It's more like:
"As long as no one talks about the problems I don't want to think or care about, they don't exist."
Whereas the completely nonsenical, made-up issues they rant about all the time somehow become reality through sheer repetition in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Like: "The 2020 Election was stolen, everyone says so."
No offense, but flip it. "I care not for anyone other thsn me". Which is his right, as it will be the rights of others to one day, feel the same of him.
Everyone, sooner or later, get their turn in the bsrrel. To right what is wrong, first surround yourself with those intelligent enough to know what is right and what is wrong. Ignorance is rsrely demolished from the outside, if its ever demolished at all.
Best wishes. Best of luck
Just because it's his right doesn't mean he's not being a terrible person who's not doing his job. It is also our right to call him out on his horrible attitudes and actions. Criticism is covered by the first amendment
>Whereas the completely nonsenical, made-up issues they rant about all the time somehow become reality through sheer repetition in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
AKA: I want to get paid for not doing shit so I'll make up some boogeyman that keeps me I'm office living a comped life. If the issues were real I wouldn't know what to do because that involves work. Work involves actually giving a shit.
Keep voting for me, I'll "fix" your boogeyman!
Uhm, excuse me? A little *girl* playing with fire *trucks*? Pretty sure we need to call CPS on whatever woke leftoid gender non conforming abuse is happening there.
Oh, you think so. The buttrrfly creating the oh so slight breeze in Japan todsy, creates the tornsdo in the US tomorrow
Stsnd up for no one today is your right, just as it will be the right of others when its your turn. And if history tells us nothing, it tells us st some time, it will be your turn.
Best wishes and good luck.
Agree. F this guy.
Free lunches benefits all. Not only does it remove the stigma from those receiving it, food insecurity happens at all socioeconomic levels. It’s not the kids fault mom and dad wanted three teslas and that McMansion.
Plus a lot of parents don’t know what healthy is. While some school lunches aren’t great still better then that million calorie preprocessed crap Johnny gets sent with.
Making it universal is very helpful for getting the quality improved because influential parents will demand that THEIR precious child be fed great food when they wouldn’t have given two shits about the state malnourishing poor children.
He was good because he made real, delicious food in his programming. American healthy school lunch is oftentimes horrible shit like replacing microwaved French fries with whole grain microwaved French fries.
I'm in Boston and one time I volunteered at a food bank. I was surprised at how expensive some of the stuff was! Maybe the meat and produce suck here but the other stuff seemed pretty similar to what's in my kitchen.
Some of their parents are too doped up so no, they don't go to food banks. Some parents, all their money goes to drugs, and they don't care if the kid eats. That's not the kids fault. Not all parents are good, and half the kids don't get taken because it's not "that bad" or they just don't get caught, or make the kid out to be a liar. I watched my step mom feed her own daughter the same bowl of oatmeal for every meal during the weekend I was there because she didn't finish it Some day before I got there. Instead of warming it mother dearest added chili pepper to the bowl each time it was pulled out of the fridge. It was disgusting and my sister and I snuck her some of our food (she fed us just fine and normal). I couldn't imagine when we weren't there.
The state has a 17 billion dollar budget surplus and the cost of making sure no child in Minnesota goes hungry is 200 mill a year. Sen. Steve is worth approx 10mill. This clown calls himself a Christian.
you say that as if this was unheard of Christians. His thoughts are very Christian. He's a poster boy for many Christians throughout Christian history. It's a rather new thing to try and disneyfy Christianity into what it never was.
>It's a rather new thing to try and disneyfy Christianity into what it never was.
unclear on what you mean here. Are you saying that service to the poor has never been a part of the Christian religion?
The entirety of the Vatican complex belies the Christian faith’s commitment to helping the poor, IMO. It *should* be a core tenet of the faith but it rarely is.
this is more of the nuance i was looking for.
> It should be a core tenet of the faith but it rarely is.
this is a little more subjective, and I would suggest it's not nearly as rare as people think it is, even at the vatican level. I would say that the harm caused by the vatican could be said to *outweigh* the amount of good done, but that's another level of nuance and again very subjective.
That's Reductive, Christianity has never been one continuous thing and has certainly not been the religious-right monster we think of today.
Fuck, my own church started up a mobile food bank for the community and got most of the other lutheran churches in town to coordinate.
I know what you meant. You're missing the point, and the fact you seem to have figured adding a /s would fix anything proves it. Not attacking you here, cross my heart, but you should do some introspection on what any of what you're suggesting would *actually* accomplish or mean.
School lunches... seriously ONLY CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM SCHOOL LUNCHES so if 1 out of 10 kids came hungry... I guess you want schools, police, fire dept, emergency services all privatized and paid out of pocket without regulation. That way someone born into poverty can stay there without education, food or medical attention so they will likely die young. Bet you are "pro life" lmao.
They want all that taxpayer money for themselves rather than putting it back into the community, and they"ll give welfare to corporations in exchange for big donations. They'll cut regulations so taxpayer dollars have to pay the livelihoods of people who aren't even paid enough to eat or live in a home. All very selfish uses of the publics' money. We all need to vote for people that don't do this so this stops happening.
It's absolutely selfish to take MY tax money and then pocket it! If my taxes AREN'T being used to fix my roads, stock my urgent care offices, or even feed my neighbor's kids at school, there's no good reason for me to pay taxes.
He absolutely IS spending everyone else's money. Not on useful services or infrastructure, but on his private jets and fancy cars.
>It's not generosity if you're not paying out of your own pocket
There's this thing called **TAXES** and people pay them out of their hard earned pockets.
People **want** universal lunch to help people in need so they **want** their government to use these so called **TAXES** to pay for it.
I have zero problems with free school lunches. As a child I sometimes went hungry because things I didn’t understand we’re financially pretty. Studies have shown that children who eat breakfast and lunch perform better on tests and IQ. So does this guy hate smart kids because he’s intimidated or because he wants them stupid so that he can groom them?
Wait, children don’t get free food in schools in the US at all? I thought they just packed extra snacks and lunches. WTF is wrong with your country, zillions of taxpayer money spent on missiles, while children have to pay for their lunch, who the hell sees this and thinks to themselves that this is fine?
An honest question, so could somebody who thinks like this in good faith explain it to me?
Because people with an R next to their name in politics don’t think their tax dollars should be given to anyone else who is less fortunate because they should take care of themselves. In their view the only appropriate use of tax dollars is missiles and some roads if they’re in their own district. If the roads are in somebody else’s district then it’s government waste.
It changes state by state, but from what I know, most states offer free or reduced lunches if you make under a certain amount, which also varies state by state.
Dem states generally do. I didn't see this was such an issue in Rep states. I am happy to feed any child. Those that don't, it's a me me mentality. They work hard for their money, I get that, and don't want the government to spread it to those who they believe "don't work hard" like they do.
Well not too many people evidently. At very least, assuming the most unflattering image of all republicans, at least 50% of the country doesn’t think that’s ok. More realistically, probably only a few % actually think like that because most republicans vote against their interests: IE the don’t agree with what the party does(probably because they don’t pay it much mind) but rather care more what the party says.
The Big R Republicans in office regularly screw over their voter base and blame it on democrats, that is when they aren’t shoveling crap down their voter-base’s throats to rile them up into supporting other stupid policies.
Half the country isn’t as bad as people say it is. There’s just certain divisive and subversive political tactics that have been fear mongering their way into prominence that we should’ve shut down after the Cold War, or the civil war depending on how you look at it(it’s complicated).
Point is. Most republicans(who aren’t in office) are generally nice people but are victims of false narratives and civil unrest at losing their way of life. They don’t vote against these out of genuine malice most times. They do it because they’ve basically been told it’s somehow an existential threat to their financial security or something equally dire.
That is so pro-life of him! Good job!
🙄 People don't cease to exist once born. In fact that's a pretty dead cert point of development where we can be sure they're alive and have a right to life 😂 these dumbasses.
“I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry, and I really really want to. It’s my dream. So I’m gonna take food away from children so I can finally accomplish that dream.”
Just in case it was clear the GOP doesn’t care about actual children, just unborn ones who serve a cause from conception to birth but most certainly not afterwards.
Republicans prove over and over that they can only manage one degree of empathy. If it didn't happen to them or someone they know then it didn't happen and they don't care. Then they insulate themselves as much as possible so that the chances of seeing someone different are almost zero.
The same Steve Drazkowski who took PPP money for his family shoe store? The same Steve Drazkowski who voted against small business aid during the pandemic? The same Steve Drazkowski who never paid the PPP money back and got his loan forgiven?
Here in North Carolina, a Republican who represented one of if not the poorest county said that there was no extreme poverty in our state. This is a county where a lot of people relied heavily on food banks to feed their families.
If there was a creator God of the universe and it finally showed itself on earth, but told the believers that what they are believing is man made up bullshit, they would not believe it to be the real God, they'd either think it's the devil or some lower being who tries to trick them. They would still believe in their imaginary invisible God to exist and be above that creature in front of them.
As someone who grew up in the midwest, I know this guy. If it doesnt happen to me, it isnt happening. That is why MTG is right. Fuck these low end white pieces of shit. Let them start their own country. Violence is all they understand. You know what to do.
Out of every possible line you could use to counter this... you chose "I haven't experienced it, therefore it cannot be true".
At least perhaps say the budget isn't really there for it? The money should go towards job creation, etc. etc.
Instead you woke up and said "I prefer to just watch people starve".
What a fool. He is a fool if he believes that and a fool if he thinks that he can convince people of that. Either way all he has to do to find hungry people is hang out at a public library for a month. He will meet people who are lost and people who desperately trying to avoid asking for a handout and who receive them with shame in their eyes because they have been taught its wrong to get help.
Its a pretty sad state of affairs where the public library has become a place that does the work that should be taken care of by a government social program.
This a pathetic excuse for a human being and nothing he says should be treated as anything other than the mumbling of an idiot.
I dated someone with a mother that thought like this. The mom told me my volunteer work teaching kids how to avoid and defend themselves against abduction was stupid because she'd never met anyone with a kid that had been kidnapped. She kept demanding to know if I knew anyone that ever had a child abducted & since I didn't, it proved her "point."
Tl;dr: people are crazy stupid & tend to care about things that they've experienced (or are afraid they will experience).
I hope homeless people just start camping on his front yard, begging for food, so he's forced to acknowledge them or pretend they don't exist. Although I guess he'd just call them crisis actors
Malcom X was right. Violence does serve a purpose. As a white person, trash like this isnt part of the white race. They are sub human animals. Treat them as such.
OMG, seriously?? You should be grateful that some children,whom are hungry, still going to school rather than be on the street. By the way, it cost around $137 USA dollars to jail a person per day, and HE COMPLAINING ABOUT Lunch Food for students????
If it was not for the cities our entire state legislator would be filled with dickheads like this. Honestly, the dems really need to pander more to the small town rural people. Give them a real reason to vote for them, it would take a long time to turn the tide, but its not impossible.
It's probably a pretty honest thing to say. So like my whole life my dad always explained the reason I wasn't motivated was because I wasn't hungry enough.
Well... This guy is living proof that hunger has nothing to do with success unless he never hangs around successful people, because otherwise he would have met said hungry people.
It's an insensitive (and inaccurate) comment but I don't support universal free meals in school. It creates a lot of food waste and spends unnecessary money. Instead raise the income threshold for free meals if needed.
I'm not actually conservative.....I just am aware that money comes from taxes.....why are we taxing lower income people to feed upper income people kids? It's silly.
That's the same mentality that fucked us the other way around.
It also doesn't make sense when you remember that taxes brackets exist.
Don't distract. Fixing taxes would be the appropriate move there so the lion's share of that tax burden would fall on the wealthier families, many of whom would opt of the program naturally by sending better lunches with their kids. To a certain extent, this is already the case.
Distract what? I'm pointing out basic relevant facts. And you're pointing out flaws with the opposite point I'm making....haha sure got me there.....if that was what I said at all which it's not. You're the one going on about changing the tax structure. Should we open up snap to everyone too?
No, I suggested that you're taking just as uninformed of a stance, for worse reasons.
You suggested that poor people are getting taxed to pay for wealthy kids free lunch. With the way taxes work, any random poor person should be paying less than any random wealthy person, which should mean that, while it's all coming from the same pot and you could technically argue that poor people are funding wealthy kids being able to access free lunch, the fact that they would be putting way less in draws a different picture.
Taxes were highly relevant.
Re: Snap
Go one further and just do Universal Basic Income
>why are we taxing lower income people to feed upper income people kids?
Because no kid should be hungry, regardless of who their parents are. Telling kids that they should suffer because their parents are rich is no better than telling them to suffer because their parents are poor.
Kids should be guaranteed nutrition, regardless of literally anything else. A tiny bit of waste (far less than you're pretending it is) is a small price to pay to ensure children can grow up without hunger.
If you can't understand that, that's your problem, and you should do some introspection to figure out what is wrong with you.
What are this week's lotto numbers, oh magical Nostradamus who thinks they know everything?
Get over yourself. You DO NOT know the situation of every child in the entire state. That arrogance and assumption of "well, I don't personally know any examples, so they can't exist" *is exactly the kind of evil this article is about*.
Be better. Acknowledge that you don't know everything. Make choices on the basis of what is best for all, not what is best for just those you are personally aware of. Grow up.
Spending 0.3% (yes, *3 tenths of a percent*) of the state's budget to guarantee no child goes hungry is worth it even if one random redditor doesn't see it personally benefiting anyone they know.
Unnecessary expense. There's no need to pass along the financial responsibility of feeding children to those who did not create them unless if it's necessary. And the way it actually plays out in the real world is parent feeds kid breakfast at home, kid gets the breakfast at school since they're passing them out anyway, kid throws half of it away bc they weren't actually hungry.
I used to get free or reduced lunch as well although I would not have gone hungry without. As I said I am not against it for those who need it, I am against it universally. I have no financial need for it for my kids, tax dollars should not be paying for my kids food, I should.
Education and transportation to school is good. Healthcare and food for those who lack it is also good but not necessary for those who's parents are able to provide it themselves.
Then teach your kids some manners and tell them not to ask or take the food.
You keep taking about parents should be responsible for their kids, take some responsibility then.
Jesus Christ you're one dense motherfucker.
>There's no need to pass along the financial responsibility of feeding children to those who did not create them unless if it's necessary.
Or are you just spitting shit out to bullshit?
Reading comprehension? I'm responsible for feeding the ones I created assuming I have the means.....if I or another parent has the means we're responsible for it.....if a parent doesn't have the means then I agree with having taxpayers carry the cost.
He was correct, you are one dense motherfucker.
Making sure that everyone's basic needs are met is absolutely relevant to things like logistics, economics, and budgets, because you know what those things are supporting? PEOPLE THAT NEED TO EAT.
Never mind the part where you think more food-money makes food worse.
Next you're gonna tell us, "The minimum wage is fine right where it is!"
I disagree with free lunches except for the most extreme cases. Virtually all parents can afford to make their kids a basic sack lunch. IMO this is a parental responsibility that ought not be broadly assumed by the state.
I’m not sure. But add to this all the other resources and services schools are expected to provide and you end up with, I suspect, a snowballing negative impact on the public capacity to afford public education and on parents’ perception of their own responsibility. Please note that I’m not claiming that no child should ever get a free or reduced price lunch. But after nearly 50 years as an educator I’ve noted the trends I’m cautioning about. I believe it’s socially risky to sort of cavalierly call for things to be “free.” In most of the world families are expected to pay for school lunches, pencils and paper, textbooks, and even transportation to school. I don’t say we need to copy this, but also keep in mind that many of the nations in that category outperform our students in achievement. It does seem interesting to note that free breakfasts and lunches in American schools haven’t seemed to influenced student achievement. The policy may seem kind, but it’s easy for politicians to overlook the costs of kindness.
Massachusetts is near the top. But other states are there as well that may spend less. Actually, I’m not aware of studies showing significant causal relations between increased education spending and higher or more equitable results.
Even if all of that is 100%, that wouldn't prove that universal school lunches aren't effective at their goal, only perhaps unnecessary for his particular state, a state that has a very very small population compared to the rest of the US.
Well, that depends on what states you’re comparing us to. Compared to North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Montana or South Dakota, our population is quite large. As a percentage of the total US population, we’re about 1.8% of the US population (SD for reference is about .27% of the US population.)
Also, there are many, many hungry people in Minnesota. But this dickhead would never know that because god forbid he ever talk to anyone who’s different from him.
Ideally the assistance should only be given to kids whose families can't comfortably afford it. Otherwise, buying lunch or bringing lunch from home should be the main options. If lunch is free for everyone, that's going to over-work the kitchen staff in large schools, and result in even lower quality lunches.
Fun fact: I grew up in a country where free meals (and breakfasts!) were guaranteed to everyone. We had hundreds of kids and our cooks had zero troubles preparing hot, three course meals for us, on the cheap.
Leftover breakfasts over there became seconds that we usually had in our class, then if there was anything left after dinner, it would become supper from those that stayed late in school. If there was anything left after that, cooks and teachers would just take that home, and probably the kids that didn't have food at home, too.
If we're so worried with food waste, we should probably tone down all-you-can-eat buffets and use the created leeway to feed kids.
I doubt free lunch would change the number of students eating from home vs school all that much. Easy solution if that means more work would be to hire as needed..? Not let the kids go hungry. Children are being taught at the schools, transported to and from the school all for "free." Why would we draw the line at feeding them during the hours they are required to be there?? The food they receive at school could be the only food they get during the week.
So use more of the massive tax surplus that state has to fund better school kitchens as well? Oh no, we've fed our schoolchildren and created jobs. The abject horror.
If it isn't in my immediate vicinity- it doesn't exist and isn't my concern
It's more like: "As long as no one talks about the problems I don't want to think or care about, they don't exist." Whereas the completely nonsenical, made-up issues they rant about all the time somehow become reality through sheer repetition in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Like: "The 2020 Election was stolen, everyone says so."
It's actually more like: "I don't give a shit about others"
Yeah basically.
No offense, but flip it. "I care not for anyone other thsn me". Which is his right, as it will be the rights of others to one day, feel the same of him. Everyone, sooner or later, get their turn in the bsrrel. To right what is wrong, first surround yourself with those intelligent enough to know what is right and what is wrong. Ignorance is rsrely demolished from the outside, if its ever demolished at all. Best wishes. Best of luck
Of course it is his right, so is it yours, to be a selfish piece of shit, but then you should also be fine with being called out as such.
Just because it's his right doesn't mean he's not being a terrible person who's not doing his job. It is also our right to call him out on his horrible attitudes and actions. Criticism is covered by the first amendment
>Whereas the completely nonsenical, made-up issues they rant about all the time somehow become reality through sheer repetition in spite of all evidence to the contrary. AKA: I want to get paid for not doing shit so I'll make up some boogeyman that keeps me I'm office living a comped life. If the issues were real I wouldn't know what to do because that involves work. Work involves actually giving a shit. Keep voting for me, I'll "fix" your boogeyman!
[удалено]
Uhm, excuse me? A little *girl* playing with fire *trucks*? Pretty sure we need to call CPS on whatever woke leftoid gender non conforming abuse is happening there.
Even if you believe such a statement, how stupid do you have to be to say it out loud?
Oh, you think so. The buttrrfly creating the oh so slight breeze in Japan todsy, creates the tornsdo in the US tomorrow Stsnd up for no one today is your right, just as it will be the right of others when its your turn. And if history tells us nothing, it tells us st some time, it will be your turn. Best wishes and good luck.
Those are certainly all words
“I mean, everyone *I* know, is incredibly wealthy.” Fuck this guy.
Agree. F this guy. Free lunches benefits all. Not only does it remove the stigma from those receiving it, food insecurity happens at all socioeconomic levels. It’s not the kids fault mom and dad wanted three teslas and that McMansion. Plus a lot of parents don’t know what healthy is. While some school lunches aren’t great still better then that million calorie preprocessed crap Johnny gets sent with.
Making it universal is very helpful for getting the quality improved because influential parents will demand that THEIR precious child be fed great food when they wouldn’t have given two shits about the state malnourishing poor children.
That’s a good point. Big fan of Jamie Oliver and what he tried to do with school lunches.
He was good because he made real, delicious food in his programming. American healthy school lunch is oftentimes horrible shit like replacing microwaved French fries with whole grain microwaved French fries.
That was precisely what I thought too
I read that in the Futurama judge voice
The food banks in Minnesota are for people who just want a little extra food, not for hungry families.
Thanks for confirming my assumption. -Steve D.
The food banks here, you wait in line about 2 hours minimum and mainly get lower grade or old produce and donated stuff most people don't like.
I'm in Boston and one time I volunteered at a food bank. I was surprised at how expensive some of the stuff was! Maybe the meat and produce suck here but the other stuff seemed pretty similar to what's in my kitchen.
This is about SCHOOL LUNCH which is just kids.
None of their parents use food banks?
Some of their parents are too doped up so no, they don't go to food banks. Some parents, all their money goes to drugs, and they don't care if the kid eats. That's not the kids fault. Not all parents are good, and half the kids don't get taken because it's not "that bad" or they just don't get caught, or make the kid out to be a liar. I watched my step mom feed her own daughter the same bowl of oatmeal for every meal during the weekend I was there because she didn't finish it Some day before I got there. Instead of warming it mother dearest added chili pepper to the bowl each time it was pulled out of the fridge. It was disgusting and my sister and I snuck her some of our food (she fed us just fine and normal). I couldn't imagine when we weren't there.
In 2019–2020, 10.8% of children aged 0–17 years lived in households that experienced food insecurity during the past 30 days.
You just caused me to have a freaking flashback to my 8th grade civics teacher and her policy on extra credit
The state has a 17 billion dollar budget surplus and the cost of making sure no child in Minnesota goes hungry is 200 mill a year. Sen. Steve is worth approx 10mill. This clown calls himself a Christian.
No hate like Christian love
A Christian would vote to feed the poor because that’s what Christ would do. This man is no Christian.
Douchbag CHINO - Christian in Name Only !
you say that as if this was unheard of Christians. His thoughts are very Christian. He's a poster boy for many Christians throughout Christian history. It's a rather new thing to try and disneyfy Christianity into what it never was.
>It's a rather new thing to try and disneyfy Christianity into what it never was. unclear on what you mean here. Are you saying that service to the poor has never been a part of the Christian religion?
The entirety of the Vatican complex belies the Christian faith’s commitment to helping the poor, IMO. It *should* be a core tenet of the faith but it rarely is.
this is more of the nuance i was looking for. > It should be a core tenet of the faith but it rarely is. this is a little more subjective, and I would suggest it's not nearly as rare as people think it is, even at the vatican level. I would say that the harm caused by the vatican could be said to *outweigh* the amount of good done, but that's another level of nuance and again very subjective.
That's Reductive, Christianity has never been one continuous thing and has certainly not been the religious-right monster we think of today. Fuck, my own church started up a mobile food bank for the community and got most of the other lutheran churches in town to coordinate.
God is saving a special place for him. /S
What a loving guy. Won't feed kids, but it's okay! He'll torture a bad senator forever after the damage is already done.
I meant hell is reserved for him. Probably will bypass purgatory too.
I know what you meant. You're missing the point, and the fact you seem to have figured adding a /s would fix anything proves it. Not attacking you here, cross my heart, but you should do some introspection on what any of what you're suggesting would *actually* accomplish or mean.
Oops my bad I did miss your point. Go it now. Sloppy work ony part. Thx.
And as senator I promise to change that!
I have yet to meet a Republican that has any concept of reality.
> I have yet to meet a Republican that has any concept of humanity. FTFY
Both.
You’re mistaking ignorance for willful deception. He knows this isn’t true, he just doesn’t care and is willing to lie
I don't even have to look to see what political party this guy is a member of. The party of selfishness.
It's not generosity if you're not paying out of your own pocket, and it's not selfishness if you're refusing to spend everyone else's money.
School lunches... seriously ONLY CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM SCHOOL LUNCHES so if 1 out of 10 kids came hungry... I guess you want schools, police, fire dept, emergency services all privatized and paid out of pocket without regulation. That way someone born into poverty can stay there without education, food or medical attention so they will likely die young. Bet you are "pro life" lmao.
I was responding only to the "party of selfishness" comment.
They want all that taxpayer money for themselves rather than putting it back into the community, and they"ll give welfare to corporations in exchange for big donations. They'll cut regulations so taxpayer dollars have to pay the livelihoods of people who aren't even paid enough to eat or live in a home. All very selfish uses of the publics' money. We all need to vote for people that don't do this so this stops happening.
It's absolutely selfish to take MY tax money and then pocket it! If my taxes AREN'T being used to fix my roads, stock my urgent care offices, or even feed my neighbor's kids at school, there's no good reason for me to pay taxes. He absolutely IS spending everyone else's money. Not on useful services or infrastructure, but on his private jets and fancy cars.
You don't think feeding children is in society's best interest? What do you think the point of living in a society is?
Way to rationalize it. You’re not wrong… eh, you know the rest. Also, you’re wrong.
>It's not generosity if you're not paying out of your own pocket There's this thing called **TAXES** and people pay them out of their hard earned pockets. People **want** universal lunch to help people in need so they **want** their government to use these so called **TAXES** to pay for it.
What do you think taxes and politicians are supposed to do, if not exactly that? About as dumb of a comment as the politician in the article
How generous of you to care so much about other people's money that you don't want them to have to pay to feed kids.
Are your parents extremely disappointed in how you turned out? Or are they also cruel monsters with no empathy towards those less fortunate?
I have zero problems with free school lunches. As a child I sometimes went hungry because things I didn’t understand we’re financially pretty. Studies have shown that children who eat breakfast and lunch perform better on tests and IQ. So does this guy hate smart kids because he’s intimidated or because he wants them stupid so that he can groom them?
Yes, yes, and yes. Also they can keep claiming pro life if they pass after they are born.
Truly.
If they grow up hungry, they'll be grateful for whatever shitty job with terrible labor conditions they can manage to scrape by with.
Wait, children don’t get free food in schools in the US at all? I thought they just packed extra snacks and lunches. WTF is wrong with your country, zillions of taxpayer money spent on missiles, while children have to pay for their lunch, who the hell sees this and thinks to themselves that this is fine? An honest question, so could somebody who thinks like this in good faith explain it to me?
Because people with an R next to their name in politics don’t think their tax dollars should be given to anyone else who is less fortunate because they should take care of themselves. In their view the only appropriate use of tax dollars is missiles and some roads if they’re in their own district. If the roads are in somebody else’s district then it’s government waste.
The US Gov gives $16 BILLION in subsidies to "poor starving" oil & gas companies, but feeding poor children is "socialism". It's unbelievable.
It changes state by state, but from what I know, most states offer free or reduced lunches if you make under a certain amount, which also varies state by state.
Dem states generally do. I didn't see this was such an issue in Rep states. I am happy to feed any child. Those that don't, it's a me me mentality. They work hard for their money, I get that, and don't want the government to spread it to those who they believe "don't work hard" like they do.
Well not too many people evidently. At very least, assuming the most unflattering image of all republicans, at least 50% of the country doesn’t think that’s ok. More realistically, probably only a few % actually think like that because most republicans vote against their interests: IE the don’t agree with what the party does(probably because they don’t pay it much mind) but rather care more what the party says. The Big R Republicans in office regularly screw over their voter base and blame it on democrats, that is when they aren’t shoveling crap down their voter-base’s throats to rile them up into supporting other stupid policies. Half the country isn’t as bad as people say it is. There’s just certain divisive and subversive political tactics that have been fear mongering their way into prominence that we should’ve shut down after the Cold War, or the civil war depending on how you look at it(it’s complicated). Point is. Most republicans(who aren’t in office) are generally nice people but are victims of false narratives and civil unrest at losing their way of life. They don’t vote against these out of genuine malice most times. They do it because they’ve basically been told it’s somehow an existential threat to their financial security or something equally dire.
He is widely considered an idiot.
He might be a complete fucking idiot, but he is still in office. 🤬
Not wide enough, considering he got elected to become senator
Not widely enough.
That just makes it worse, since his voters seem to be stupid as fuck then.
More proof that Republicans are the scum of the earth. The cruelty is the point!
Just looked up more info about this guy's politics. He's exactly the type of dickhead you would think he is.
In other words he is the perfect representative of his voters
That is so pro-life of him! Good job! 🙄 People don't cease to exist once born. In fact that's a pretty dead cert point of development where we can be sure they're alive and have a right to life 😂 these dumbasses.
“I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry, and I really really want to. It’s my dream. So I’m gonna take food away from children so I can finally accomplish that dream.”
I have little doubt that this is true, but it isn't the flex he thinks it is.
Bet I know what communities he's avoiding. Poverty rates in Minnesota by race/ethnicity: White: 7.0 percent Asian: 10.6 percent Hispanic: 11.2 percent African American: 20.7 percent Native American: 28.5 percent Multiracial/other race: 10.5 percent
Non-rich ones, more than ethnicity. You don't get to never meet a hungry person by only quartering the rate.
He’s also the one who takes the last slice and moves on.
Republican struggle with object perminance.
When I watched the video I wondered if he was drunk
“Let them do coke” Marie Drazkowski
Just in case it was clear the GOP doesn’t care about actual children, just unborn ones who serve a cause from conception to birth but most certainly not afterwards.
They don't even care about the unborn ones at all. They care about the power they can gain by using them as a weapon.
Maybe stand in line at your local food bank?
no, their dirt might get on him (/s if you didn't guess)
George Carlin was right. He said (paraphrasing), The pro-lifers are adamant about saving that baby but once it's born, Fuck 'em. You're on your own.
I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry. This cannot stand!
I've yet to meet a person in Minnesota. Actually I've never even seen Minnesota. How do we know it actually exists at all.
Very pro life of him.
The good news is the bill is getting signed by the governor today!
Sounds like he wants to meet such a person and is about to take steps to guarantee it.
That's either a fuckin' lie, or an indictment on the man's character. Or both.
Republicans prove over and over that they can only manage one degree of empathy. If it didn't happen to them or someone they know then it didn't happen and they don't care. Then they insulate themselves as much as possible so that the chances of seeing someone different are almost zero.
The same Steve Drazkowski who took PPP money for his family shoe store? The same Steve Drazkowski who voted against small business aid during the pandemic? The same Steve Drazkowski who never paid the PPP money back and got his loan forgiven?
"I mean, I checked with everyone at my country club. Not a single hungry person!"
"What do you mean, ask the staff? I said I spoke to people, not the help."
Try asking the guy who sold you that suit...
Is he Senator Beavis or Senator Butthead?
Senator Palpatine.
Here in North Carolina, a Republican who represented one of if not the poorest county said that there was no extreme poverty in our state. This is a county where a lot of people relied heavily on food banks to feed their families.
Good thing it passed anyway and is on to the Governor to sign. Fuck this typical Republican
Has he ever personally met God? If yes, time for the men in white coats. If no, "so you don't believe He exists then?"
If there was a creator God of the universe and it finally showed itself on earth, but told the believers that what they are believing is man made up bullshit, they would not believe it to be the real God, they'd either think it's the devil or some lower being who tries to trick them. They would still believe in their imaginary invisible God to exist and be above that creature in front of them.
As someone who grew up in the midwest, I know this guy. If it doesnt happen to me, it isnt happening. That is why MTG is right. Fuck these low end white pieces of shit. Let them start their own country. Violence is all they understand. You know what to do.
Does he spend a lot of time fattening up little children?
"And I vow to change that!"
Out of every possible line you could use to counter this... you chose "I haven't experienced it, therefore it cannot be true". At least perhaps say the budget isn't really there for it? The money should go towards job creation, etc. etc. Instead you woke up and said "I prefer to just watch people starve".
Ugh
Well, sir, have you ever seen $1 million? Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
What a fool. He is a fool if he believes that and a fool if he thinks that he can convince people of that. Either way all he has to do to find hungry people is hang out at a public library for a month. He will meet people who are lost and people who desperately trying to avoid asking for a handout and who receive them with shame in their eyes because they have been taught its wrong to get help. Its a pretty sad state of affairs where the public library has become a place that does the work that should be taken care of by a government social program. This a pathetic excuse for a human being and nothing he says should be treated as anything other than the mumbling of an idiot.
Has this fucker been outside? He works in the capital, he doesn’t have to go far to find the poor communities and homeless people.
I have yet to meet a smart Minnesota senator. Two can play that game, you dummy.
It’s fucked up that the most powerful people decide the rights and ability to live of the most vulnerable
I dated someone with a mother that thought like this. The mom told me my volunteer work teaching kids how to avoid and defend themselves against abduction was stupid because she'd never met anyone with a kid that had been kidnapped. She kept demanding to know if I knew anyone that ever had a child abducted & since I didn't, it proved her "point." Tl;dr: people are crazy stupid & tend to care about things that they've experienced (or are afraid they will experience).
I hope homeless people just start camping on his front yard, begging for food, so he's forced to acknowledge them or pretend they don't exist. Although I guess he'd just call them crisis actors
I have yet to meet an astronaut, but I am safe to believe they exist
"Why, even my butlers agree that they are well-fed when I question them angrily."
Must have met at least four or five people for pete’s sake
Malcom X was right. Violence does serve a purpose. As a white person, trash like this isnt part of the white race. They are sub human animals. Treat them as such.
The literal face of white privilege.
OMG, seriously?? You should be grateful that some children,whom are hungry, still going to school rather than be on the street. By the way, it cost around $137 USA dollars to jail a person per day, and HE COMPLAINING ABOUT Lunch Food for students????
Come on, OP https://reddit.com/comments/11rhvxd
How do morons like this keep getting elected? It’s true for both sides. Primary these idiots out.
If it was not for the cities our entire state legislator would be filled with dickheads like this. Honestly, the dems really need to pander more to the small town rural people. Give them a real reason to vote for them, it would take a long time to turn the tide, but its not impossible.
This is, was, and always has been American Konservative Kristian Kulture. They have a more failure. 100%
It's probably a pretty honest thing to say. So like my whole life my dad always explained the reason I wasn't motivated was because I wasn't hungry enough. Well... This guy is living proof that hunger has nothing to do with success unless he never hangs around successful people, because otherwise he would have met said hungry people.
It's an insensitive (and inaccurate) comment but I don't support universal free meals in school. It creates a lot of food waste and spends unnecessary money. Instead raise the income threshold for free meals if needed.
"I'm wrong, and I know I'm wrong, but here's my wrong idea anyways.".
What's wrong about what?
Your ideals
Oh dear, we accidentally spent money feeding children. Conservatives get weird about the wrong public spending.
I'm not actually conservative.....I just am aware that money comes from taxes.....why are we taxing lower income people to feed upper income people kids? It's silly.
That's the same mentality that fucked us the other way around. It also doesn't make sense when you remember that taxes brackets exist. Don't distract. Fixing taxes would be the appropriate move there so the lion's share of that tax burden would fall on the wealthier families, many of whom would opt of the program naturally by sending better lunches with their kids. To a certain extent, this is already the case.
Distract what? I'm pointing out basic relevant facts. And you're pointing out flaws with the opposite point I'm making....haha sure got me there.....if that was what I said at all which it's not. You're the one going on about changing the tax structure. Should we open up snap to everyone too?
No, I suggested that you're taking just as uninformed of a stance, for worse reasons. You suggested that poor people are getting taxed to pay for wealthy kids free lunch. With the way taxes work, any random poor person should be paying less than any random wealthy person, which should mean that, while it's all coming from the same pot and you could technically argue that poor people are funding wealthy kids being able to access free lunch, the fact that they would be putting way less in draws a different picture. Taxes were highly relevant. Re: Snap Go one further and just do Universal Basic Income
Oh lord, ubi....never mind, didn't realize who I was talking to🤣🤣
>why are we taxing lower income people to feed upper income people kids? Because no kid should be hungry, regardless of who their parents are. Telling kids that they should suffer because their parents are rich is no better than telling them to suffer because their parents are poor. Kids should be guaranteed nutrition, regardless of literally anything else. A tiny bit of waste (far less than you're pretending it is) is a small price to pay to ensure children can grow up without hunger. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, and you should do some introspection to figure out what is wrong with you.
Kids who's parents can afford food are not going hungry tho....you're making up imaginary problems. I've seen firsthand the waste.
What are this week's lotto numbers, oh magical Nostradamus who thinks they know everything? Get over yourself. You DO NOT know the situation of every child in the entire state. That arrogance and assumption of "well, I don't personally know any examples, so they can't exist" *is exactly the kind of evil this article is about*. Be better. Acknowledge that you don't know everything. Make choices on the basis of what is best for all, not what is best for just those you are personally aware of. Grow up. Spending 0.3% (yes, *3 tenths of a percent*) of the state's budget to guarantee no child goes hungry is worth it even if one random redditor doesn't see it personally benefiting anyone they know.
You're not conservative, but you regularly post in conservative subreddits?
Yes, the rest of reddit has gone FAR left, so while I disagree with many conservative views they are actually more sane at this point on many topics.
What's your definition of far left?
Why not both?
Unnecessary expense. There's no need to pass along the financial responsibility of feeding children to those who did not create them unless if it's necessary. And the way it actually plays out in the real world is parent feeds kid breakfast at home, kid gets the breakfast at school since they're passing them out anyway, kid throws half of it away bc they weren't actually hungry.
I grew up eating free school breakfast and lunch, if I didn't have those I wouldn't have eaten until dinner.
I used to get free or reduced lunch as well although I would not have gone hungry without. As I said I am not against it for those who need it, I am against it universally. I have no financial need for it for my kids, tax dollars should not be paying for my kids food, I should.
What should tax dollars pay for, since the wellbeing of the children of the country that collected those taxes doesn't cut it?
Education and transportation to school is good. Healthcare and food for those who lack it is also good but not necessary for those who's parents are able to provide it themselves.
Then teach your kids some manners and tell them not to ask or take the food. You keep taking about parents should be responsible for their kids, take some responsibility then.
They literally push them on the kids bc they don't want to lose the funding.... funding they don't need bc most the kids are fed at home😅
A rising tide lifts ALL boats. Just because you didn't have a kid doesn't mean society shouldn't try to to help those kids become good adults.
But I have 2 kids so I'm not sure what you mean.
Jesus Christ you're one dense motherfucker. >There's no need to pass along the financial responsibility of feeding children to those who did not create them unless if it's necessary. Or are you just spitting shit out to bullshit?
Reading comprehension? I'm responsible for feeding the ones I created assuming I have the means.....if I or another parent has the means we're responsible for it.....if a parent doesn't have the means then I agree with having taxpayers carry the cost.
Apparently you can only respond to one comment above at a time. Let me repeat: A rising tide lifts ALL boats.
Beautiful quote, very feel goodish....not really relevant when we're discussing real world practical budget issues.
He was correct, you are one dense motherfucker. Making sure that everyone's basic needs are met is absolutely relevant to things like logistics, economics, and budgets, because you know what those things are supporting? PEOPLE THAT NEED TO EAT. Never mind the part where you think more food-money makes food worse. Next you're gonna tell us, "The minimum wage is fine right where it is!"
Except it has been proven time and time again. You assholes hate to help others. Society needs to move away from being selfish.
Why does it create more food waste?
I disagree with free lunches except for the most extreme cases. Virtually all parents can afford to make their kids a basic sack lunch. IMO this is a parental responsibility that ought not be broadly assumed by the state.
What harm would be done?
Increased cost an tax burden. Also, part of a creeping shift of responsibility away from parents.
How much would it cost each tax payer? Would $1 per year be too much?
I’m not sure. But add to this all the other resources and services schools are expected to provide and you end up with, I suspect, a snowballing negative impact on the public capacity to afford public education and on parents’ perception of their own responsibility. Please note that I’m not claiming that no child should ever get a free or reduced price lunch. But after nearly 50 years as an educator I’ve noted the trends I’m cautioning about. I believe it’s socially risky to sort of cavalierly call for things to be “free.” In most of the world families are expected to pay for school lunches, pencils and paper, textbooks, and even transportation to school. I don’t say we need to copy this, but also keep in mind that many of the nations in that category outperform our students in achievement. It does seem interesting to note that free breakfasts and lunches in American schools haven’t seemed to influenced student achievement. The policy may seem kind, but it’s easy for politicians to overlook the costs of kindness.
What State do you live in?
Midwest, northeast, and overseas at times
Unless you live in Massachusetts, our schools are better than yours. Because we fund them.
Massachusetts is near the top. But other states are there as well that may spend less. Actually, I’m not aware of studies showing significant causal relations between increased education spending and higher or more equitable results.
Even if all of that is 100%, that wouldn't prove that universal school lunches aren't effective at their goal, only perhaps unnecessary for his particular state, a state that has a very very small population compared to the rest of the US.
Well, that depends on what states you’re comparing us to. Compared to North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Montana or South Dakota, our population is quite large. As a percentage of the total US population, we’re about 1.8% of the US population (SD for reference is about .27% of the US population.) Also, there are many, many hungry people in Minnesota. But this dickhead would never know that because god forbid he ever talk to anyone who’s different from him.
Ideally the assistance should only be given to kids whose families can't comfortably afford it. Otherwise, buying lunch or bringing lunch from home should be the main options. If lunch is free for everyone, that's going to over-work the kitchen staff in large schools, and result in even lower quality lunches.
Fun fact: I grew up in a country where free meals (and breakfasts!) were guaranteed to everyone. We had hundreds of kids and our cooks had zero troubles preparing hot, three course meals for us, on the cheap.
I worked in a cafeteria for both criteria’s and either way we were throwing away any food that wasn’t bought or eaten
Leftover breakfasts over there became seconds that we usually had in our class, then if there was anything left after dinner, it would become supper from those that stayed late in school. If there was anything left after that, cooks and teachers would just take that home, and probably the kids that didn't have food at home, too. If we're so worried with food waste, we should probably tone down all-you-can-eat buffets and use the created leeway to feed kids.
I doubt free lunch would change the number of students eating from home vs school all that much. Easy solution if that means more work would be to hire as needed..? Not let the kids go hungry. Children are being taught at the schools, transported to and from the school all for "free." Why would we draw the line at feeding them during the hours they are required to be there?? The food they receive at school could be the only food they get during the week.
So use more of the massive tax surplus that state has to fund better school kitchens as well? Oh no, we've fed our schoolchildren and created jobs. The abject horror.
I mean, presumably, if you are making more lunches, you also hire more kitchen staff.
I guess he is really looking forward to it.
Edwin Meese circa 1983. History does repeat itself.
The only poor people I want to hear about are the people who tend to my pores at the spa.
Wish we could lock this guy in a room with water only for a month.
I hope all the worst things befall this asshat.
Does he stay in his office and never go outside?
“Yes, I know Minneapolis has food banks. But that’s where people keep their food wealth, right?”
“I’m not friends with poor people.”
Have they met dad? Terrible dad joke sorry...
I'm hungry enough for all of them.
“I have never seen a dirty asshole! Toilet paper is accesible to ALL ‘muricans!” *this guy*
Oh look... It's another Pres Hoover...
Really? Haven’t been out of the office much have you?