you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 245 points 2 years ago (18 children)

States that participate in the federal program are required to cover half of the administrative costs, which would cost Nebraska an estimated $300,000. Advocates of the program note that the administrative cost is far outweighed by the $18 million benefit, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates would benefit 175,000 Nebraska children who might otherwise go hungry on some days during the summer.

Imagine being such a reprehensible monster that you'd let 175k children in your state starve rather than participate in a federal program that'd help feed them when school is out each summer. It's unconscionable.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 96 points 2 years ago* (10 children)

    It’s unconscionable.

    BUt... but... he doesn't believe in welfare! how dare you intrude onto his lack of belief!

    (/s. this guy can fuck off to the nether.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I keep hearing that violence isn't the answer but I swear it feels like.... FOR LEGAL REASONS THIS IS SATIRE

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    What are we supposed to do when our leaders and the wealthy (i.e., a small minority who holds all of the influence) have effectively declared war on the rest of us (i.e., almost everybody)?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    No no no, violence can be the answer, depending on what the question is. Like this:

    Historically, what happens when the poorest citizens of a nation have no food, no homes, and no hope for the future, because the rich are hording it all?

  • source
  • parent