this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
685 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4706 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. 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.
  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
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because not every state is the same, obviously.

The federal government should be building and running this system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How 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?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would they do it? To help the children. The federal government already runs many services that the states use.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would they do it? To help the children.

You're hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So the democrat federal government don’t care about the children?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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. If you think that the government there just “hates children” then I’m going to assume that it’s a republican state and you’re a democrat voter, correct?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every state isn’t the same.

The democrats are in power. They won the election. It’s a democrat federal government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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