I'm not surprised the people trying to "Protect The Children" are defending letting children starve in the comments!
How do you anger a Republican? Use tax dollars to bail out Billionaires or use tax dollars to feed STARVING CHILDREN?
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
-1 points (33.3% liked)
Conservative
369 readers
4 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Except these children aren’t going to starve
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://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.
Pizza thinks if you say children. He wins.
No, I think it's fucking grotesque how much yall fetishize starving children.
You are the one who keeps talking about children. Sounds like that is your fetish
What a comeback
Yawn
It isn’t a comeback. It’s a statement. You’re always talking about children. I’ve clearly stated I have your emotional plea doesn’t sway me.
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.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
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.
Maybe their parents should feed them? Not sure why you think my money should be used to take of others instead of them taking care of themselves. Why do you hate personal responsibility?
"Why do people think conservatives hate the poor?"
You think paying your own way is hating 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.
It isn't the government's job to address poverty. It's your job.
It’s your job.
Why?
That is part of being an adult. Taking care of yourself and your obligations.
So why is it my obligation to address poverty instead of the governments?
You don't think an adult should be responsible for their actions? /
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?
It isn't the job of the governments.
So why did you say it is my job?
I said it the job of the people to take care of themselves. You seem to be passionate about this. Out your money were your mouth is and donate
Probably because he expected you to not be a dick about interpreting what he said
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.
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!
I think women should be allowed to abort if they want. It’s none of my business.
Just like children should be fed by their parents. It’s none of my business.
Nope. The right response to that is to go beyond intentions to an understanding of the problem.
No they don’t. Abortion is allowed till week 20 is inline with most blue states.
Nobody denies them resources. They can get a job like anyone else and pay for their children.
Re-read
What you said is false. Abortion is legal until week 20.
The rest is emotional word vomit.
How are people denied resources to care for their children ? We don’t allow them to have jobs? It’s their job to pay for their children