693
submitted 1 year ago by rdeets@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 156 points 1 year ago

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

Dark times are ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

it doesnt matter how lazy they are - if poor people keep having children, they will remain poor.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Tell that to a $100,000 medical invoice that bankrupted you because you got sick.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My credit was destroyed while I was still in college and hadn't yet built up basically any credit. My crime for having my financial future ruined for the next 7 years? I was hit by someone who turned their SUV into me because they didn't look whether there was anyone in the crosswalk, and I was a broke college student, so I couldn't pay for all of the medical bills.

(Tangential note: I don't like the phrase "hit by a car". Until cars are fully autonomous, no one ever gets hit by a car; they get hit by a person driving a car. Also, fuck that lady and her trying to get out of the $67 ticket she got for hitting me and permanently injuring my knee. "I didn't see anybody" isn't an excuse. Especially when that person was wearing orange. If you do that, you just didn't look.)

Edit: Also, the US credit system is a scam designed to benefit the well off and punish those who are poorer.

[-] Duder167@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Confused. How did she not pay for it if she caused it? Is this just a major fuck up on your part for not holding her to account? I've never been in a wreck but my car has been hit in parking lots and I've never paid a dime, always the person at fault.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Not who you are responding to, but it happens all the time. Idiot driver is uninsured so there's no insurance to pay the bills. Or they are under-insured and their insurance will only pay a fraction of the bills. What are you going to do? If you can afford it, you can sue them and maybe get some money out of them, but unless they are rich the odds are you won't get enough wealth to pay the bills either. And if they are rich, they'll tie you up in court for so long that your credit will be destroyed and you'll run out of money to keep paying your lawyer to keep suing them.

[-] diablexical@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

None of this would be an issue if the medical bills were covered by single payer. I learned in other countries there’s no “ambulance chasers” because there’s no reason to have them - a whole parasitic industry nonexistent.

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

She eventually did, but her insurance company fought it for a long time.

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

Don't know when it was, but nowadays it's generally best to just ignore medical bills like that vs bankruptcy.

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

Wooooooow. Some people really out themselves as ignorant and cruel in a spectacular way.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

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

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s exactly why they’re refusing.

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

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

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

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

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

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

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

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

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

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

But that would be "communism"!

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

nothing is preventing someone from creating a bill that would offer financial assistance to helping those who cant afford to move to "greener pastures".

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
693 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2840 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS