question, what's a "feeb"? ^^

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

An FBI agent (or sometimes more broadly any federal agent, as here.)

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago

The problem here is that the federal government didn't provide the framework and services for states to use this federal aid - it's up to the states to each create the new infrastructure and data collection/reporting services themselves. That's a backwards arse way of doing it. The federal government should have created the necessary services and given the states access.

[-] DrPop@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

We give states way too much power when it comes to these types of policies. I grew up on the free lunch program and a lot of times it was the best meal I can get. I could never in good conscience suggest that kids don't deserve to have free lunch and breakfast. Especially if they have to be there.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago

Yep, this should not have been a state decision, nor should the states have to have been the ones to try and implement it, because as this shows many can't and/or won't.

If the federal government was serious about providing food aid for low income children, they would do it at a federal level.

[-] AssPennies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You mean like the federal government offering millions of dollars to a state to feed hungry kids? That kind of federal level? Oh wait...

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I mean like the federal government actually making the service that is required to give the millions of dollars to a state to feed hungry kids.

The difference is huge, and not hard to understand.

[-] AssPennies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The difference is huge, and not hard to understand.

Apparently it is, for you.

The federal agency is called USDA, and it's the one that runs the P-EBT program. The service is there, ready to dole out the cash, they just need the info to best disburse the funds. The onus is on MO to work with the federal gov to communicate information about its own citizens to those services.

There's about zero chance in hell that red states are going to allow the feds to roll in to town and pull school district information that it would need to disburse the funds. The states already have those records, and they best know how to aggregate them. They just need to swallow their hangups about gov bureaucracy and actual spend some tax money to serve their citizens.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago

Again, the federal agency makes the program available but doesn’t actually build the infrastructure required for the states to use it. This very article we’re commenting on points that out a number of times.

You can shout “Republicans hate kids!” as much as you want, but aren’t republicans the ones encouraging people to have more kids and less abortions? How does that logic work?

[-] agissilver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

But that would be "communism"!

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
687 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4380 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS