• Gloomy@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    227
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You know, I tough it might be good to fact-check this screenshot. It might be missrepresenting something. So I did a little digging and it turns out that this is based on a document provided by the Republican Study Committee (about three quateres of house rebuplicans are members).

    I read the Dokument document (you can find it here) and HOLY HELL THIS IS THE WORST THING I HAVE READ IN A LONG WHILE.

    It’s so full of lies, half-truths and so, so, so much finger pointing to the “woke socialist Biden Administration” (yes, that is a quote), so removed from reality… It was painfull to read. There is so much utter nonsense in that one document.

    Anyhow. The headline is dead on. And it’s far far from the worst thing that they are proposing.

    I need to bang my head against a wall now untill i have erased the memory of reading this bullshit.

    • PersnickityPenguin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s all about elimination of all federal regulations:

      Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) Article I Restoration Act, which would sunset all regulations after 3 years.

      Require the federal government to have a “yellow pages test.” If a good or service can be found in the “yellow pages,” government should not be doing it.[14]

      Fucking dinosaurs don’t realize that they haven’t even printed a yellow pages in around a decade. Last time I received one it was like 30 pages long for a major city.

      Talk about pandering to their elderly base. Most Gen Z probably don’t even know what a “yellow pages” is.

      • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Require the federal government to have a “yellow pages test.” If a good or service can be found in the “yellow pages,” government should not be doing it.[14]

        That is the dumbest idea I’ve heard today

        • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, specifically the business phone book. The residential one was the “white pages” -a weird book that was mysteriously left on your porch every few years where everyone’s home phone (those strange bulky ones that were attached to the wall) and home address was listed. That’s what people mean in old movies when they say “I’m in the book!” It means “You know my name, you can find my phone number if you want to call me.”

            • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You could get your number “unlisted” for an additional fee. It was still dangerous in the pre-internet age, just not to the extent that it is today.

          • PersnickityPenguin
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think we got one every year actually at my old rental house. We would get a white and yellow pages. Strangely, yellow pages would shrink every year until around 2012 it was about 30 pages long.

            • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You had to pay to be in the yellow pages, so as googling stuff became the main way to find anything, businesses that weren’t mainly patronized by old people started opting out.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Play them at their own game by listing a child starving service in the Yellow Pages.

        • Tangent5280@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          BRB, going to start my own CIA and undercut the original by outsourcing the majority of the work to Bangalore for cheap labour.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The yellow pages test comes from a dead libertarian Austrian “Economist”. Kinda interesting since he died in 1995 and the school of economics he followed was already obsolete when it came out in the 1930s.

        This stuff is part of the reason why age does matter in elected office. People get ideas and they don’t let them go even long after they have been disproven.

    • Syldon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because of the similarities between Republicans and the UK Conservative party, I am 100% convinced this is a collaborated narrative. They have collectively decided on which levers to pull and push because of data they have at hand. Some people have no moral compass at all when it comes to making money. And let’s face it, this is purely about backhanders and donation funding.

        • Syldon@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://nationalconservatism.org/natcon-uk-2023/about/ is the main link imo. Phil Moorhouse said in one of his videos that this is heavily funded by the Republican party. I cannot find that video though. I also cannot find a link with these and Murdoch. It very much looks like the UK Tories are copying the Republicans. The way they have abused the UK is no where near as bad as the stunts of the Republicans over there.

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Brexit is by far one of the worst political stunts inflicted upon the UK I could possibly imagine. Losing the right to live and work in an entire continent worth of cultures and economies – sure, here in the US has a problem with guns, women as equals, “God and Country” white nationalism in every mega church across the nation, and American Exceptionalism, etc., but Brexit is a whole other level of stupidity.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, Britain had a lot of exceptions as founder country and they decided to loose them.

    • DevopsPalmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      But that is exactly what they are counting on. We need more angry informed people instead of the angry idiots that lap this up because “woke is bad” but can’t explain what woke is. Woke = anything you disagree with.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm. They want to protect social security for seniors… Isn’t that just like socialism but with extra steps?

    • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand discouraging it, as the free school lunches were shit and are shit that is barely edible, but banning it seems wrong. There are some places where there are kids who will eat the disgusting whatever it is they pulled from the dumpster behind the school, but I don’t think most people would want to. But also from the quotes you provided, I doubt it’s about that…

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I was one of the kids that received free lunch at school growing up. No, it wasn’t my favorite food but it was a meal that I would not have had otherwise. It was free lunch or no lunch due to no fault of my own. I preferred to eat something rather than starve.

      • Striker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The solution is to this issue is more money from school free lunch. Starve the beast is a well known political tactic.

      • PersnickityPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought that something like 40% of kids are in low income families who can’t afford lunch. Is that still the case?

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      In case you are unaware, you weaken anything you want to say by purposely changing the spelling of words. It panders to those who are like minded, while pushing away those people on the fence you want to convince.

      Four words into your second paragraph is where a lot of people will stop reading.

      Something to keep in mind if you want to make an impact.

      • Gloomy@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am German. Auto correct changing “document” to “Dokument” (the German Word) happens easily on a phone set to German and honestly just didn’t jump at me as wrong. After all it’s how I am used to read the word.

        But I am honestly curious. How does a misspelled word pander to those that are like minded? Does “Dokument” have any meaning in English that I as a not nativ speaker am not aware of?

      • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do also know that in addition to German words being similar, other languages have similar words, right? And maybe they use the spelling they are familiar or maybe their auto correct choose the spelling in their native language. This comment is ridiculous and assumes that first off, everyone speaks English, and second, everyone speaks it perfectly.

    • GreenMario
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      143
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Make em think their tax money is paying for “Ni–er food” and they’ll burn down the entire education system.

      Hell, replace Nword with F-word or Kword honestly doesn’t matter.

      Source: What happened to all the public swimming pools after Desegregation? And That one time a Republican signed a strict anti gun law the second the Black community exercised their Second.

        • qyron@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe they referring to “kike”, a slur for jewish people.

          With the degree of self censoring and the love acronyms and shortening words, it’s becoming a challenge to follow written text.

          Is the fword “faggot”?

          • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you, I was also confused by what the fuck the “K-word” could be. I think we could asterisk out a letter, so meaning is still conveyed, and the impact of the word might still be felt and understood.

            • qyron@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I understand your reasoning but I can’t subacribe it.

              A word is a word. A word becomes an insult if it is used against someone, with that specific intent.

              I specifically used the quotation marks because I wanted to convey the understanding that I was putting the words out with no connection to anything.

              Writing on a social media outlet feels more and more like walking through a trap field. Cryptic acronyms, forbidden and self censored words and redacted sentences.

              This is the worst kind of censorship I can think of. It blocks the person and others from fully expressing ideas and thoughts and preassigns a default judgement towards who is trying to convey an argument.

              The best way to void a word - especially if an insult - is to ignore it. Don’t use it, ignore it in others speech, attack the use of it as an insult.

              Self censoring is not a good thing.

              • GreenMario
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Honestly I wanted to be edgy but been trained that I’ll get auto moderated if I just type it out.

                Also people really do be thinking you are racist if you type out a word (or recite a song lyric) from a different point of view.

                In other words, it’s a no win scenario.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Free meals is communist!!”

      Which… If you think like they do, then socialism==communism==unamerican.

        • ramble81
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And they want to do away with public schools…I’d say that tracks for them.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well… it’s okay if you don’t want the job. Because I wouldn’t let you near any kids I might have if you actually have to ask that in context of free meals for kids whose only meal comes at school.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s this precise lack of empathy that, in my eyes, disqualifies you from caring for other’s kids.

              I mean, what kind of person says “we shouldn’t feed starving kids”? Like seriously. That’s what you’re arguing here.

              You take care of your own? Congratulations. Want a participation trophy? I think I can spare a bottle cap or something. Too bad they’re no longer shiny…

              • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am fine with “feeding starving children”. It’s feeding the children of wealthy people that I bridle at

                What makes you think I want praise for raising my kids? It’s my job. That’s my point

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. Fuck over starving not-rich-kids whose only meal of the day comes from free school lunch programs- because a rich kid “might” get a free lunch.

                  * golf clap * Impressive display of empathy there. Oh and by the way… you’re generally wrong about whose getting free lunches. So you’re fucking starving kids over … because of propaganda.

        • PersnickityPenguin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          People. Society really.

          What’s the old adage? It takes a village to raise a child?

          As a father of a young child, there is no fucking way that one or two parents can meet all of the child’s development needs. You need everything from Farmers to grow food, teachers to teach, doctors to medicine, grandparents to grandparent, and they need peers and other people to interact with. Every one of those people plays a role, some more important than others.

          • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, parents and grandparents granted, but I don’t think farmers are raising children. I don’t really want teachers raising my children I want them to teach my children.

            I think the village to raise a child adage is very much in the dustbin. Once upon a time that would literally be the case and the food would also come from the farmers of the village so it would be quite a different dynamic.

            I wish there was more of a community and we could jointly aid in the support of children certainly where I live that is not the case.

            Ultimately it is the parent’s job to raise the children, and it’s the parents job to select who the child comes in contact with.

            • PersnickityPenguin
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              As a parent of a young child, you’re completely delusional if you think parents are in complete control of every person that a child comes into contact with.

              Just at my kids school there are probably 250 staff members including teachers and administrative staff who come into contact with the kids on a daily basis. I have zero influence on that!

              This doesn’t even touch on mass media in the internet which have a huge impact on not just children, but people like yourself. You yourself are interacting with people on the internet whom you know nothing about.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People who want others to suffer will support this. This will almost only impact low income (mostly minority) populations, the kind that republic voter love to hurt

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t punish bad parents by punishing their children. Even if their viewpoint was right this would make no sense.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except, Republicans love to punish the children of poor parents for the crime of being poor.

          You don’t have to be a bad parent to be poor, you just have to be poor.

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            The assumption I mentioned was that in their worldview being poor is also being bad parents. Regardless, punishing children accomplishes nothing.

            • MelodiousFunk@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              Kids that grow up hungry are more likely to enter the workforce early, doing the low-wage “essential role” jobs that the capital class desperately needs bodies for. Breaking the cycle of poverty is a big no-no for the 1%.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah it does. The cruelty is the point. They’re trying to punish children and their parents for being (mostly non-White) poor.

              At the same time, they’re trying to turbocharge the school to prison pipeline so their owner donors from the prison industrial complex can profit off poverty and perpetuate more themselves, leading to an infinite loop of poverty, misery and demonization for anyone who’s not already a rich cishet white man.

          • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t see a difference between bad and poor. The only exception is the perfect poor republicans - but they’re only temporarily poor, they’re going to be rich one day so all this poor bashing isn’t counter productive to them!

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t care if the parents are bad or not, but hey just want to hurt poor people and minorities, to lost republicans those words are the same thing.

    • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Going usual playbook, they’d prolly declare it “woke” and mumble the boilerplate shit about taxes, bootstraps, and communism.

    • Lifted_lowered@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The USA is a deeply racist settler colony founded on doing violence to those without the privilege to escape it. The idea that someone “undeserving” might get a benefit from one’s tax payment enrages the Republican voting base which is mostly white men who make over $50k a year.

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I suspect his information is out of date, $50k isn’t a lot of money but 10 or 20 years ago it was.

            • III@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, it was. If it helps, $50K then would be $81K today. The average minimum wage these days across the US is $8.5 an hour, or $17K per year.

              So it is… it absolutely is. Even today it is quite a lot to many people.

        • kn0wmad1c@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This chart bothers me because the y-axis is all over the place in terms of range. Sometimes it’s $15k range, sometimes it’s $30k, sometimes it’s $50k. Really skews the data.

    • Neuromancer
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suppose taxes.

      I’m a republican and I fully support free school meals. We are already taxed for books, building, teachers, etc.

      I’d fully support basic supplies and meals as well. It just makes sense to make sure all students have the basic needs met since we are paying for it.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Instead of defining yourself by party membership in a group that doesn’t represent you, maybe you should think about not being a member of that party?

        • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t stop me disagreeing with the Democratic party on plenty of issues. The vast majority of people don’t adhere 100% to their party’s politics, especially with the big-tent two-party system in the US. I can’t speak for the person to whom you’re responding, but you can’t extrapolate from their disagreement on one issue to disagreement on others.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, but this particular idea is intentionally letting children starve. Would you really want to associate yourself with a group that wanted to do that if you were against it?

            It’s like saying, “I’m on their side, but I don’t agree with their ‘kill the asylum seekers’ policy.” (I assume that will be a policy of theirs eventually.) How morally repugnant does a group have to get before you disassociate yourself with them?

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It already is policy for some of them, see Abbott’s death trap along the Rio Grande or DeSantis wanting to station his state guard on major crossings to shoot undocumented migrants.

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Getting people to think about identifying based on party membership is important to get people to actually think about whether they should be a member of that party. Sure, they might be all in on racist wall building, insurrection, and blowing Trump.

            But maybe a nudge can help them be a little introspective and think more broadly about whether they picked the right team if their team wants children to go hungry. Just trying to get them to think about things, not saying every party member needs to agree with everything about their party.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you only identify yourself as being Republican because you consider yourself to be a conservative then I’ve got good news for you, no need to associate with the wackos, the US Democrats are the conservatives of the countries where there actually exists a political spectrum that extends further left than right of center 👍

      • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Based, lobby your representatives and let’s try and get the basics down in a bipartisanly

        • Neuromancer
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right now my largest complaint with the republicans is they just want to stop the democrats from doing anything.

          Good ideas should be pushed by both parties. The republicans are rarely pushing their own ideas. They’re just blocking other ideas.

          The basic should be supplied. When I show up to work, I dont have to buy my own paper and pencil. It’s supplied.

          Education is an investment in the next generation. I strongly support it.

    • SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      By convincing them that their taxes shouldn’t come back to them in any way and should instead be used for a higher purpose. Corporation, that’s the higher purpose.

    • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t need the government to feed my kids. But at the moment they are taxing poor workers to do so. Is that a good idea?

      • Espi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        So maybe tax the rich? As long as there is a single person who can’t afford to feed their kids, the government should feed them.

      • _Lost_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, this helps poor workers because their kids get free meals. This isn’t raising taxes on the poor.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because this is a social good that results in ROI over decades. If something is not immediately profitable, it is difficult for the private market to be leveraged to find an optimal solution. Situations like that are typically where government has to step in.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t need the government’s help. I happen to know a lot of families DO. There are kids right now, in the richest fucking country in the world, who might only have one substantial meal in their day, and that’s their school lunch.

          • Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            a grossly oversimplied suggestion i would have is 10% of the income, starting from a 10 million USD/month income, up 15 percentual points for each order of magnitude, so 25% if someone gets 100m/mo, 55% if 10b/mo, 70% if 100b/mo etc.

            assuming all these people properly pays accurately, that would be about enough to feed people in and out of school.

            • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think your books will balance. There are not enough billionaires to find this. Also, they will all disappear, I bet they have good lawyers.

              And I bet if implemented that threshold would come down and down and down. Let’s talk to a prosperous Ukrainian farmer in the interwar period. Sent to a goo-lag for having a sewing machine perhaps?

              • Wilker@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                i smell double bind. say nothing and the food is taken away, with parents being forced to spit up more money for food. say something and rich people will be sad, which means no money added to pay for food, which will be used to justify taking away the food anyway.

                what’s your solution then? you may not need the government to pay for your kids’ food, but there are people who still needs it. you gotta feed people somehow and be careful not to fall into ableist policy (e.g only people who quote unquote, “works hard”, gets the food).

      • laverabe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        poor workers aren’t being taxed. The US has a heavily progressive tax system. Anyone making less than 40-50k pays almost nothing in taxes as a percentage of income, as compared to someone making 300k a year.

        These meals help the poor and middle class the most and are paid for mostly by high earners.

  • mrginger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    162
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ban abortions, then starve the children. If wasn’t already apparent that the Republican Party is evil, this should make things much clearer.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Starving children don’t learn. An educated populace is good for the economy. Feeding children benefits you directly in the long-term.

        But people like you never think about things past the short-term.

      • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, you ghoul, you do have a moral responsibility to help feed starving children in your community. Morality is wild, eh?

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s arguably the single most fundamental job of the government, yes.

        The fucking romans had this figured out god damn.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Food should be a basic right. So, yes. I would argue that it should be the government’s job.

        In fact, I would argue that all the basic survival needs should just be provided to us free of charge. Leave money and income and working as such for earning yourself luxuries.

        Anything less and you’re just forcing people to work under the threat of starvation and homelessness. And is that right?

        …also were talking about literal children here. It’s not like they have a choice exactly.

        • Colonel Panic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would LOVE if we could get to that system.

          Everything paid for, you can sit at home all day if you want, but that will be with no luxuries.

          You want Netflix and games and hobbies and whatever? Get a job to earn luxury income.

          And it wouldn’t even be hard to do. We would simply have to not have fucking BILLIONAIRES. That’s about it.

        • PersnickityPenguin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree. We need a federal lawsuit to enforce this. The federal government has been completely ignoring homelessness and the complete lack of a social safety net throughout the US and it’s just killing the country.

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          100% wrong. Anything that can run out can never be a “right”. Freedom of speech can be, freedom from unjust search and seizure can be.

          What happens when the money, or the food, or the houses run out?

          I’m in the UK. It doesn’t matter that we have an NHS (which I am a huge fan of btw), I have zero hope of being able to use it in anything like a timely manner because it’s falling to bits. Not even healthcare can be a “right”

          • Bloodyhog
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            NHS is a government service you explicitly pay for (unless you are exempt from NI). It is not a right, it is something you purchase. You can be exempt from paying due to your personal circumstances, but if all is well - you pay. The fact that our beloved government does not deliver what you pay for is another topic, but it certainly should.

              • Bloodyhog
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thin ice. I believe there must be a balance between free capitalism and a moderately strong government with a safety net. People do fail in life, that should not necessarily lead to death. Children in particular are hungry not because they failed, but because their parents did. And there is a role for the government to support the children in need. This was a role of a tribe in the early days, or community slightly later; then governments took over. This safety net has to exist for other categories of people in need, the extent of this support is to be debated in a healthy society. Personally I do see a merit even in the universal income. Not because this is everyone’s birthright, but because it may soon become a necessity.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To feed children? Step back, take a look in the mirror, and ask yourself where you went wrong that you’re talking about taking away food from children’s mouths. You are a monster.

        If you also think abortion should be illegal in addition to not feeding them, you aren’t just a monster, you’re an indescribably awful evil.

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who says I’m against free school meals. Just not distributing them in a wasteful way. Tell you what, we have the school meals, but it has one control, you have to apply. That’s it, no means testing. That would reduce the number of meals severed to wealthy children straight away.

          In the UK we have a similar thing with heating bills. Old people get a heating allowance if they need it or not. You can’t chose to not have it. Let’s put the same control on there

          I can afford £2 a day, happily, but my youngest gets meals regardless. In fact, these meals were a huge problem for lots of schools that were not equipment to feed the first 3 years of school entrants.

          Why don’t you take a look in the mirror and ask how you can be happy garisnhig the wages of low I come workers to feed my children?

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You do realize taxes are not the same amount taken from everyone? And if you’re poor enough you don’t pay anything on taxes. If you’re a step above that, you get back everything you paid on taxes at the end of the year. I’m not really sure why you think tax funded lunches would garnish wages from the poor.

            • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I love how everyone stars with “you do realize”. Nobody here is interested in conversation.

              Yes, I do know that. Is there a cost of living crisis? Do you think higher tax payers are also finding it had to make ends meet?

              Should we change the threshold, perhaps, where does that lost revenue come from? We would need to sort that out.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s not a straw man at all. It’s a logical thing to bring up when you are stating that children don’t deserve to be fed by taxpayer money. The state forces chosen to exist and then makes it illegal for taxes to pay for their food thereby proving that they don’t give a damn about the kids at all.

            • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t say that, the needy should be helped, not those who are not needy.

              Are government rape gangs forcing women to get pregnant. Jesus, you should vote against that.

              You have no idea on my opinions on abortion, a guarantee

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          To put ovide an environment of personal safety and property rights so people can be independently prosperus. I have no issue with a welfare state, but that is not the primary function of government.

          What happens when you run out of other peoples money?

      • Phegan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my opinion, yes. But even if you disagree with that.

        This is the federal government attempting to undo states choosing to feed children. So this is even worse, this is them actively taking away the ability for states to choose to feed children.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        It literally is, by the doctrine on parens patriae. It is the duty of the state to act in the best interests of its citizens who unable to pursue those interests themselves, whether it’s because they are incapacitated, or minors. This goes back centuries, to the time of monarchy. Our ancestors resolved the question of “who should care for the orphans?” with the simple answer, “it is the king’s duty.”

        It is the government’s job, in its role as sovereign, to feed kids who don’t get enough to eat. And if it’s not, we should just burn it all to the fucking ground, because why else even have a society?

            • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow. The first person on this thread to not just insult me.

              I have no issue with free school meals, I just don’t want them to be universal, feeding rich kids is crazy.

              • Astro@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s easier for everyone to have free meals than a select few, I feel. It would also get rid of an easy target on lower income kids being bullied for having the “free lunch”.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Probably also much cheaper per. Trying to set up a meals program for the fee underprivileged - probably should just order Panera delivered. But if you go through the overhead of setting up a program, the cost of more meals is probably marginal.

                  Also, how about when kids forget. Why does it always seem to be the teacher who has to buy emergency food?

                  To me, it’s like prison: kids always compare school to prison, so let’s go with that. The government is forcing them to be there past meal times, and not letting them out. The school is claiming parental authority to watch out for their needs. One of them is food, dammit

                • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, the government is wasteful and bureaucratic I agree. Is my solution anyone can have the free meals if they apply for it they’re simple to apply for through the school.

                  That would immediately eliminate a huge number of unnecessary lunches to purchase. I would happily have been buying my kids their school lunches through their first three years of school, but that was not a choice offered to me.

                  When I went to school half the kids are on preschool dinners literally nobody cared.

                  Incidentally my family were dirt poor when I was a little but we weren’t poor enough to qualify for free school lunches but we may do with sandwiches. Presuming the poor are incapable and requiring of constant charity is the soft bigotry of low expectation

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a major failure of a society when people don’t have access to the basics. Basic food, water, shelter, and basic healthcare. America fails quite badly on this.

        Wendy’s is luxury food however. If you want it, go earn money and buy it yourself.

      • Elivey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re arguing against feeding fucking children

        Did you ever stop to think, “are we the baddies?”

        Unbelievable.

          • Colonel Panic
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m pretty sure we’re saying the opposite… We want to tax THE RICH. You know, the guys with billions and paying almost no taxes because of loopholes only they can use.

            How about they pay their FUCKING FAIR SHARE so the rest of us aren’t left picking up the damn tab every time.

            Quit using bad faith strawman arguments you absolute monster.

      • Colonel Panic
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You guys will make up ANY ridiculous straw man argument to screw yourself and everyone over won’t you? You just are desperate to make everyone except the 1% stay suffering.

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          “you guys”?

          I swear everyone in this thread is having a hallucination that I’m somebody I’m not. I presume you think I’m sort of some of red that wearing uber conservative?

          Do people’s actual opinions matter at all.

          Perhaps I should think you’re a communist or something and then accuse you of it?

      • PersnickityPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It basically is in a fairly straightforward way.

        In the Declaration of the Independence it states thusly:

        “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        Since you cannot have Life without food, it would logically follow that it is the government’s job to (secure these rights) food for people. If it does not, then the Declaration of Independence states that we can overthrow the government.

      • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow, the smooth brain takines of this sub would down vote me out of existence and “banish” me if they had the chance. Great advert for the society you would run.

        None of you have any inquiry as to why I would say that.

    • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      The late great George Carlin has a bit on advocating for the unborn I can’t be fucked to find atm.

        • PersnickityPenguin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The supreme Court in its June 24th ruling last year overturning Roe versus Wade argued that there weren’t enough infants available for adoption:

          "“[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the do- mestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent”);

          (Pg. 35)

          • query
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Although “pro-lifers” don’t care about providing even for fetuses. They’re not investing in healthcare, they’re shutting down everything they can that is associated with abortion, which is mainly the people who actually care and the field of medicine that deals with pregnancy.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, if you put enough effort into disincentivizeing kids from attending to school, maybe they’ll go back to work in meat packing plants and coal mines like god intended!!

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of students don’t want to go to school but have no choice, both because of societal and legal pressures.

      • Elivey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of kids also don’t want to brush their teeth, go to bed at reasonable hours, or clean their rooms.

        Kids don’t really get to just do whatever they want it turns out because they aren’t the best at taking care of themselves and making good decisions.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          For a lot of situations kids will do what you want them to do if you actually explain why you want them to do it. Furthermore, public schooling is not one of those things, because 13 years of it is clearly not best for some students.

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, this is good. In order for society to run and all people to vote and participate in our country, we need a minimum education.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it were about minimum knowledge than you would be able to test out of it, and those not meeting minimum requirements wouldn’t be able to graduate. But as it stands the top 10% of 8th graders know more than the bottom 30% of highschool graduates.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I got at GED. I also got a perfect score. Not because I’m some sort of genius, because there was not one single thing on it I hadn’t learned by the end of middle school.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              In my state and in many states you had to be at least 18 to be out of education. In many others its 16. Do you know of any examples lower than that?

              • exohuman@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No. When you go under 16 you are talking about a child that is too young to make executive decisions in the outside world that would be expected of an someone with a GED. High school and GED are culturally signs of being ready for adulthood. Under 16 is too young.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, being 18 is the sign of that. There are 40 year olds without highschool degrees or GEDs, they’re still adults.

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            At the end of the day, it shouldn’t be about knowledge anyway, it should be about the ability to think and exercise sound judgment.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed, but I’m not convinced school teaches someone that anymore than daily life does.

  • Someology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    1 year ago

    But, um, the first national free lunch programs were started in this country because when WWII started, the government found that the post-Great-Depression populace was so stunted from malnourishment that there was concern about recruiting enough eligible soldiers. So, does this mean Republicans no longer want a military? No more sending poor people to fight their wars?

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it’s more of that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. AKA ignorance and lack of empathy.

      Edit: “repeated” to “repeat it”.

    • terwn43lp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m an adult & food stamps have gotten me through many rough patches. studies show that investing in social services is better for the economy than letting people starve, who woulda thunk?

    • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, these “pro-life” monsters absolutely would have children starve to get closer to another 0 at the end of their bank accounts. Vote well, and influence your local community as much as you can!

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, because the Dem leadership and the candidates they pick in the primaries have been doing doing a great job containing and restraining the worst elements of the far right 🙄

        If you just vote for the same invertebrate corporate stooges again, they’ll be sure to do what they say THIS TIME!

        We need a general strike and a viable and principled third party to the left of the Dem corporation.

        • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          While we’re listing things the country needs and structurally never will have, we also need oral sex and free steak dinners! It’s tough having to vote in the reality we live in, instead of the one we imagine

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even tougher when you stubbornly insist that it’s impossible to change it to more resemble the better one that we “imagine”.

            If you always act on the presumption that you can’t do anything, you’ll be proven as weak and ineffectual as you think you are.

            You should think more like labor unions and civil rights activists and less like Nancy Pelosi or her protégé, the somehow even worse Hakeem Jeffries.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Labor unions and civil rights activists want to change the party from within. A third party to the left of the Democrats will do nothing but ensure Republican victories from hereon in. They are aware of this. I’m not sure why you aren’t.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re wrong on both points. While some progressives support them and some neoliberals pay them lip service while actively supporting and accepting support from cops and billionaires, many labor unions and civil rights movements (especially the ones with a lot of millennial and gen Z members) have no party affiliation because they’ve been fucked over by the Dem leadership for the last 30+ years.

                The best way to make sure Republicans don’t win isn’t to keep rushing for the middle ground every time they move farther right, to the point of now being a center right to right wing party. It’s staking out and defending a principled left wing position that’s much more in line with the actual policy priorities of the majority of the.

                • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Tell me more about how splitting the vote is good thing in a two party system, I need a good fairy tale to send me to sleep

        • CuriousLibrarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not happy with the Dems either, but I do believe they will fight against the elimination of free school lunches. I will vote for them even if this is all they did.

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Counting the GOP as “Blatantly Evil” shouldn’t even be a lukewarm take at this point.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      And lo, Jesus did taketh the loaf and the fish, and did so declare unto to the crowd that they could go forth and multiply, for the bread and the fish did belong only to himself.

      Selfishness 14:7-10

  • Transcriptionist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Image Transcription:

    News article title reading “Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority” followed by the first sentence of the article reading “As states across the country move to make sure students are well fed, Republicans have announced their intention to fight back.”

    Below the article screenshot is a picture of Henry J Waternoose III, the spider-like monster from Monsters Inc, saying “I’ll starve a thousand children before I let this company get taxed”

    [I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]

  • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Family values means forcing children in already marginalized and impoverished families to go hungry.

  • SpicaNucifera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can I get a source on this? Because I know the GOP is Batshit, but this is cartoonishly evil, and I feel like a republican voter will immediately assume it’s fake.