Iowa will not participate this summer in a federal program that gives $40 per month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs while school is out, state officials have announced.

The state has notified the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it will not participate in the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children — or Summer EBT — program, the state’s Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education said in a Friday news release.

“Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic,” Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in the news release.

2 points

I’m not surprised the people trying to “Protect The Children” are defending letting children starve in the comments!

How do you anger a Republican? Use tax dollars to bail out Billionaires or use tax dollars to feed STARVING CHILDREN?

permalink
report
reply
-3 points

Except these children aren’t going to starve

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Except it is. And is in everyone’s best interest to do so.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

Iowa has a budget of $8.5b, and 339,000 people bellow poverty line, that’s counting adults too. So $40 a month for the 3 months of summer multiplied by the pop below poverty is $40.6m, or 0.04% of the budget. That is a drop in the fucking bucket, even before trying to figure out how many of those 339,000 people are children eligible under this program. For reference, 1/5th of the Iowan population are minors. And this is a federal program, so Iowa wouldn’t even be paying for the full bill.

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/iowa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/IA/PST045222

Iowa attempts to force women to have children against their will with a 6 week ban, and restricts it by only having a small handful of providers, then denies them the resources needed to raise the children that result from said restrictions. This means unwanted, unafforded children are born to suffer. They pretend this is a good deed.

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

It doesn’t take long to overflow the bucket by adding small drops.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Which is why only programs that do good or are vital services should be added.

Food for impoverished children easily counts for both.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Just a little bit more, it’s for a good cause is not a good gauge, any program could be shoehorned into those criteria.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Guess we aren’t allowed to do literally anything then. Roads are just inherently bad apparently. Fuck the kids, let em starve am I right? It is true evil to ask a citizen for a fraction of a cent to feed impoverished children.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

No they don’t. Abortion is allowed till week 20 is inline with most blue states.

Nobody denies them resources. They can get a job like anyone else and pay for their children.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Re-read

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

What you said is false. Abortion is legal until week 20.

The rest is emotional word vomit.

How are people denied resources to care for their children ? We don’t allow them to have jobs? It’s their job to pay for their children

permalink
report
parent
reply

Conservative

!conservative@lemm.ee

Create post

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee’s rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don’t reply to it.

Community stats

  • 894

    Monthly active users

  • 406

    Posts

  • 2.8K

    Comments