this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
724 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19062 readers
3796 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The federal 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (EBT) program, which provides low-income families with $40 per child per month to help with food costs while schools are closed...

What we should be really angry about is how shit that benefit is. $40 per month?? Really? That's like 5 days of canned food. Absolutely pathetic.

Anyone who doesn't want to feed kids is a monster. Children are not at fault for their parent's economic situation

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

$40 per child per month.

That's still not much, but with a little budgeting and meal planning it goes further than you'd think, if not as far as it sometimes needs to.

I've lived on not much more than that per month.

It does mean zero luxuries, and that might be the worst part of it.

So I do agree with you that it should be more. We should all have a bit more. No one should ever have to scrip and save in order to eat each month.

Every man woman and child should be guaranteed food, water, and housing as a minimum.

[–] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Okay folks you have $40 to eat on for the next 30 days, and you need as much nutrition as a growing child. What you buying?

[–] RestlessNotions@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Let me preface this by saying I agree with you and this action is absolutely repugnant. But as the mother to a kindergartener, $40 is absolutely doable. That money is to cover the breakfast and lunch they are missing from school 5 days a week. Breakfast would be a bowl of cereal or oatmeal and a piece of fruit. Lunch is PB&J or chicken nuggets, fruit cup/apple sauce, something snacky like teddygrahams or chips and a glass of milk. It's not name brand foods or varied meals, but it is survivable and depending on the kid (like mine), maybe even preferable. (My kid would be in heaven if I let him eat chicken nuggets every day.)

[–] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Yeah, point taken there, I was of course being a bit facetious in how I represented it, the $40/month is really a supplemental amount to what the legal guardian can already provide. It's just such a sad reality that there are kids with few options of their own in this world, and one of those options is being taken away because it's perceived as imperfect by the people in charge of it, with no regard for those that rely on it for things like staying alive and such.

$40 is a lot of money to stretch across 30 days, but it's peanuts for the state of Iowa to afford, compared to something like the Governor's salary, which I'm sure she thinks she deserves more than the poorest children of her state deserve a full tummy.

[–] Denalduh@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

A single box of cereal now days typically goes for 5-9 dollars depending on what you get, then there's a gallon of milk for another 3-5. That's already a quarter of their monthly budget. $40 in current times is nothing when it comes to groceries. This is disgustingly low from the "think of the children" party.