Republican governors in 15 states reject summer food money for kids
Republican governors in 15 states reject summer food money for kids
The federal program, set to start this summer, was approved as part of a bipartisan budget agreement in 2022.
The governors have given varying reasons for refusing to take part, from the price tag to the fact that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds ( R) said she saw no need to add money to a program that helps food-insecure youths “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.” Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen ( R) said bluntly, “I don’t believe in welfare.”
You're viewing a single thread.
unpopular opinion: it’s not the states responsibility to pay for people’s children. if you think otherwise donate your money to non-profit charities that do what you believe in.
From the preamble to the Constitution of the USA:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I think any one of the bolded items could be reasonably interpreted to include "make sure kids have food". You are of course free to disagree but that seems pretty disingenuous to me.
A lot of people in the US really hate founding principles of the US. Which is fine, but they should really own up to it.
A lot of people treat the founding principles like they do their religious literature, ignoring everything they don't like and keeping the tiny snippets that support what they already believe.
That's not just an unpopular opinion, it's objectively stupid and shortsighted. By allowing children to be malnourished, all you're accomplishing is making them less productive adults and costing society more.
Your cargo-cult fiscal conservative argument is bad and you should feel bad.
charities are good and all but they are not a viable substitute for a working civilized society.
the problem with charities is that they pick and choose who benefits from their "benevolence" and people pick and choose whether they give to them. charities can have agendas, bigotries, and other arbitrary restrictions on their charity.
social programs are taxpayer-funded and for everyone, and discriminating as to who receives benefits (as charities often do) is forbidden.
First off, it's a federal funded program
Second, most of already donate taxes to our state
Well yes that is an unpopular opinion. I agree with you on that much.
Instead of just donating to charities, people could vote to enact programs to do what they think the government should do. Such as social programs that work best at large scale and feed children.
But let's think through this. It's not the state's responsibility. Who's responsibility is it? What do we do if there are hungry children?
It is unpopular with people who understand that ditching a government program that helps everyone for a charity that can pick and choose who to help is a terrible idea.
That’s not an unpopular opinion, it’s straight wrong.
States exist to look after the people who make it up, why else would we come together to make a state if not for our benefit.