rdeetsMissouri has decided to turn down millions in federal food aid for low-income children
Are there federal bodies it third parties that can assist in these measures? Just because the state is fucked and run by terrorists, shouldn’t mean that someone can’t step up and help. I knows it’s not that easy geographically, but every little bit helps.
tallwookiejust because you disagree with someone, there’s no reason to refer to them as terrorists. having a sound fiscal policy isnt terrorism, after all.
They are self proclaimed terrorists. Also, withholding funding so that children starve is pretty fucked up and calling them terrorists is gentle compared to what they deserve. That’s not sound fiscal responsibility, that evil incarnate. Defense of that view is completely fucked as well, terrorist.
someone’s salty
You could say that. Most reasonable people think starving children and domestic terrorism is something to be upset about. It appears you are not a reasonable person, terrorist.
seems to me that it’s the parents direct responsibility to feed/shelter their progeny - but sure, let’s blame the evil state govt
you folks are literally brainsick
You’re the one advocating for starving children, terrorist, you’re the brainsick one.
wow, you’re like Dr. Sbaitso with a learning disability
Our governor is sitting on a tax surplus that was $5,000,000,000 a few months ago. (That’s billion, with a ‘b’) Just over the state line the state of Kansas literally just handed its surplus back to taxpayers in the form of a special tax cut. That five billion of OUR MONEY could do a lot to mitigate the problems in our state, but the folks in Jeff City haven’t figured out a way to feasibly give it away to their golf buddies yet.
Maybe the ‘terrorist’ tag is a little dramatic, but the Republican Party here in Missouri is literally making bad things happen in order to blame the consequences on the Federal Government.
I don’t know that it is dramatic - these people are willingly (and often happily) starving kids. What else would you call someone who looks at a child whose only meal that day may come from school and says, “Nah, it wins me points with my base, go ahead and starve”? Monster, maybe, but they labeled themselves terrorists, and I always like to use people’s preferred names.
I think you can find better terminology to make your point. People have overused ‘terrorist’ since the 9/11 attacks, and yeah, it comes off as a little dramatic and likely makes it harder for you to get the buy-in you want on the point you’re trying to make.
If I have to soften my language to get buy in on the issue of “children shouldn’t have to starve in one of the richest countries in the world,” I think that says everything it needs to about anyone opposing it, namely that they’re both incredibly hateful, and also huge crybaby bitches.
True, but you kind of do have to.
Unless someone self-identifies as a terrorist or fascist, I try to avoid that using that terminology when I’m working to change someone’s point of view. My rule of them is to try to approach things the way The Satanic Temple would, seeing as how they tend to be more effective at politicking than most.
The thing is that they did self identify as terrorists. It was a giant banner at cpac some years ago. “We are all domestic terrorists” I believe were the words.
Not only that, but the actions here can actually fall in the definition of terrorism. For the last 4+ years, I’ve also heard similar arguments to yours about calling the right, Nazis, but here we are with literal Nazis eaving the flag, disturbing the peace, and spreading hate.
If it looks like a shit and smells like a shit, it’s not a stick, it’s a Republican.
Steve Sparrow… you’re going to wait for someone to self identify?
“Hey we’re the enslavers, we’re here to enslave people.” That’s what you’re expecting?
Remember when St Louis raised their minimum wage then the state made it illegal for the city that makes most the states money to given themselves there.
So do I, and sadly, now that they’ve gotten voters to approve a gerrymandering system, it’s likely only going to get worse.
I’m glad I only work in Missouri. I live in Illinois where we are trying to be California.
You’re right, it’s not terrorism.
It’s mass murder.
it’s not, actually
Found a terrorist
found the bootlicker
If you click the three dots under Tallwookies comment and click the cancel sign, youll block him and improve your Lemmy experience greatly.
someone doesn’t want to enable any dissenting opinions. this community is turning into as much of a shit show as beehaw.
sad
joel_feilaThe state can’t stop charities but the why it most often works in america the federal gov just provided big blocks of funding to each state. But don’t if the had excepted it most of it would have gone to make a a new football stadium while also providing a big tax write off the guy that owns the team. Ah american law american order.
I live in Iowa, so I understand the Mis-appropriation is funds, and it’s disgusting. The lack of oversight is astounding and even when it’s discovered the consequences are nothing more than operating costs. It’s dumb
Americans love curelity as long as it is neglect
If you read the article it has nothing to do with “the state being run by terrorists” - it’s that they don’t have the infrastructure and data collection necessary to do it. They have pledged that they will focus on getting it implemented so they can do it.
McGowin pledged that going forward the state will “focus on implementing the system changes necessary to facilitate participation in summer EBT programs in future years.”
But for Missouri to participate in next year’s program, “the state’s data collection systems need to be addressed well in advance,” McGowin said.
“The current P-EBT programs have required data to be collected from schools that DESE does not normally collect,” she said. “We must then address how the data can be most efficiently and effectively shared with DSS, and shared in a way that more seamlessly integrates with DSS’ benefit administration systems.”
Woody said the state’s pledge to make changes to better operate the program in future years is “the only bright spot.”
Maybe the federal government should be the ones building these data collection services so that the states simply have to opt-in and use the government created facilities?
Why do they not have systems up to date where other states do?
Because not every state is the same, obviously.
The federal government should be building and running this system.
Flying SquidHow exactly does the federal government get data on school demographics when the schools are run by individual states? Or should they just throw out money randomly and hope it’s enough?
The federal government builds the infrastructure and systems for the schools to use so they can share this data. As it is the states need to all build their own to share this data with the federal government in order to get the funds for these meals.
Why would the states accept the federal government doing such a thing? Isn’t that the federal government encroaching on their rights when it comes to deciding how education should be run in their states?
Why would they do it? To help the children. The federal government already runs many services that the states use.
Why would they do it? To help the children.
You’re hilarious.
So the democrat federal government don’t care about the children?
The government of Missouri doesn’t care about children, which is one of many reasons why they would tell the federal government to fuck off if they tried that. What reality do you live in?
I feel like you’re not getting it for some reason.
The federal government should be on the ones running this, not state government. Missouri wouldn’t get a say.
The Missouri government would not object to the federal government paying for school lunches for kids if it was all handled for them.
The Missouri government would not object to the federal government paying for school lunches for kids if it was all handled for them.
Again- how would the federal government get the demographics data without Missouri playing a part? Either Missouri agrees to do that, or the government comes in and takes its own demographics, which Missouri would tell them to go fuck off if they tried. You’re on an Australian instance, so I’m thinking you just might be out of your element here.
Entering data into a website/system is vastly different from having to build and maintain said systems yourself. The latter is what is currently being asked, the former is what it should have been.
Why do you say the Missouri government hates kids? Because they’re a republican government I assume?
I’m not out of my element at all. We’re discussing an article and I’m questioning why a federal government initiative to help kids was not rolled out by the federal government. You’re the ones giving it to Missouri for not doing it, while sticking up for the Democrat Federal government for also not doing.
Weird how every other state has been able to do it except Missouri.
And there’s a lot of reasons they hate kids. Missouri is in the bottom 20% in education, for example.
Also, it’s not a “Democrat federal government.” The federal government is mixed between Democrats and Republicans. This is why I am saying you are out of your element. You don’t know very basic facts.
Every state isn’t the same.
The democrats are in power. They won the election. It’s a democrat federal government.
No, the Democrats are not in power. There are three branches of the federal government. The Democrats control the executive branch. The legislative branch is split with the house being controlled by Republicans and the senate being controlled by Democrats. The judicial branch is controlled by Republicans. Yet again, you are out of your element because you do not know basic facts.
Please stay in Australia.
Imagine being this tribal about your political “teams” that you would rather kids not get free food just so you can hate on the other “team” lol
I dunno, it’s pretty unclear to me. I think half the reason all this stuff gets delegated to the states is because any time the feds try to do… much of anything, really, you can count on a state suing to block it and the supreme court siding with them. The first example that comes to mind is how the ACA got crippled by such lawsuits.