Anonymous #1 2d

Okay, since you have a better way of phrasing it, lay it on me and we'll see if it changes my viewpoint

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Tax dollars are limited, so they should go where they make the biggest difference. It’s far more effective to focus on funding free or reduced lunches for families who genuinely need help than to spend the same money subsidizing meals for families who vacation in Europe and drive Teslas.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Do you think sending our money to Argentina is a better use than feeding our nation’s youth?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

I was against the currency swap with Argentina.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Well yes, that absolutely makes sense, but conservatives don't even want to contribute to giving the poor children lunches to begin with

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Do you have any polling data to back that up?

1

Anonymous #1 2d

It's tricky because a lot of the proposed bills are for universal free lunches, which the poll i found (which there's probably more out there I just have to dig more) shows 47% support from republicans and 68% from democrats. I get not wanting to contribute to wealthy families children, but we also know that most families are indeed poor... so universal lunches would still support the majority families in general. Aside from that, those richer families would still end up paying more in taxes

1

Anonymous #1 2d

I think that it's evident that conservatives would rather oppose a bill for everyone just because it includes a small percentage of children whose parents can afford their lunch. And that's where the problem lays. I could find data and provide links to shit but whenever I do that nobody reads it. And I'm sure you can find it yourself

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Most families are not poor. Nearly 90% of Americans live above the poverty line.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

You're talking about the poverty line as if the incomes are not absurdly low. This is what is considered the poverty line. Imagine a single mother and two children except the household income is 40,000 and not 26,650. That's barely enough to feed, clothe, house, work a full time job + pay for daycare. That mother would need food stamps and it's above the poverty line. Using the poverty line simply isn't a good example of dictating what's poor and what's not

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Wait I cooked

1

Anonymous OP 1d

The poverty line is not absurdly low. If you live at the American poverty line you are in the top 25% globally, even after adjusting for cost of living. We live in the country with the 2nd highest median income in human history.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Keep in mind that the US calculates the poverty line before transfers. The hypothetical family you mentioned would already qualify for the child tax credit, EITC, and reduced lunch, and thats just at the federal level. Its not a luxurious life by American standards but its not poverty by any objective standard.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Typically, reduced lunch is ~$0.40 per meal, meaning school lunch already costs this family less than $150 per year.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

It doesn't matter, they are ✨ poor ✨ and food should be a human right. Even though this isn't the standard in other countries, there is still a standard for comfortable living in the US. It is quite literally the place where people go to live to achieve this

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Do you believe it is the role of government to guarantee that everyone is comfortable?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I think that we and the government shouldn't actively choose to make people uncomfortable when there are ways to change that

1