all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

And every Republican who doesn't rely on SNAP benefits, cheered and cheered...while their fellow Americans went hungry.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 73 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 77 points 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 39 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    They aren't pro life, just pro birth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    If we can't even feed the children, how are we worthy as a nation?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago

    food chain keeping some poor neighborhoods from being food deserts are closing down in my city. operator said when the snap cuts hit so did their monthly (no duh) and they can't cover monthly costs.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago* (47 children)

    Food "benefit". 🤡
    Americans are such clowns in their rhetoric. Everything gets twisted.
    Food is not a "benefit".

  • source
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "Benefit" is one of the less inflammatory descriptions. Republicans typically demonize these programs by referring to them as 'entitlements'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    The word "entitlement" is one that the cons have loved to weaponize - they make it sound like the people getting entitlements are entitled little brats (or welfare queens, as Ronnie Raygun put it), when it's about the legal framework of those programs.

    They love to twist language - see their use of the word "elite" as another great example. People with ungodly amounts of money don't count as elite in their view, but someone that cracks open a book is an elite.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -5 points 3 months ago (44 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    It's actually a human right as defined by the UN - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

    Article 25

    Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

    Goes very nicely with

    Article 22

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality

    Does the US uphold human rights? No. That's the main issue here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Yes. And Elon already is wildly subsidized by the government...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am pointing out that the government already subsidized Elon. What he decides to do with that money has been largely left up to him. So yes, we the people have provided Elon with the housing and feeding of his questionable ideas in the form of Twitter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (12 children)
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    If you work a 40 hour week you should recieve food, shelter, medicine and entertainment.

    I believe this is achievable thanks to the incredible innovation over the past 2 centuries.

    What's absurd is the current system. Where billionaires can extract from nations without giving anything back. It's absurd that food for children is being cut to bomb children on the other side of the world.

    What I believe may sound absurd to you. But look at our reality. It's fucking crazy!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    The collective pays for it through tax collection. The people who already make it will still make it. If you wanted to move you would give up your current house and trade it for a different one.

    Why can you not imagine a better, fairer society?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Yes! It would be extremely difficult but that's the dream!

    There's already millions of empty homes due to capitilism. 100% tax on any income above $100,000,000 would be a start lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Those things are happening right now under capitalism. No system is immune from corruption. That's why it's so important to stamp it out when you see it.

    No one should earn over $100mil full stop. The design is flawed.

    I don't really see the issue. With all our technological advancements, people shouldn't have to work as much as they do. I would love to see people have more time off. Yes some would sit around and do nothing, maybe they need the rest, but I think the majority would get bored and do something they actually wanted to do. In would be a net positive for society. Parents could spend more time with their kids.

    I do understand how hard it would be to achieve. But I believe it's possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    That's just not true though.

    I understand the importance of a CEO. It's a difficult job and requires dedication. But how can you honestly say they deserve to earn x1000 times more than someone who works just as hard but doesn't have the right connections.

    Then there are shareholders. They use their wealth to aquire more wealth. Yes they make decisions about where the company should make investment but they also only care about one thing, portfolio growth. This leads to loopholes in tax laws, private equity gutting companies, attacks on workers rights and criminal cover ups.

    No one earns a billion fairly. Just because you are well off doesn't mean you deserve to be. The notion that 'these people create jobs' is a cop out. These people need to be reigned in.

    I've seen figures saying total billionaire worth is $21trillion. Divided equally, that would give every person on Earth $2500. I don't know about you but that would help me enourmously. And imagine the difference it would make to someone from Iraq or Sudan.

    Obviously it wouldn't make sense to just hand it out like that. It's just an example to show how much wealth is owned by those who don't actually need it. They're not even doing anything useful with it and would still be unfathomably rich if they gave some away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    We police how people spend their money all the time! Taxes! Laws. Life is full of resitrictions. Just because you have money it doesn't mean you're above the law.

    By law you must also contribute to society through taxes. How is it fair that a handful of individuals can buy the presidency to reduce their tax contributions. How is it fair that their companies can lobby the government to bend/break the rules.

    Musk and Bezos have done well. They had innovative ideas and expanded them incrdibly well. They deserve to live in luxury. They could give half their wealth away and still live in luxury.

    I still want to live in a meritocracy where good ideas are rewarded. But the amount of power these individuals have is monstrous. Some of their wealth must be taken away.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (20 children)

    No it is absolutely not a benefit, but a bad solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
    A more proper non propagandist name would be basic food aid.

    The reasons people need food aid are typically things like not being able to get a job or being sick. Needing food aid is not a "privilege" or "benefit", it's a sickness of a malfunctioning society.

    To call it a "benefit" is propaganda to make it seem like an evil system that cater to the rich is benevolent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (19 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (18 children)

    This is a thread about the US governement taking food away from children and you're getting hung up on semantics.

    It's good to know you're privileged enough not to need support from the governement. Others are not so lucky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (16 children)

    Ok fair. SNAP is a government benefit if you must use the technical term. It's not the end of the story though.

    I think there is some truth in the original comment of this thread. They are called government benefits to make people believe they are not entitled to them. When in reality they are your right as a human being.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (14 children)

    It is. It may not be provided in many countries and that is something we should aim to fix, but as a human being you are entitled to free food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    I suppose the caveat is, you have to be unable to afford it to recieve it for free. Like you, I have a high enough income that I'm not entitled to free food. It's good to know that it's available if i fall on hard times though. I'd like to see it expanded not reduced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Ok yeah I see what you mean. Definitely agree about government spending being auditable and public. And obviously wasted taxes are bad. But I'd argue taxes are never wasted on feeding the population, especially children!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    Does the US need a war with Iran. Does it need to invest so heavily in AI. I'd say no. I'd say that money would be far better spent providing support to the next generation. Or literally anything else. Green tech, healthcare, education are far more worthy causes than tax cuts for the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Iran hates the West because the West has been invading the Middle East for hundreds of years. The crusades were a horrendous time. Muslims and Jews lived fairly peacefully in Palestine before the West sent the WW2 european jewish refugees there and created the state of Israel. They did this to establish a base of influence in the region and further the US imperialist conquest. Maybe Iran wants nukes just so the West will leave it alone. Iran is not the aggressor. You are not immune to propaganda. Neither am I of course, I spent many years thinking the West were the good guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    You are not immune to propaganda. The people of Iran do not want all Christians dead, they do not want all Jews dead. They want peace in the region. The US government and it's allies make that very difficult.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Dude wtf are you talking about?? Islam does not call for the death of non believers. You've fallen for propaganda. Muslims are not your enemy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago*

    SNAP is a subsidy to the poor and to farmers.

    Insofar as it benefits farmers, it's obviously a rural benefit, and it's also advantageous to rural areas on the poor front.

    https://frac.org/blog/snaps-critical-role-in-rural-communities-and-the-consequences-of-cuts

    One in seven rural households relies on SNAP, compared to one in eight in metropolitan areas. 

    If were a rural Republican voter and the "rural party" had just gotten a trifecta and promptly proceeded to do this


    like, this is theoretically as good as it gets


    I'd probably be a little grouchy.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    If the Pedo Party can't fuck kids, they'll starve them. Sounds on brand for those sickos.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    If you can, donate to your local food bank. We all need to help each other.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    I think they call this the "Just-world fallacy". The theory being that the poor are poor for a reason, usually their own incompetence or stupidity. And anyone who does possess resources has them because they worked hard and are smart and awesome.

    This powers an empathy gap, where the more resources you accrue, the less you feel related to the people around you.

    I dont know if its capitalism or basic human nature, but it sure is sad and unjust.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    So the bill is working as intended and a 'success' then?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Just as Jesus would have done. I'm pretty sure this was the main thrust of the Sermon on the Mount: "let the little ones go hungry, because we need to punish uppity women, gays, trans, brown people and funnel more money to oligarchs."

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    They must really want food riots and civil war?

  • source