319
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
319 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4992 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This guy also doesn't support free lunches for kids in school. Says the majority don't need them, so we shouldn't provide them at all.
I gotta say, you sure have some terrible takes, my friend.
When my kids were in elementary school so many of the students were on free or reduced price lunch they just decided to give every kid a free breakfast and lunch. And even though I could afford the lunches it was great because I didn't have to get them breakfast before school and I didn't have to make sure their lunch money account was topped up.
So even if you don't need them they're a really nice thing to have, IMHO.
Been researching me. Dishonestly representing my opinions. Poor.
I am totally in favour of free school lunches for those in need.
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Yes, I support providing free school lunches to both rich and poor students. It removes the stigma of receiving free or reduced cost lunches.
It also gets rid of useless administration and enforcement costs.
How about we socialise the stigma out. Teach kids not to bully
I'll assume I misread, it happens. However, kids are kids. Let them eat. How much their parents make doesn't matter.
You want poor tax payers to fund free food for rich people?
The kids don't have the money. Moreover, if anyone's taxes go towards a service, they should be able to benefit from that service. Not benefit more, just benefit period.
Couldn't disagree more. I provide for my kids. Kids dot have cars, but I drive mine around in my car because they are my kids.
Free Ubers for all children?
I do not want to see poor people working to provide free services for rich people.
I am astounded that is a controversial take.
And I am speaking as a functionally rich person.
Everything we use is due to taxes. Honestly, as a functionally rich person you should be aware of that. I'm actually of the opinion that anyone in need should be able to utilize services that my tax dollars help fund.
This is how society works.
The fundamental difference is who is taxed more. A poor family's children should have access to food. A rich family's children should have access to food. Your children should have access to food my taxes help pay for, it's super easy, I'm surprised this is a controversial take.
But nah, you right. If your kiddos ever need an ambulance, fuck em. Swipe that credit card, I don't want to be paying to help as a "functionally poor person". /s But hey, you said it first.
Ok, so we disagree on the point of taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people, which I find odd. It's based on need. Using state resources to proved services for which there is no need is wasteful
My children don't need your resources when it comes to their daily needs. Yes, I am in favour of socialized healthcare (and schools, police, etc), why even bring that up?
If you are in favour of free healthcare, let's give everyone free cars?
I disagree with keeping anything basic and essential from children. Hungry is hungry. Moreover, having money certainly doesn't mean any individual has basic humanity and their children may suffer from that. If we assume the needs, or lack thereof, of individuals based on a perception, we will miss those who legitimately have a need. This is incredibly simple. Or do you believe that a child who is hungry and yet has rich parents who can pay for all their needs is at fault?
I am also in favor of free healthcare. All of this can be paid for by taxes levied at individuals who have more than enough to spare. After all, if you're not in favor of the poor paying for the wealthy, let's flip that script. Bernie outlined it years ago, and despite common perception, the U.S. has rather low tax rates compared to many other countries. We could easily supply a solution to the needs of the many through a taxation of the wealthy. Functional ;) or not.
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. I am a supporter of it (used it twice last week).
I think focusing on the lowest common denominator always is not the best.
Tell you what, here is my system. Free lunches for all, but I you have to apply, that's it. I will but apply because it's not needed.
I think presuming the state should step in and overrule parents on the assumption that they will be bad actors is awful and not a what the state is for.
Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.
Why not? Their parents are payin' for it, and it saves a whole mess of useless bureaucrats between hungry kids and food.
It works like uniforms. If everyone gets the same lunch, kids can't manufacture conflict out of it. Stealing lunch money has always been a thing.
Who uses money in 2024?
This will not end bullying, but it will waste money
Yes.
McDonald's workers paying for rich kids to eat?
If they're in a tax bracket and financial situation that has them paying that tax, yes.
This is where you and I will disagree. I don't want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.
Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people
It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.
Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?
Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.
The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.
Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let's say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?
Means testing also makes it easier for the rich to target programs for removal because not everyone qualifies for them.
We all need food, water, and sometimes medical care in order to survive. We all deserve even more, such as vision care, dental, and mental health support, and educational and training programs. Housing should even be a right. We have means tested versions of programs for some of these things, and people of meager means often slip through the cracks because they didn't fill out the right paperwork or weren't considered quite poor enough. It's a shitty system and it starts with people coming from your viewpoint.
If a rich kid actually wants to go to for instance a free city college, who cares? Most people that have the means to go elsewhere would, and ultimately the goal of these institutions is the good societal impact that you want. If rich people are going to free colleges or eating free meals or taking public transit, it means the quality is there, which is great for everyone.
That was quite a far ranging number of issues. So,
Education, food, housing and healthcare are all different issues.
None of which can ever be a "right" imo. I don't think an exhaustible resource can ever be a right, what happens when it runs out (i could tell you about how my father in law died during COVID. Healthcare definitely ran out then).
housing is definitely not the business of the state in most cases, other than opting to be a moral landlord (as is the case with UK council houses). We should definitely have safety nets, and the housing market should be policed to be fair, but it's not the states job to pay for my house, I've got that covered.
I believe healthcare free at the point of need is the gold standard. But if I had to pay for GP appointments, that would be fine. Those who can't afford it should get it fee. Our prescriptions never cost more than £7.50, which is actually amazing. We could run that number on a curve, if I had to pay 15, that would be fine. Whatever the system is, it has to work and the NHS is really struggling at the moment.
free sub degree education for all is a no brainer for the whole country. If you want to do a degree is some obscure philosophy that won't benefit society, feel free, but pay yourself. Getting a degree that provides skills the country needs, a system of grants is a good idea imo.
And, as you know, food for those in need, sure. I don't want to see people destitute and hungry, but giving that food to millionaires is crazy in principle. Even if it worked out cost effective to do so (which I would be open to examining) I have a fundamental objection to that in principle.
I understand your position as a neoliberal but that's just one way of looking at the world.
The problem with means testing is it erodes the programs and gets the rich to push to have the programs completely dissolved.
Here in the states, nearly everything is means tested and it makes all of our public programs shitty and leaves them constantly on the chopping block for Republicans.
Trust me, I am no neoliberal. While I detest labels that require adherence to dogma, if you were to describe my politics, probably English liberal would do.
Systems being imperfect is no reason to dismiss them. Pursuit of perfection is toxic imo. Good enough should be the standard imo. Surly they only options can't be a) shitty means testing b) needless state benefit to the wealthy. We must be able to come up with something better
Good enough for the poor becomes the standard and good enough for the poor is an extremely low bar.
Btw, reading our conversation back, I appreciate your tone and lack of condensation and insults
yeah, I do.
I was a kid on free and reduced lunch. there's stigma around being poor enough to need it, and I was bullied for it. my home life was sufficiently dysfunctional that it could be the only food I ate that day, and there were still times I'd rather be hungry than bullied.
so in the interest of removing something kids can be bullied over, sure. tax the rich more, and let a relatively tiny bit of our taxes buy every child at least one meal a day.
-childless taxpayer
Let's better use taxes to provide the service you clearly needed rather than just lunch. I can afford to buy my kids lunch. I don't need poorer people's taxes wasted buying my kids food.
I was also bullied at school. The removal of only one factor would have made no difference. I was bullied because they wanted to bully me.
Rich people's kids go to schools that provide free lunches dingbat.
That's what I'm saying.
Or do you mean rich peoples kids go to schools that provide lunches because the schools are expensive? If that is the case, that's wrong. Half my kids friends families live in over £1million houses, but get free lunches at a state school