strong disagree

0

also idc. if it's messy clean it up. roughly 11% of the US population uses it - it should already be simple and smooth and the only reason it's *sometimes* not is a consequence of rampant attacks and defunding by right wing groups. a system that ensures a baseline level of nutritional integrity for the country is a no brainer

7

Anonymous #2 6d

It’s worth noting that this is pretty much exactly the way capitalism in this country worked following the New Deal, which is the exact era of financial nostalgia this country is obsessed with.

9

Anonymous #3 6d

wtf that should probably be a health department violation

15

Anonymous #7 6d

And what do we do if it’s a single parent or one of the parents just lost their jobs? Record layoffs are happening rn

12

Anonymous #9 6d

Again your anger is directed at the wrong person. Layoffs suck but why don’t the parents have an emergency savings for situations like that. They would’ve had one if they weren’t living about their means. And there we see the real problem

-5

Anonymous #9 6d

yeah probably

1

Anonymous #7 6d

the economy and job market are terrible rn. plus blaming parents for being poor doesn’t make the children any less hungry. trust me nobody wants to be poor they’re not doing it on purpose

5

Anonymous #7 6d

Parents don’t have emergency savings because the emergency savings have already been used during things like COVID

14

Anonymous #7 6d

also. telling poor people to “just have savings” is like telling depressed people to “just be happy”

6

Anonymous #3 6d

let’s be fair they’d do that too. Or “just exercise”

10

do you have any evidence that it would make it messier? all historical evidence i've seen suggests it would be relatively easy - we've done similar before, and we eliminated half of child poverty just a couple years ago and it wasn't some big messy ordeal

0

also it would be pointless to make fixes to a system only to scale it up later. scale and adapt simultaneously. idk why you're so adamant on kicking the can down the road

0

Anonymous #2 6d

What? You should absolutely investigate and fix problems in the early stages. You don’t know the consequences of those problems at a larger scale

0

Anonymous #9 6d

nobody said you shouldn't investigate and fix problems. that's literally part of scaling. what i'm saying is if your goal is to scale up you shouldn't be doing it while in a fixed, limited state are you able to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time?

1

Anonymous #9 6d

also please name the problems. everybody keeps saying "messy" and "problems" but not actually listing anything. as a former snap recipient it's not a difficult system to navigate unless you live in a state that's made it difficult - which is not something solved by holding back the system

1

Anonymous #9 6d

please, tell me what bureaucratic complications (which is a fundamental part of governance that is to be expected) outweigh creating a solid foundation of nutritional integrity? also please tell me why we can't address those problems while continuing to expand coverage?

1

Anonymous #9 6d

During Covid majority of people collected unemployment which for some, was more money than they were getting from their jobs. This argument is stupid and parents should have to support their children. You guys say you want your money going to certain things like this instead of overseas wars. Not to make it political but historically democrat presidents have gotten the US into conflicts. How about we all save our money. People who work hard for what they get should not be penalized for hard work

0

Anonymous #4 6d

Woah is this actually a thing?? WTF

-5

Anonymous #2 6d

Well, for one, SNAP and free lunch are administered by the USDA. You’d probably pay back anything you used on your tax return, so through the IRS. You’d need the two agencies to exchange data, and people don’t like that (you know, surveillance, etc). I wasn’t the one who said it would be messy though, so I’m not sure what problems they were thinking of

1

Anonymous #9 6d

mm wait SNAP is state-administered, so would each state need to build their own system to handle this? But the federal gov is the one making them do it?

1

Anonymous #9 6d

That’s the whole point of the federal government. To give power to the states but also watching over the entire country.

10

Anonymous #12 6d

I never agreed with the way unemployment was working during COVID because why tf was unemployment more than some nurses were getting paid 😭 (obviously the nurses needed to be paid more, but it’s about the perverse incentives that these policies can create when they’re not thought through)

1

Anonymous #9 6d

Not saying anyone agreed to it. But the “savings funds” that you said people used during this time was not the only source of money people had. I don’t agree with how it was used either but people had money.

0

Anonymous #12 6d

Not every state paid crazy unemployment benefits like that btw. Where’d you get “majority of people” from?

2

Anonymous #12 6d

Also the whole political point wasn’t about something you said just added it in because it was an earlier comment.

0

Anonymous #12 6d

Ok, so let’s say the parents are simply financially irresponsible. Are we really leaving the kids on the hook for it?

6

Anonymous #9 6d

Not saying that. But let’s say I work hard and make good financial decisions for myself and my family. Is it fair that I also have to pay for someone else’s children for their bad decisions? At the end of the day the government can pay for meals yes. But that money is coming from somewhere and we are all paying for it by paying taxes

0

Anonymous #12 6d

You didn’t answer my question though. Are we leaving kids on the hook for their parents’ financial irresponsibility?

3

Anonymous #9 6d

You’re already paying for their school btw. And that’s a waste of money if they’re malnourished, because how are they going to do well?

3

Anonymous #9 6d

you're literally just describing the federal system of government. what's the problem?

4

Anonymous #12 6d

Some state governments do not have the expertise or money to build out a system to handle a program where literally *everyone* gets food stamps but they also have to make sure the wealthy pay them back. Here’s another issue though: are you effectively giving the wealthy an interest-free loan? If they can spend all the money they want as long as they pay it back at the end, that’s basically a loan

8

Anonymous #4 6d

That’s not a thing babes. It’s for the third grader to get a pb and j so they don’t starve when they go home and have no dinner

10

Anonymous #9 6d

again you're literally just describing governance and acting like it's a problem. name something that actually makes this unachievable, not just addressable challenges and obstacles that - again - are to be expected. "scaling is a bad idea because some states aren't prepared for scaling and need more money" is not an salient argument. it's basically meaningless

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Whatever aspect of governance is giving wealthy people interest-free loans should be reformed expeditiously lmfao

0

Anonymous #9 6d

not to mention your argument is basically that states should be limited based on other state's participation. oh no, alabama isn't ready/willing to do it? sorry other states - your hungry children have to suffer because some trog in a backwater didn't want kids in their state to eat

0

Anonymous #2 6d

So actually I never said that at all

5

Anonymous #9 6d

"loan" is not a bad word my friend. you need to explain why that is harmful, and THEN why it isn't outweighed by the benefits (which also include increased economic activity) and why a "loan" on cold/unprepared foods to feed families is a bad thing

0

Anonymous #9 6d

you said some states are unprepared. what else is the point of bringing that up other than to say that we shouldn't implement the system?

1

Anonymous #2 6d

If you don’t understand how basically giving wealthy people interest-free loans risks worsening wealth disparity and inflation, I’m not sure what to tell you

6

Anonymous #7 6d

Some children don’t have parents. 1 in 5 children go hungry every night. Not all parents can afford lunch. Some parents lose their jobs and then can’t afford food anymore. Some kids parents die and their grandparents can’t afford it. You’re imagining a perfect world where all kids have parents that have good jobs. Wake the fuck up

11

Anonymous #7 6d

Do you know how many families live paycheck to paycheck? They don’t have the privilege to have an emergency fund. And don’t say “get a new job” because they’re all paying the same. Or sometimes someone is laid off and out of a job for months, sometimes well over a year. Considering no one is hiring right now. Imagine not caring that children are starving because you don’t want to help someone in need

8

My state restricts specific DEI titles but the work doesn’t just go away so our school district has an Equity and Inclusion Program Manager among many other renamed positions which functions the same.

3

Anonymous #9 6d

oh yeah i'm sure all the interest free sliced turkey, eggs and milk is gonna just destroy the economy. demonstrate how doing this with snap would be identical to doing it with cash or hush

0

Anonymous #9 6d

notice how you just dodged it? "i don't know what to tell you" well you've been confidently telling me this entire time. go ahead and explain instead of making bold claims with absolutely no backing. saying something with confidence and condescension doesn't make it true

0

Anonymous #13 6d

People can apply for unemployment. Here’s the thing. Don’t have 7 kids when you can only afford 2. Live within your means. Yes people are poor but you can get a job at McDonald’s and make 22$ an hour. Don’t give shit about how people don’t have opportunities.

-3

Anonymous #12 6d

making $22/hr in a city that requires $30/hr to meet basic needs is the same as working for $7.25 (fed minimum) in a place where you need $9.88/hr to meet basic needs. saying a bigger than average hourly wage doesn't mean that person is living easy unemployment is finite and typically doesn't pay out a full wage. it's not a feasible solution even in the short term many don't have the means to afford family planning, which is a failure by states to provide family planning and dignified wages

8

Anonymous #12 6d

100% of the "good financial decisions" you make are a consequence of a system that benefited you. those same decisions could be detrimental under different circumstances. this system does not offer everybody the same access or opportunities - especially if they come from a lower socioeconomic status. just because you make it doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect everybody else to - this is called survivorship bias

8

Anonymous #12 6d

also ik reactionaries and mainly conservatives have been mainstreaming antisocial and socially deleterious mindsets but yes we should all be contributing to a pool of money that benefits the less fortunate. it is objectively better for everybody, including those who pay more into the system

13

Anonymous #12 6d

McDonald’s does not pay $22/hr for entry level outside of CA lol. And you keep dodging the question of *are we leaving kids on the hook for their parents’ decisions*

12

Anonymous #9 6d

Honestly I don’t know. I don’t think I should have to step up and take care of other people’s problems.

-3

Anonymous #12 6d

Can you just say “yes” with your chest please

11

Anonymous #12 6d

McDonald’s only pays $22 an hour in Los Angeles. Where a small shack of a home costs $600k. Just fucking admit you don’t give two shits about the kids starving to death. Don’t let children suffer for their parents issues or for your greed

3

Anonymous #12 6d

“I have zero empathy for others and don’t think I should help someone when they are suffering, and I don’t care that my lack of caring causes children to die”

11

Anonymous #13 6d

That’s not even close to what I said but okay

0

Anonymous #7 6d

You’re lack of empathy and your greed is killing kids. Theres no other way to spin it

4

Anonymous #13 6d

Or maybe you’re too nice and have too much empathy. That’s how you get stepped on and taken advantage of. Sorry but Sunshine and roses don’t win wars nor do they make you the #1 country on earth

-2

Anonymous #7 6d

What does this country know about winning wars in the modern day 💀

6

If the United States become too nice you won’t be posting stuff on yy in your nice cozy house on your brand new iPhone with your lululemons on like you are right now. You will be in the dirt mines and oil rigs. China and Russia will be on top.

-3

That’s the problem with y’all. Y’all think the world is sunshine and roses. It doesn’t work like that bud

-3

Anonymous #9 6d

We have technology so advance that the stuff you’re just finding out about now was invented in the 1980s

-2

Anonymous #7 6d

The last time we won a war, we sure had a lot of sunshine…

2

Anonymous #13 6d

I wonder when dems are going to realize that nobody in this world cares about you but yourself. There are plenty of opportunities for EVERYONE to have a chance at something. With dems giving hand outs America has became lazy and people don’t want to work anymore. That’s not my fault and I shouldn’t have to worry about fixing their issues

6

Anonymous #12 6d

Finally someone with some sense. I agree bro

3

Anonymous #7 6d

It’s always a pity party with the left. With everything from rights to politicians to other people. Worry about yourself just as everyone should

-1

Anonymous #13 6d

Id really love for the world to be like how you think it is. But unfortunately that’s just a fairytale and the world doesn’t work like that.

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

I’d rather feed starving children than to let them die.

9

Anonymous #13 6d

You make it sound simple, but it’s not. It’s not just A or B bc there are so many variables, costs, and cause and effect tradeoffs ect.. you don’t even think about

2

Anonymous #13 6d

The way 12 still can’t clearly say “yes I want kids to face consequences for their parents’ mistakes” lmfao

12

Anonymous #12 6d

Feeding children is a pity party? Got it. So let’s get the facts straight so I can write it down: It’s protect children, except when it comes to school shootings, feeding starving kids, providing basic healthcare for them, helping the thousands in foster care, or helping disabled children

5

Anonymous #7 6d

You make it sound simple. “It’s the parents job” fuck off no kid should go hungry. That is a simple fact. It’s odd you argue the opposite

6

Anonymous #13 6d

We didn’t give them that life. We didn’t put them in those positions. Direct your anger at their parents not us

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

“Trade offs” I pay a slight increase in my taxes so that a child doesn’t starve to death. That’s it.

3

Anonymous #7 6d

So because you aren’t involved in that child’s life, you don’t care about their death? I’m just getting all the information.

3

Anonymous #7 6d

Some children don’t have parents babes.

5

Anonymous #13 6d

You are adding so much stuff into this argument. The original argument was about me paying for someone else’s kids school lunch. Not a fan of that. You want to stop school shootings? Put retired military or police officers outside the front door with a gun. There’s plenty of them who would gladly do it. Also going on that, look at majority of school shooters. Gay, trans, mentally disabled people. Leftist people who hate the right wingers

0

Anonymous #7 6d

we wouldn’t be anywhere near #1 on earth if we didn’t subsidize tf out of our agriculture industry. “oh it’s not my responsibility to make sure farmers know about good farming techniques” we’d be stuck in the Stone Age if it wasn’t for land grant universities that developed into powerhouses that gave us the technology you’re praising rn

7

Anonymous #9 6d

Idk man. I hate to see kids starve but I wish there was a real solution that worked for everybody. There’s only one thing I can think of that would benefit both ppl but y’all would think I’m crazy if I said it

0

Anonymous #13 6d

And how many children are you trying to feed. Because earlier you guys were saying children starve every night. That seems like a lot of mouths to feed which costs a lot of money

0

Anonymous #12 6d

Im just getting all the information. You claim you care about children then show nothing to prove it. You clearly don’t care that 1 in 5 children go hungry every day. 400,000 children on a given day are fosters/orphans. You’re adding variables by assuming every parents is perfect. Stop hurting the child for the parent’s faults. No matter how shitty a parent the kid deserves a single meal a day. The government shouldn’t blame The child for their parents decisions or lack there of

10

Anonymous #9 6d

Because I never said that. I just don’t think it should be other peoples responsibility

-2

Anonymous #7 6d

It’s odd to openly admit that you do not care to help starving kids and are more than willing to let them die because it’s “the parents job” to help them

7

Anonymous #13 6d

Would you be open to lowering the minimum working age and allowing younger kids to take on basic jobs so they can earn money and buy food or things they want? This would stimulate the economy without increasing or raising taxes at all.

0

Anonymous #12 6d

The government has the money to feed children. They chose not to because it’s not “beneficial”. The government is failing children in any way shape or form. Just give a kid with no money a ducking sandwich for lunch. It’s so odd you are adamantly against that

3

Anonymous #13 6d

The goverment isn’t your baby daddy

0

Anonymous #13 6d

Would probably be beneficial for the ag industry tbh

6

Anonymous #13 6d

You are using chat GPT for your statistics which just is not reliable.

-2

Anonymous #7 6d

Oh so that’s child labor and doesn’t solve any problems. The government has the money. They just don’t want to spend it because it’s “more important” to send it to Israel or our military than to ensure children aren’t starving.

8

Anonymous #7 6d

You can’t seriously be proposing that unless you have really strong child labor laws, like no hazmat and nothing longer than 8 hr/day (school and work combined). That’s what my state does

7

Anonymous #13 6d

Ok and why u gotta bring Israel into this. I’m out.

-1

Anonymous #12 6d

Fuck off no I don’t use chat gpt for anything, https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/child-hunger-facts

10

Anonymous #13 6d

If we were to stop building our military, we would crumble to countries like china and Russia. And then you would have a lot more to worry about than kids not eating school lunch. And I assume you lean left so if I’m right your boy Obama was the biggest donor to Israel from our funding

3

Anonymous #9 6d

I don’t want to implicate myself or my family, so I’ll keep this vague, but my family owns several companies. We don’t hire children, but sometimes employees bring their kids to the stores and have them help out a bit. Most kids are very capable and can handle certain kinds of work. This isn’t anything like child mining or dangerous labor.

-1

Anonymous #9 6d

But that would be a win win

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

And that’s fine, as long as they’re paid and they still go to school, get their legally required breaks, and are still prioritizing school

8

Anonymous #7 6d

I’m pointing out certain costs that you claim we have no money for. I could also bring in how we are poring money into our inactive military, which is a waste of fucking money. But yeah bail out because you’re okay with starving kids instead of having a shred of empathy. Because at the end of the day you either want to feed all children or are okay with starving kids. And oddly more often than not its the self righteous Christians who sleep happy knowing 20% of children in the US are starving

3

Anonymous #13 6d

Perfect so if you see a homeless man on the side of the road are you going to give him money? My answer would be no but I’ll give him food. The amount of people who irresponsibly use food stamps for snacks and soft drinks and other sorts of things is crazy. If you ask me to donate food to these families then sure why not but why would I give my money to families where the parents are financially irresponsible?

-1

Anonymous #12 6d

That is completely incorrect. Our military is double the size of the next top 3 combined. It’s odd you think me pointing out that billions goes to the Military means you think I say to cut it completely. I’m pointing out that instead of idk a 92 million military parade that money could have fed children for over a year.

5

Anonymous #12 6d

Russia’s weak. China is the real threat. The funding sent to Israel is really a drop in the bucket tbf. Our own annual defense budget is like 20x the amount we’ve sent to Israel since Oct 7

1

Anonymous #12 6d

That’s not… you do realize the money doesn’t go to the families correct? It goes into the students lunch account straight from the government?? Wow are you so fucking stupid. It would be exactly like giving a homeless man a sandwich. It’s a government stipend that can only be used in school lunches

1

Anonymous #13 6d

The amount of children it would feed is so little. What’s even the point. Research some of this stuff you’re talking about

-1

Anonymous #13 6d

If I donate 1m to feed children that’s not even gonna feed 1% if the children hungry in the United States

-1

Anonymous #12 6d

Your money go to government Government give money to school says for student x who need food Money turn into food Child have food Child no longer hungry

1

Anonymous #13 6d

The United States has the 3rd largest military in the world. We are not number 1 and we would slowly fall even further behind. I don’t get how someone can willingly want to take funding from the people that protect you everyday and you don’t even know about it. Makes no sense. I’ll donate food for them to eat but I am not paying for other people to do anything.

4

Anonymous #12 6d

Cause they thing china and Russia gonna accept hugs and kissses to not attack us when our military is weak

0

Anonymous #9 6d

Russia is backed by China so in the end they are one and the same. Also they aren’t as weak as the media makes it seem. That would be like us losing a war to these drug lords in Mexico. Does that sound realistic? Putin has a plan and a lot of people in the world are not going to like what it is. Trust me we will be in for a rude awakening if we start cutting budgets like that

1

Anonymous #7 6d

Well great news! You will be asked to give $5 a month! THE HORROR

5

Anonymous #7 6d

$1M would probably go a considerable way. When you’re a food bank or government you have access to bulk deals, just like when you buy at Costco

3

Anonymous #7 6d

Okay so again, saying too much money into our military does not mean cut it entirely. Do you understand? At the end of the day you’re the one okay with starving kids. That’s it. There’s no debating that. It is your standpoint. “Kids should be punished for their parents mistakes”

4

Anonymous #12 6d

If Russia’s such a threat we should probably start focusing on their cyberattacks again, because someone told them not to worry about them anymore 💀

1

Anonymous #13 6d

So I make good decisions with my life and work hard for my money and on top of everything else I pay for I have to add that into it as well? And for these 400,000 kids 5$ a month does not seem realistic. Especially if you want them to have these meals that are filled with nutrients and all the bullshit that you guys want for them

1

Anonymous #12 6d

I’m sorry are we in wartime? They’re not protecting us with our military. They’re literally parading around. Last I checked we fought wars over oil rather than making sure our children were safe and fed

1

Anonymous #13 6d

So these kids have money on their accounts. You’re telling me they aren’t going to be buying cookies or whatever else they can get their hands on when they are 12 years old?

0

Anonymous #7 6d

It’s odd… before the trump administration we could give free lunches to kids who needed it. I wonder what changed from then to now. Just admit you don’t care that kids are starving. You’re lying to yourself if you say otherwise

1

Anonymous #12 6d

That’s not how it works. They’re only allowed to buy certain items from school with government money. Even if they were “buying cookies” I’d rather them eat a cookie than go a week without food.

3

Anonymous #12 6d

our pentagon hasn't passed an audit in how many decades? a huge portion of our taxes is siphoned off by contractors - not invested directly into troops or equipment - and we don't even know the full extent because so much is unaccounted for. pretending like a few cuts would suddenly make us weaker than russians with centuries old tanks and arms is ridiculous and uninformed

1

Anonymous #13 6d

A week without food?😂 where are you getting these “facts” from? Even making barely anything people can go to homeless shelters and get a meal. There are ways around not eating

0

Anonymous #12 6d

The amount they would get a day is at most $2. Some schools used to have a special lunch where it was made for children who are using government money. Depends on the state but no where will it allow a kid to “buy cookies” instead of a meal

1

Anonymous #12 6d

if you gave a single flying fuck about our troops you would demand we spend less on exactly the same stuff by cutting out middle men, ultimately creating more return on investment for our troops and potentially allowing for even greater R&D. all that wasted money hurts our troops and their potential. stop the phony ass virtue signaling

7

Anonymous #12 6d

Not every town has a homeless shelter. You expect the 10 year old to uber 40 minutes to the nearest one? I already sent one of the many articles where you can find this information. It is privileged and incorrect thinking to say all kids are managing to find food.

4

Anonymous #12 6d

If you’re a starving kid in a town or a rural area you’re screwed right? No soup kitchen nearby and no one to care whether you starve. You just don’t care

1

Anonymous #13 6d

You can say the same thing about the children in Africa. We aren’t the ones that dealt them those cards brotha

0

Anonymous #12 6d

Which is worse: children starving, or children not starving but everyone has to pay $60 a year?

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Idk why you’re complaining about condescension when you’re doing the same 😭 but sure. Because if the wealthy are not spending money on necessities, they’re acquiring assets or spending on luxuries. Those assets build more wealth and drive up the prices of goods. If you can get those assets to generate income, you’re golden. Rinse and repeat, because you basically have a free credit card. You’re putting your money to work while the government spends for your food and hopes you pay them back

1

Anonymous #13 6d

So going back to your 400,000 children starving and being in foster care. If 2$ every day for 1 child to eat a meal everyday for a week costs 10$ for 1 individual then we would need 4 mil a week to feed all these kids. Where are we getting that amount of money from?

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

Mmkay so what’s the point of a government but to help its people?

1

Anonymous #12 6d

(92 million for a birthday party)

5

Anonymous #12 6d

Which is worse: children starving, or children not starving but everyone has to pay $60 a year?

4

Anonymous #13 6d

Obviously the children starving is worst but why am I paying $60 A year

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

No no, that wasn’t the question. Which is worse: children starving, or children not starving but everyone has to pay $60 a year? Now answer only the question.

1

Anonymous #13 6d

The parade was a bit extreme I will say that but the actual cost was about 45 mil. Not much better but again with wrong facts. I agree with doing something for the military though. LGBTQ gets a whole god damn month when veterans only get a day of celebration. Seems a bit wrong if I don’t say so but that’s just a side comment don’t need to start another argument.

-1

Anonymous #13 6d

Everyone as in actually everyone? Or just people who work hard and make a good honest living?

0

Anonymous #7 6d

And I overestimated: so if a pb&j costs $.5 to make, that would be $167.5 a year per kid. 12 million kids makes $2.01 billion (but wait there’s more!). Divide that by number of taxpayers (153.8 million) and you get $13.07 in additional taxes. Doesn’t even break $20

1

Anonymous #12 6d

once again showing you give not one single fuck about the military. you should know we have a month for vets and military families, and several other days/weeks dedicated to various aspects of military members or their loved ones

1

Anonymous #13 6d

Do I get to write off that $60 as an expense or deduct a charitable contribution in that same amount 🤣🤣🤣

1

Anonymous #13 6d

So they get 1 peanut butter and jelly a week?

0

Anonymous #12 6d

now are you gonna answer their question or not?

1

Anonymous #12 6d

Veterans apparition month is in November. Now I don’t even know why you brought that up as it’s completely irrelevant as government holiday/montjs don’t contribute to the budget, however I celebrated with my grandfathers who served. It’s not my fault you don’t know when our veterans month is.

6

Anonymous #13 6d

And $60 a year is hardly food. Idk where you’re at but lunch for 1 cost $17-20 here. I’m giving the kid 3 meals a year. That’s hardly worth it. They’re gonna be hungry the rest of the 362 days of the year

0

Anonymous #12 6d

Also, active military appreciation month is in May. Again, not my fault you didn’t actually care enough to participate but that point is completely irrelevant so it beings me back to: Which is worse: children starving, or children not starving but everyone has to pay $14 a year?

1

Anonymous #7 6d

A pb&j costs $.50, a government meal is not the same as a regular school lunch. It never has been. It’s usually a pb&j, or another quick and very cheap meal.

1

Anonymous #13 6d

$14 is a chik fil a meal. That’s so cruel to the kids. Worst than giving them nothing 🤣

0

Anonymous #13 6d

Well how many sandwiches are these kids getting each for my 14$

0

Anonymous #12 6d

I wasn’t aware pride month happened on the federal gov’s dime. Is that what you’re saying lmfao?

3

Anonymous #13 6d

Those melas are gonna do more harm than good to their bodies. Most goverment meals would score 0 on yuka. It’s a lose lose anyways

0

Anonymous #12 6d

No actually because $.50 x365(days in a year)= $167.5, so I was actually including weekends and holidays off where they don’t get lunch you are so right!

1

Anonymous #9 6d

My point was that they took money out of the army’s budget. Not asking for anymore money and not giving them anymore than allowed in the budget. It’s an irrelevant point because it happened 1 year and this year the army will have to deal with cutting costs

-1

Anonymous #13 6d

It’s fucked up but the involuntary intermittent fasting would be better for the kids health long term than just eating bs goverment food everyday. Diabetes, high blood pressure, cholestore is more expensive than not eating

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

💀💀💀💀 you do not fix cholesterol with intermittent fasting. Or my cholesterol would be solved lmao

5

Anonymous #7 6d

Since children are only in school 180 days (roughly) it’s $.50 (pb&j) x180(school days)= 90. 90(total pb&j cost)x 12 million (children who go hungry) = 1.08 billion (dollars) /153.8 million (taxpayers) = $7 a year (and 2 cents)

1

Anonymous #7 6d

Oh so now it’s okay for children to starve

1

Anonymous #12 6d

Great! We don’t have to take any money from the military (army is just a branch of the military you cannot use the two words interchangeably) just pay $7.022 additional a year

1

Anonymous #12 6d

The army will not have to deal with cutting costs. The NDAA was just passed with a record $901B budget

2

Anonymous #9 6d

How old are you? Do you exercise regularly? Hm u weight? U seem pretty young to have high cholesterol rn lol

0

Anonymous #13 6d

Bro u can just stop. We already pay way too much in taxes 💀. Take it out of your paycheck or donate the money

0

Anonymous #7 6d

23, exercise regularly. 140 lbs. Runs in the family but I don’t have the gene for hereditary high cholesterol lol

7

Anonymous #7 6d

there is no such thing as "involuntary fasting". fasting is refraining from eating or drinking. if one intends to eat but can't, it's not fasting. you're just spitting out meaningless word salad to make your monstrous position sound less unintelligent than it is (unsuccessfully btw) and yeah, it is fucked up no matter what you call it. it's immoral on a societal level

9

Anonymous #7 6d

Okay so it’s not fasting if they cannot control when it starts or stops, That’s called starving. Which can lead to weight gain because instead of burning the food the body will go into panic mode because it doesn’t know when its next meal is coming and will start To store emergency fat, making the kid more susceptible to obesity thus diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol

9

Anonymous #7 6d

Yikes maybe you should work at McDonald’s for &22 an hour if you don’t have the fall back for $7.022 a year. Completely irresponsible to not have anything saved. You ought to be embarrassed

5

Anonymous #13 6d

LMAO I missed the “involuntary” part. “Involuntary intermittent fasting” is crazy. That’s enough of this thread for today for me I think 😭

11

Anonymous #13 6d

Ok so this statement is a bit misleading. Your body doesn’t go into panic mode. But kids do gain wait for other reasons tho

0

Anonymous #13 6d

They paying 22/hr now? That’s crazy good for them. And I don’t need to work a job. I’m unemployed asf and drive a 90 thousand dollar car lol

0

Anonymous #13 6d

Ive never had a job or paid taxes if I’m really being honest. But eventually when I do I don’t want a single excess dollar getting deducted from my shit

0

Anonymous #7 6d

90k car but can’t afford ChatGPT Plus?

7

Anonymous #7 6d

You do realize that 1. No school lunch is good for you they’re all cheap and fill with additives and 2. A child eating 200 calories of something a day that you (and only you) think is bad (it’s literally jelly, peanut butter and wheat bread) is better than a child having 0 calories a day

4

Anonymous #7 6d

restrictive eating does in fact often lead to weight gain. as one eats less, their metabolism slows and the body becomes stressed, both of which can cause weight fluctuations (usually gain)

4

Anonymous #7 6d

chatgpt is not a source btw

8

Anonymous #9 6d

I have it lol

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

Okay so using gpt isn’t helping you there. It’s called “refeeding syndrome” when you feed someone who has been starving or severely restricting their diet for an extended period of time. And yes, if the body does not get food for a while the next time it eats it will store the food as fat instead of burning it. This is basic anatomy and physiology of majority of mammalian species

3

Anonymous #13 6d

I’ll research that tomorrow. I know I heard about something like that but then it was debunked. Don’t remember

0

Anonymous #7 6d

So you’re a bum who mooches of your parents money then complains that $14 ($7 each) is being taken away from your shitty car that will most likely be wrapped around a pole by the end of this year?

1

Anonymous #7 6d

“I cannot prove anything I’m saying so I’m just going to lie and say I heard it was disproved” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564513/#:~:text=Introduction-,Increased%20nutrition%20following%20a%20prolonged%20period%20of%20starvation%20can%20result,result%20of%20aggressive%20nutritional%20rehabilitation.

1

Anonymous #7 6d

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23228-refeeding-syndrome

1

Anonymous #13 6d

Just researched. Refeeding syndrome is about electrolyte imbalance, not fat gain. All the fat stuff has been debunked

1

Anonymous #7 6d

https://www.e-acnm.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.15747/ACNM.2024.16.1.3

1

Anonymous #7 6d

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2440847/

1

Anonymous #13 6d

I’m too tired. Start a thread tomorrow and I can prove you wrong

0

Anonymous #7 6d

And where are your sources? Because I feel I have given plenty.

1

Anonymous #13 6d

Those sources can just be random websites but you know everyone on here is too lazy to open lol

-2

Anonymous #7 6d

Because he’s referring syndrome causes fat storage and weight gain. It is a fact.

1

Anonymous #7 6d

Ah so you pay $120/year for glorified Google but can’t pay $60/year to make sure the kids whose school you pay for are better equipped to succeed? Make it make sense 💀 ChatGPT free is sufficient lmao

3

Anonymous #7 6d

If you are starved for 3 months. Then given a full average sized meal, that will either 1. Make you vomit or 2. If you manage to keep it down make you gain weight. It is fact. And I don’t know why you even changed the subject because you’re openly okay with starving children. “Involuntary fasting” means starving

6

Anonymous #7 6d

i opened them. projection is like crack bud

6

Anonymous #7 6d

If you can read, 2 are from the NINH, One is from the Cleveland Clinic (ranked #1 hospital in the country) and 1 is a research article about the trends of anorexia and refeeding syndrome from the Annals of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism

6

Anonymous #7 6d

Part 2

1

Anonymous #2 6d

See the post at the bottom

0

Anonymous #13 6d

And chat gpt would’ve gotten those sources too. It’s every single source. Aggregate of all information

0

Anonymous #7 6d

Which is worse: children starving, or children not starving but everyone has to pay $7.02 a year?

1

Anonymous #13 6d

It’s not the money it’s the principal. It can be $1 or $1 million. Why does everyone have to subsidize the parents job

0

Anonymous #7 6d

Wow aren’t you a dumbass. Again, Where is your source (chat gpt is not a source, it is a search engine)

1

Anonymous #7 6d

Oh so now it’s the principal

1

Anonymous #7 6d

But before it was the money. And I’m gonna say it one more time: 400,000 children on a given day don’t have parents. You’re okay with letting children starve for their parents decisions?

1

Anonymous #7 6d

Which is worse: a. children starving b. children not starving but everyone has to pay $7.02 a year

1

Anonymous #13 6d

Do you think people who lack the financial means to raise children and provide basic necessities at a minimum adequate food should be allowed to have kids? Should they face legal repercussions for bringing children into this world and not having a real plan to take care of them?

0

Anonymous #13 6d

Those children are in the foster care system. They get taken care of I believe

0

Anonymous #7 6d

Okay but that’s a different subject Which is worse: a. children starving b. children not starving but everyone has to pay $7.02 a year c. I’m going to change the topic because I can’t answer

1

Anonymous #7 6d

That is incorrect

1

Anonymous #13 6d

I don’t want children to starve. And everyone shouldn’t be forced to pay money

0

Anonymous #7 6d

Nope! Not an option so a or b Which is worse: a. children starving b. children not starving but everyone has to pay $7.02 a year

1

Anonymous #7 6d

I’d also like to mention the $7.02 is an average that does not include tax brackets. Lower income earners would pay remarkably less than higher incomes but that’s basic taxes- oh wait you haven’t worked a day in your life you don’t know how taxes work

1

Anonymous #13 6d

I’ve worked. Just got paid under the table lol. And if it’ll make you happy children starving would be worst. Good night

-1

Anonymous #7 6d

You can admit the answer you want. I know you believe b is worse because your daddy would only be able to buy you a $89,999,992.98 car instead

1