The fact that its been so normalized to be this openly shitty and callous toward frigging children… i dont even know how to react to this any more.
Im not saying its hopeless, but I feel like a lot of people on the “lets not let children go hungry” side of the fence are almost left speechless by these idiots. But i feel like thats almost part of their strategy - stunning the opposition. There has to be a better response.
What’s the best way to respond to this kind of brazen cruelty? (Besides voting and campaigning for candidates who arent sociopathic).
What’s the best way to respond to this kind of brazen cruelty?
Voting is a must. Political apathy is how this stuff happens. Outside of voting, just being vocal about your distaste for these policies might help let people around you know that not everyone supports this. And if you come face to face with someone who is outspoken in their belief that some children deserve to starve, then you know who to avoid being around.
More people voted for trump after his disastrous 4 years in office than did when he first got elected. I don’t think voting is the answer because we are stupid. Educating these idiots would go a long way, but they don’t believe in education. Being controlled by their extended, daily, two minute hate is all they seem to know or want.
I taught at a couple school where the majority of the students got their only 2 meals a day when at school. And these fuck heads think that’s too much. It makes me sick.
Voting is the answer (at least part of the answer) because it’s what kept Trump out of office for another four years despite him getting all those votes. Now even more of Gen Z is voting age, as long as they vote like they did in the midterms conservatives don’t have long in office. They’ll have some gerrymandered strongholds like Texas and Florida but things should slowly be getting better now that more and more of the conservative voters are dying off either from old age or COVID.
Seriously these past midterms were historic, this millennial loves Gen Z lol
That’s not helping the many people being screwed over by anti-trans and anti-abortion bills, or with all of the anti-worker crap the republicans and the dems (albeit to a lesser extent) have been implementing. I’m worried it’s going to be too late for a lot of people by the time things get good (not just better, actually good without 50 million horrible things going off constantly; not perfect, but not constantly under peril). Well, if they do. And of course there’s the matter of climate change. I’m worried it’s gonna be too late by then as well… ~Cherri
That’s not helping the many people being screwed over by anti-trans and anti-abortion bills
A cure all does not exist unfortunately and I don’t know of any solutions for the affected minorities in those areas other than leave when possible. Which is easier said than done I know, I did it with my move out of Texas.
I’m worried it’s going to be too late for a lot of people by the time things get good.
It likely is going to be too late for many groups of people, I don’t like that reality but it’s true. This is the shit situation our generation was given and we just have to do our best to improve it as best we can for future generations. We can only do that by fighting and not letting apathy take over.
And of course there’s the matter of climate change. I’m worried it’s gonna be too late by then as well.
Too late for what? For the environment to change? That point passed decades ago, unfortunately. We’ve been at the pollution game for a while. Too late to mitigate as much damage as possible? Absolutely not. The best time to plant a tree is yesterday but the next best time is today. Our planet is changing due to the actions of the old and it’s on us to adapt as a society. We adapt by changing policies and we change policies by getting involved in politics, the easiest form of which is simply voting.
The future is going to be rough and certainly not what I would’ve chosen, but it’s not untenable or unconquerable.
I mean like too late to mitigate it enough for it to not destroy the environment completely. And most of the pollution is not from individuals but from corporations. I mean hell, most pollution from airplanes comes from private jets. Commercial passenger planes don’t do nearly as much damage as those (though they do quite a bit of damage and should be limited where possible). ~Cherri
I mean like too late to mitigate it enough for it to not destroy the environment completely.
Except that’s not a thing, it’s impossible for the environment to be completely destroyed. Even when a forest turns to desert the desert is still an environment that can be adapted to and improved on. The world as we know it will change dramatically, that’s just something that’s unavoidable at this point. But we can help make the next version of this world the best we can.
As long as you’re alive it’s never too late to take action.
Gerrymandering should have no impact on the Senate or the Executive elections, aside from the subressive effect. We still vote for geriatric vampires more often then not, and those geriatric vampires really, really can’t let the new, fresh people have positions of power. We’ve seen that happen over and over with those who should be stars (effective stars) in Congress. I understand completely that it’s better than the fucking Republicans, but it’s kind of like picking what method you’re going to die from. I think you’re vastly underestimating the deplorable factor in the US. For once though, finally, it does seem like these younger generations are making a hard turn to do the right thing. I hope it pays off, just on a pragmatic level I think we’ve already passed the point of no return so I’m just watching the world slowly burn.
I think you’re underestimating the effects of old generations dying off while simultaneously a supremely motivated younger generation is coming in. I’m not saying it’ll be smooth sailing and that voting alone is the answer, I’m saying we have to keep fighting and voting is part of the answer. It’s not the silver bullet that will solve everything but we can’t move forward with fascists in office so we have to vote them out.
It’s really hard to convince people that voting matters. And in many places, the districts are set up in such a way that it favors a certain party’s outcome.
Republicans seem to be more popular with older people, who also are more likely to be voting. Younger people are much less likely to participate.
Personally I’m pretty sick of it all myself. I still vote though. I just wish that it wasn’t all about arguments between parties and we could focus on what’s best for people.
If only the only other option weren’t also trash. Then wouldn’t be so much voter apathy. The system is literally designed to be this way. The US being a democratic country is a myth. The founders never even intended it to be a democracy. They just wanted it to be their own little club. Plebs were never even meant to be able to vote.
The “other side” (Democrats) are still picking your pockets and laughing with rich buddies, but they aren’t for letting children go hungry, get married early and work for minimum wage in all their free time. All the while getting upset at rainbows and whatever the scapegoat of the week is.
The sad part is that for the americans to do good, they have to vote democrat. I am glad I don’t live there.
We’ve been trying to vote and vote for decades, haven’t we? When’s it gonna work out? How do we make sure it’s not too late for a lot of people by then, and/or too late to deal with climate change by then? ~Cherri
Not voting is not a choice, because then these bastards get even more power, it is a sad reality.
You can’t get more power than all of it.
That doesn’t answer any of my questions. ~Cherri
Listen, this is hard thing for me to type but I think is relevant to the Republican mindset. Hundreds of children are being murdered in their classrooms. Literal murder. Of children. This is not enough to sway Republicans on gun control. If actual murder of 6 year olds doesn’t have any effect on them, surely 6 year olds being hungry is not even going to make them blink. This is the reality with these people. They simply do not care about you, or your children, and everything they do is governed only by money and power.
Why do they prioritize money and power over the welfare of society? What makes them think it’s a good idea? ~Cherri
Because that is the goal of any totalitarian regime. You think Putin has the welfare of his country in mind? Or Kim Jong Un? No. Money and Power is the only goal. There was an article recently on North Koreans saying how they’re starving and just waiting to die. The people are simply the means to generate wealth and exercise power. Their welfare has nothing to do with it.
I used to think the Republicans were wannabe dictators, but in the last few years they’ve demonstrated that they are actual fascists and a dictatorship is their endgame. There is no way to deny this anymore. If someone tells you who they are, you should listen to them. Republicans are no longer hiding it.
I know that’s their goal but it doesn’t explain why that’s their goal. ~Cherri
Oh this is nothing by comparison. Republicans also vote to legalize child rape (which they preciously insist on calling “child marriage”) and are trying to bring back child labor because adults are getting fed up with unfair labor practices while little kids are easier to manipulate.
I would say it would be the education of the American people. That stuff like this should be at the top of just about every news program out there.
What sucks is that most people in America, red and blue, are probably not even aware that this is happening. If more people knew what was going on then maybe things like this would stop because of either people voting these politicians out or causing so much outrage they change their minds.
Many people who don’t interact with schools or kids in general don’t think about them at all, except as a tax burden and a political football. It’s a sickness on this country.
Chapter 1: The Power of Love Chapter 2: …
Is a curious thing…
Wait, is that not what you meant?
Literally everyone in this comment section is missing “regardless of the individual eligibility of each student”. Everyone is getting hysterical over something that isn’t even in the cards.
Of course a lot of kids rely on free school lunches and they aren’t trying to take that away. They’re trying to restrict free lunches to kids with parents who are actually incapable of feeding them. If parents can afford food for their kids, feed your fucking kids.
I’m lefty as fuck and I still kind of empathize with people who consider themselves conservative being seriously over people characterizing literally any conservative action they take as cartoonishly evil.
And you’re missing that, without the free meals being available to everyone, there’s a negative social stigma to getting the free school lunches. Kids skip the meals because they don’t want to be seen as “that poor kid.” This leads to them going hungry, not doing well in school, and not having as many chances to break the cycle of poverty.
By opening the free school lunches to everyone, the stigma is removed. If Billy gets a free school lunch, he might be poor or his parents just might be having him get the school lunches instead of packing something. Without the social stigma, kids who need the lunches are more likely to get them and more kids are fed.
Aight, cool, but that doesn’t change that this comment section is operation on the assumption that you’re dealing with people who understand that and literally enjoy making children starve. This sort of characterization is rampant in politics and a total anathema to actual discussion or ever getting anything done.
Given that other Republican proposals involve keeping child marriage legal and opening child labor laws back up so that kids can work dangerous jobs without the companies involved being liable for their safety, it’s not a huge leap from “Republicans want to cut free school meals” to “Republicans want kids to starve.”
Maybe it’s a not a 100% real leap, but it’s one that the Republicans have set themselves up for.
Beyond disgusting. Keep the kids hungry so they can’t learn while sitting in their underfunded classrooms. Uneducated masses ripe for the conservative picking. Can’t see through their lies if you’ve never been taught how to think. I hate it here…
Gosh… Just imagine that not guaranteeing a meal to children, preventing them from eating in some cases, is what you want more than anything.
Simply blows my mind.
These people jerk off to the idea of hurting children. Every new policy Republicans come up with, whether its supporting
child marriagelegalized rape with 12 year olds or trying to bring back child labor, or making children too hungry to learn anything in school, makes their “moral” panic over a bunch of people who happen to be wearing dresses reading to kids even more hypocritical. Honestly I think it’s the idea of children being functionally literate that probably terrifies them the most.Malnutrition leads to developmental delays. Poor academic performance in early years means they’re less likely to go to college, and ma not even finish high school. This helps create the next generation of wage slaves that are required for capitalism to survive.
In other words, working as designed.
Why design it like that though? And I know someone’s going to say “money and power and evil” or something but that just pushes the question further back. ~Cherri
Why…… I grew up on free and reduced lunches. The return on investment here is immense.
I make six figures working at the highest levels of my career in support of government agencies. I used free/reduced lunches my entire schooling. It’s super ridiculous
Same, my property tax for this month alone will have more than paid for my entire schooling career of subsidized food.
Honestly what’s an extra few hundred a year in taxes on the multiple thousands I’m already being asked to pay? Our district went free meals during covid and just kept it up. Free breakfast and lunch and there’s no more stigma for getting it since it’s everyone getting it.
Everyone seems happy about this, and it helps kids do better in school. Better than wasting all that food just because someone can’t pay the $1-3.
Also, Republicans (supposedly) want people to get off of government assistance and earn money for themselves. You know what’s a great way to do that? Get a good paying job. And a good way to get one of those is to pay attention and learn while you’re in school.
However, if your family is poor and you need to skip meals, you’ll be more concerned with when your next meal is. You won’t pay attention and you’ll have limited options to break the poverty cycle when you grow up. This leads to people still needing government assistance.
Just going from the supposed Republican talking points of “getting people off government assistance is good,” free school lunches is a good idea.
And before anyone comments “just give the lunches to the kids who need them instead of everyone”: Social pressure works against this. Kids don’t want to stand out and being the kid that gets the free school meal is seen as a negative thing by many kids. Kids would rather skip meals than open themselves up to bullying like this. By giving free school lunches to everyone, the kids that need it can get their lunches without any social stigma.
Along with funding for libraries, I think free school lunches are a great use of taxpayer money!
Don’t you know? The only necessary welfare is mine
british comic stuart lee on the subject.
Why? Assuming this is not a rhetorical question, it follows directly from the core authoritarian principle of Conservatism in the U.S.: Moral Hierarchy. That is to say, Those who rule are privileged above those who serve, and this is the basis of a ranked ever-swelling staircase of privilege.
Any action or policy that supports the hierarchy is divine, and whatever threatens the hierarchy is evil. Free food, or food as a right, is antithetical to Conservatism because it diminishes a key point of leverage held by rulers going up the chain. When a person is fed, they are less inclined to honor the privilege of their supposed rulers. When a person is truly hungry, they are highly motivated to submit, and even to support the hierarchy that provides them with any limited access to food.
In this philosophy, the ROI of free lunch is negative. The same argument applies to most forms of welfare.
The cruelty is the point.
Obviously being nice to 1 person just leads to communism! I’ll bet you now believe that people should have access to food, clean water, clean air, health care, and shelter as well? DON’T YOU!?
I do as well. :-)
Same here, kept me fed during my high school years. Don’t know what I would’ve done without it.
imagine being in the strategy meeting with your team, when they suggest a play based on suspending withdrawing food from child would go well with your voters.
imagine agreeing to go with it. getting a speech written about it and one day standing at the lectern to say in front of crowd of assembled people “it is not our responsiblity to feed children”. and then pausing for applause and going home and telling your spouse, “today went great”.
in this supply chain of inhumanity, there were so many opportunities for the heart to say “yo…something is off here…cant quite put my finger on it…but it doesnt seem…right ?.”
to sail through all those checkpoints of human decency, and go through with it, is nothing less than psychopathy.
The horrifying thing is that there are people out there who will consider it the right thing to do.
“It’s not enough that I should eat, children should starve. “ -the gop.
Either that or “I don’t believe that anyone is starving. I just ate a large lunch so obviously nobody is going hungry.”
They only recognize that something is real when it affects them personally. If it doesn’t then they’ll either claim the thing doesn’t exist or will say it’s that person’s fault that they are going through that (likely for being “too lazy” to pull themselves up by their bootstraps).
“I don’t believe that anyone is starving. I just ate a large lunch so obviously nobody is going hungry.”
Exactly. Same energy as “I made a snowball in January so obviously global warming doesn’t exist and neither does the sun by the way.” Weaponized incompetence at the object permanence level.
If it was just apathy, they wouldn’t be going out of their way like this to make it worse. ~Cherri
Why aren’t they self aware enough to realize they sound like cartoon villains?
They are appealing to their voters who want them to “hurt the right people”
Why do their voters want them to “hurt the right people” in the first place? And why do they go along with it rather than trying to persuade them not to or targeting a different demographic or anything else? ~Cherri
There is a free book by a psychologist out there called The Authoritarians which might help explain it.
I keep hoping that their voters finally see them for what they are, but well, I guess they do and that’s the point…
You know, I try to keep an open mind and try to understand how the other side could come to the conclusions they do, but sometimes they really make it difficult. I genuinely don’t get how this could be construed as anything other than malicious. What’s the benefit in this? How is this “thinking of the children?” How did a political party come to represent views that are so aggressively anti-humanity? It’s such a bizarre platform to attach yourself to so proudly and openly.
Sometime there is no rationality in those people/political party, they exist just to be destructive and promote hatred no matter the reason.
They wanted to promote child marriage.
They wanted to rape children and get away with it by forcing them to marry them.
They wanted to take out PPP loan on younger generations and tell them to go and fucking die.
They want to ban abortion without giving any exception even for raped victim or a miscarriage.
I could go on and on and on about it. Sometime, there is no reasoning with monsters and they need to be destroyed, period.
It’s insane seeing how they’ve built themselves on a platform of strictly hate. It seems like they’re never for things only against things. Well I guess outside of the child marriage thing seems they’re pretty for that. It’s so strange to me that in 2023 the republican party has regressed into essentially a draconian early industrial revolution era roll back of rights. I mean they’re even repealing child labor laws. It’s literally like they want to remove all progress from the last couple centuries. It blows my mind that this is acceptable in our country in the era.
It’s because conservatism is fundamentally reactionary. They don’t seem to be professing any particular ideology because they aren’t. They never have. It’s always been about opposing the ideology of others.
It’s also why it’s so insidious. You can’t pin down someone who doesn’t believe in anything.
I’d add to that and say conservatism is an inherently selfish ideology, in addition to reactionary. Every conservative policy, and every value they proclaim, is firmly founded in looking out for one’s self at the expense of their community.
Ah, student loans are, in fact, a problem. One-time relief of student debts is a good thing - provided there are no new debts on such a scale and the mechanism changes after that.
Charity sponsorship of students is a good thing without doubt. Private stipends are a good thing. But when loans which are not going to be returned in a normal way are becoming that common, then something is wrong and should be fixed, not poured more money into.
They are a cause of inflation in education (which, of course, harms the students as well), of people like AOC talking and being listened about economics, because on paper they would be qualified, and so on.
deleted by creator
Tearing down women’s rights. Ruining queer people’s life, especially trans people. Making sure children can’t eat for free. Wow. Quite the priorities over at the Republican party.
I’m not American, I’ve just been looking from afar for a long time now. But from everything I’m seeing… it feels like they’re going to be in for quite the rude awakening in 2024.
Unless you’re Russian, you probably aren’t familiar with living in the kind of media environment we have which can cause these clearly absurd ideas to seem normal for people to have. This lunacy is within our overton window. Centrists think it’s about half right. Liberals think it’s wrong but more or less fair to hold these views. A younger and further left contingent which has almost no representation in the government (because we put elecrions upnfor sale in 2010 with Citizens United) but is growing is the only group who finds this kind of thing completely unacceptable.
It’s really quite shocking how the GOP agenda can be predicted by asking yourself, “What’s the worst thing someone would in a given situation?”. What’s even more shocking is that they have engineered the political framework to disproportionately grant them enough power to sometimes pass these regressive policies. But for most of America, sigh, just another Thursday…
What’s crazy to me is it seems like they just want children to suffer. They want to force women to give birth, but then don’t give a shit about what happens to the children after. On top of that, it’s like they are trying to make them suffer even more for their parents being unable to provide.
I could somewhat get attacking programs for adults. Still disagree, but I guess it’s the “they should be able to provide for themselves” mentality. But then doing this for children when they are literally unable to provide for themselves or have any responsibility for being hungry. Yes, let’s make the helpless children suffer.
Disgusting times we live in.
They want to force children into the labor pool. Can’t afford to eat? Get a job Timmy! Oh and by the way if you don’t pay your school lunch debt, we’re calling CPS and taking you away from your parents. So get to work!
They see poor people as inherently bad parents. They want ways to take away poor minority children from their parents, and lunch debt is a great way to get them on the radar for that.
And where do they intend to place them once they get an excuse to break up the family?
I think the rich well adjusted foster family is largely a TV creation.
Maybe they’ll just straight turn group homes into factories.
deleted by creator
1 million Americans are dead because of disastrous Republican-lead mishandling of covid. Some have even labeled it as a literal genocide against our countrymen.
And yet, there is some evidence to suggest that the Trump administration did in fact intend to use COVID-19 to target certain political and racial groups. According to reporting from Vanity Fair, Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner shelved a federal COVID-19 testing plan because he believed that the virus would mostly affect Democratic states, and the administration could then blame Democratic governors for deaths. Blue Democratic cities are disproportionately home to Black people and other minority populations. A federal plan to allow deaths in blue states inevitably and predictably disproportionately facilitated the deaths of Black people and other people of color.
For the U.N. and international prosecution of genocide, intent is important—there has to be evidence that a government set out deliberately to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. …
there is some evidence to suggest that the Trump administration did in fact intend to use COVID-19 to target certain political and racial groups. According to reporting from Vanity Fair, Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner shelved a federal COVID-19 testing plan because he believed that the virus would mostly affect Democratic states, and the administration could then blame Democratic governors for deaths. Blue Democratic cities are disproportionately home to Black people and other minority populations. A federal plan to allow deaths in blue states inevitably and predictably disproportionately facilitated the deaths of Black people and other people of color.
Black death rates and Hispanic death rates from COVID-19 were 2.3-2.5 times those of white people, according to the CDC. Indigenous death rates were 2.2 times those of white people.
Wow, that is pretty damning. The only reason it might technically not be genocide is that he targeted a political group, (which just happens to have the most minority members,) as a proxy for specifically targeting minorities themselves.
Ironically, their denial of pandemic reality seems to have ultimately led to more Republican deaths than Democratic:
Average excess death rates in Florida and Ohio were 76% higher among Republicans than Democrats from March 2020 to December 2021
It’s not a new thing for the Republic side. Reagan refused to do anything about the HIV/AIDS epidemic, or even speak about it publicly, since he believed it was God’s punishment against the gay community. Before it started spreading and killing his white Christian community too, the administration was fine letting it kill off the people he hated.
There’s probably some of that, in some cases there may even be overwhelming evidence of it.
Overall they’re just a bunch of greedy self-centred fools who will drive a steam roller down a street filled with babies and kittens if it means their stocks will go up by 0.01$.
So Republicans don’t love America? Yeah, that tracks.
How did this get normalized? Why is this even something that is even considered debatable? As a society, feeding our children should be the first priority.
I’m flubbered.
Echo chambers that reinforce the lie that democrats want to take your money to pay for irresponsible people’s children.
Maybe they are irresponsible, but that’s not their kids fault. Feeding kids regardless of who their parents are, is a basic morality thing.
But that is the whole point of this. These people making and advocating for this kind of stuff are abusers. The GOP is a pro-abuse party. We need to stop pretending otherwise. The goal is to enable abusers. When these people talk about “parental rights” that is what they mean. They believe they have a right to abuse their kids including starving them. They also believe that anyone who tries to assist their children—even so much as feeding them—is interfering with their right as a parent.
I know this because my step-dad was exactly of this type of mindset when I was a kid. They don’t see children as having rights or dignity. They are just property of their parents with zero personage to them. Food insecurity even when the parents have the ability to feed their children is used as a form of control. “If you won’t do as we say you won’t eat” was very much a thing in my household and a lot of others I knew growing up.
Allowing free breakfast and lunch at school usurps their ability to use hunger and starvation as a punishment. I know it’s dark but it’s worth noting.
Why do they want the children to suffer for it though??? ~Cherri
i understand its a bullshit argument, but even if were true, idgaf why kids dont have food, i want them to get food one way or another
Well, sweeping chimneys and working night shifts in abattoirs is a good way of acquiring the money for it!
/S
the unplanned kids that arrived under anti abortion laws.
Literally everyone in this comment section is missing “regardless of the individual eligibility of each student”. Everyone is getting hysterical over something that isn’t even in the cards.
Of course a lot of kids rely on free school lunches and they aren’t trying to take that away. They’re trying to restrict free lunches to kids with parents who are actually incapable of feeding them. If parents can afford food for their kids, feed your fucking kids.
I’m admittedly not familiar with how the program works but I suspect that “totally bulletproof and unbiased eligibility criteria that can’t / won’t be weaponized against specific people groups” isn’t something that it guarantees
What. The. Fuck. Is wrong. With. These people?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I’m absolutely not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or anything similar, but it’s starting to show that all of them have forgotten where they came from or the stories of where their family members came from. Most of these people were raised by Depression-Era parents who, without exaggeration, suffered and died due to lack of affordable food options. I’m sure some Republicans even experienced that same problem themselves in their childhood.
I used to believe the ignorance of how important providing basic nutrition to the next generation is was based on a lack of life experience, and that may be true for some, but there’s no way every single one of them has no surface-level knowledge of true hardship. They have heard about it, read about it, and some have witnessed it firsthand.
So to answer the question, it’s either a part of some long-term plan to control the public for their means (which is evil) or they are selfish pricks (which when you are in government, makes you evil). Unfortunately, it’s looking like both.
It is just so incredibly odd to me. I grew up in a baptist church (would never step foot in one again.) The people there genuinely seemed to do good work, caring for the poor, donating toys to children, food as well. I do not understand where this push from the right came from. This is incredibly cruel and inhumane.
I do not understand where this push from the right came from.
This is incredibly cruel and inhumane.
So, you do understand.
It’s just cruel. A disgusting, cruel mindset from those who genuinely just want to hurt others.
Anyone supporting this lacks the most basic of morals. There is no excuse for this.
it’s a weird mindset.
Literally everyone in this comment section is missing “regardless of the individual eligibility of each student”. Everyone is getting hysterical over something that isn’t even in the cards.
Of course a lot of kids rely on free school lunches and they aren’t trying to take that away. They’re trying to restrict free lunches to kids with parents who are actually incapable of feeding them. If parents can afford food for their kids, feed your fucking kids.
The problem is that, when free lunches are restricted to only kids who can’t afford lunch, there’s a social pressure NOT to get the free lunch. Kids don’t want to stand out as “that poor kid.” They’ll skip lunch instead of being singled out.
Free lunches for everyone fixes this. Kids can’t tell if Jimmy is getting the free lunch because his parents didn’t pack him one or because his parents can’t afford to feed him. The cost to feed the kids is low and the reward - kids learning, doing well in school, and having a better chance to break the poverty cycle - is high. It’s well worth the cost.
The problem is that, when free lunches are restricted to only kids who can’t afford lunch, there’s a social pressure NOT to get the free lunch. Kids don’t want to stand out as “that poor kid.” They’ll skip lunch instead of being singled out.
that’s another factor–even at my school, which was extremely heterogeneous in terms of wealth, this dynamic was pretty obvious. you can’t really hide that you get free lunch, because everyone’s in a line with you when you pay
My school district found it cost more in administrative overhead to determine who was eligible for free lunch and who wasn’t than it was to simply offer it to everyone. We ended up with something resembling the UK medicine model where the basic offering was free to all and “upgrades” were available for a cost. In many students minds, the upgrades sucked. The “rich” kids brought lunch from home.
Come to think of it, the administrative cost is probably what’s driving this movement. Gotta get that money in government contracts.
They’re trying to restrict free lunches to kids with parents who are actually incapable of feeding them. If parents can afford food for their kids, feed your fucking kids.
i honestly have to ask here: who cares if the children of people who can afford to feed their kids benefit from this policy? means testing is dumb in basically all circumstances, you can’t count on parents to do this (and if a child goes to school without a lunch they should still be able to eat!), and even if you don’t care about those considerations the policy as a whole is basically a budgetary rounding error. this isn’t the F-35 program, your tax dollars aren’t being thrown into a black hole because someone with an income of $100,000 has a child also being fed by universal school lunch.
If you want to make that argument, great! I pretty much agree. What’s deeply upsetting to me is that this entire comment section is willfully misrepresenting the move as “haha they want children to starve”. I guarantee you that everyone here will also claim to be super concerned about how far political rifts have become. Republicans do a lot of awful shit but this is just choosing to characterize people as deeply cruel villains for the sake of entertainment. I can’t blame “casual conservatives” from looking at responses like this and deciding that their characterization of the left as overzealous is completely true.
What’s deeply upsetting to me is that this entire comment section is willfully misrepresenting the move as “haha they want children to starve”.
okay but they kinda do. you are giving charitability to people (Republican politicians in Congress) who have clearly demonstrated they do not deserve it and that what they want is for people to be worse off–whether they accept that or not. more children starving because free school meals are restricted to certain income groups is possibly the most straightforward cause-and-effect outcome there can be. the benefits of having them (without means testing) are also undisputable. we literally just had those for two years without issue during the pandemic.
No, see, this is a willful mischaracterization of their ignorance. These are people who are convinced that parents who can afford their feed their children just will if they lack other options. The idea that some would simply choose not to anyways or that means testing is often faulty is further than they’ve ever actually thought about it. Still cartoonishly evil? Yeah, but it’s not “haha I sure do love kids not eating”, it’s a lack of empathy of a different sort. Telling people that they want children to starve when that’s the last thing that probably crossed their mind will never, ever sway someone’s understanding of a problem. It will only convince them that your position is based on a strawman. We need to appeal to people’s sense that they’re good people who want to do good things.
Telling people that they want children to starve when that’s the last thing that probably crossed their mind will never, ever sway someone’s understanding of a problem.
too bad? literally just don’t advocate for policy that’ll starve children if you don’t want to be accused of making children starve–again, we had universal, non-means tested meals in this arena for two years and nobody complained about it then. if you’re the type of person who objects now, i don’t think that’s worth coddling–i think it’s worth begin honest, which is that it’s a policy that leads to more starving children and it’s a deeply inhuman policy overall. you should feel bad for agreeing with it as a person.
We need to appeal to people’s sense that they’re good people who want to do good things.
as for this legislatively: me trying to nicely appeal to a Republican legislator is never going to make them see reason here and not starve children. these people are bad, their policy is worse, and trying to coddle them in particular is a waste of time. they know what they’re doing.
This whole reply makes me even more negative towards the future of humanity than I was. Discourse like this is exactly why things are as bad as they are.
