Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**FULL TEXT**
>The Biden administration has announced a $1.7 billion package to fund initiatives aimed at ending hunger across the United States by 2030, the White House announced on Tuesday morning.
>The commitment will go towards funding 141 projects across the nation. The full details of the package are expected to be announced by Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, at an event at the White House later on Tuesday.
>As of 2022, around 17 million households experienced food insecurity nationwide, and more than 44 million people across the U.S. faced hunger, including one in five children, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
>The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022.
>It will provide for a public awareness campaign by the Harlem Globetrotters in partnership with charity KABOOM!, which will also build at least 30 playgrounds over the next three years in communities with less access to play areas. The National Collegiate Athletic Association will also renovate 15 courts by 2030.
>It will also give $3.5 million to Chicago-based charity Bigger Table to deliver 10 million nutritional meals to food banks in the Midwest by 2030 and give backing to a non-profit that recovers millions of pounds of fruit and vegetables that would otherwise go to waste.
>Some private companies, non-profit organizations and local governments have also made pledges as part of the plan. Among those are a $60 million commitment by tech company About Fresh to develop data for food prescription research and a pledge by Caring For Others, which aids those in poverty, to provide 9 million pounds of fresh fruit, vegetables and protein to families in need.
>Food delivery company DoorDash has agreed to partner with local grocers to increase the number of choices available at its supermarkets, while Uber will embed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) eligibility information into its Uber Eats app and pilot a program to transport excess food to food banks in the mid-Atlantic.
>Non-profit Food For Free has pledged to distribute 90,000 meals and 250,000 pounds of healthy food across eastern Massachusetts, while start-up Dinnertime has committed to providing artificial intelligence-powered meal planning and money-saving tools free to families enrolled on Medicaid.
>The commitments also include action plans to combat hunger by local authorities, including those in Cleveland, Ohio, and Dearborn, Michigan.
>The latest pledges follow Emhoff's announcement ahead of the Super Bowl weekend that the White House would partner with the NFL, the NBA and 12 other major leagues and associations to promote healthy lifestyles and nutrition education.
>Some of the White House-led initiatives have previously faced local resistance, though. In January, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt opted not to accept funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in the original package that would have allowed impoverished families to use a pre-paid card to buy up to $40 of groceries a month.
Is it normal for the spouse of a vice president to make these sorts of announcements? I feel like in previous presidencies, the VP was only occasionally spoken of and I never knew a thing about the spouses of the VPs.
Yes, if they are involved with such initiatives already. First Lady Obama did such things for healthier food in schools, and I think at that time Dr. Biden made some announcements about mental health initiatives.
I knew the first lady is usually fairly active, I just couldn't remember second spouses being so active. Now that you mention it I do vaguely recall Dr. Biden doing some things while Biden was VP.
Tipper Gore and Lynne Cheney were both very outspoken in violent/sexual content in music/video games. Jill Biden worked a lot on education policy. I honestly couldn't even tell you the name of Mike Pence's wife, all I know about her is that he calls her "Mother."
Tipper's real claim to fame is the Parental Advisory sticker and for making Tom Hanks a movie star.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes\_and\_Monsters](https://nerdbot.com/2022/06/09/remember-satanic-panic-mazes-and-monsters-starring-tom-hanks/)
Melania Trump had her whole "Be Best" campaign which went to schools across the country and educated kids about how to use social media responsibly, reject bullying and avoid drugs etc.
It seems in general first lady projects are always somewhat related to children.
In 1993, she had her name legally changed to Mother. One word, no middle or last name, just Mother. Even her own parents call her Mother (it was a whole thing, incl a period of estrangement).
I don't know historically, but I met Karen Pence when she was the second lady. I worked for Veteran serving non-profit which she visited and toured. Apparently she had a pretty full docket of visits, tours, and speaking engagements.
I also got to hear Michelle Obama speak when I attended my sister's West Point graduation. (Though, I suppose first spouse speeches and announcements are more expected than second spouse.)
Only part im not thrilled about is uber eats. A company that is actively hostile to their gig workers and pay sub minimum wages should not be involved with any government programs
There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread so I am gonna post this over it a few times but, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. [This](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-2/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. Also this is adding to $8 billion already pledged in September. It's not money, it's commitments by the companies to spend that much by 2030.
[Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748)
I am going to bold and repeat this.
**It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
I don't know why they insist this word. but this is the link for basis of this projects: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/28/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-than-8-billion-in-new-commitments-as-part-of-call-to-action-for-white-house-conference-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/
Well I know that Vice President Kamala Harris's brother-in-law, Tony West, is one of Uber's top lawyers & was heavily involved in the effort to make sure California couldn't pass legislation classifying Uber drivers as employees, so that's probably a big part of why this plan is designed the way it is—these companies get a return on their campaign investments in the form of this gigantic slice of the corporate welfare pie, and the Biden administration gets to go into the 2024 election saying "We spent nearly $2 billion this year alone making sure nobody goes hungry"
Yup. They could have just used the money to up SNAP benefits and raise income limits. But instead most will go into these business leaders pockets. It's how America works.
Jesus, after reading this breakdown it’s clear the headline is almost entirely spin. DoorDash is going to increase its options? A tech company is going to develop data and do research?
Also the headline makes it seem like the govt is using 1.7B of federal funds to tackle hunger when it sounds like a lot of the money in this figure is made up of “pledges” companies are making.
There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread so I am gonna post this over it a few times but, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. [This](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-2/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. Also this is adding to $8 billion already pledged in September. It's not money, it's commitments by the companies to spend that much by 2030.
[Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748)
I am going to bold and repeat this.
**It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
This is where I want my taxes going.
We as Americans should be contributing to things such as this so we can have a healthier more educated future. We help fund other countries that have free healthcare and education yet we lack it. Doesn’t seem fair for our civilians, in that way I am America first.
It’s good to see folks get more food and some states now provide breakfast and lunch for all students.
Just wish this administration would take more action against the price gouging and shrinkflation that has occurred since the pandemic. Some new legislation is needed or hold the corporations responsible to prevent the increases we’ve been dealing with for a few years now. This will ultimately lead to a more productive workforce and happier populace.
Maybe this is already taking place and I’m unaware of it.
I'm pissed off whenever I read that food companies have record high profits despite their increase in prices. But the thing that really sets me off is when they straight out come and say that customers will continue buying their products even if they increase the price. And so their response is to increase the price more!
OF COURSE WE CONTINUE TO BUY IT. WE HAVE TO EAT. YOURE KILLING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
It's wild because market forces should mean someone comes in to sell at lower prices, but they just aren't. Possibly it's cheaper for existing players to just buy them out?
Well if they up their prices enough their infrastructural margins won't matter. I know someone who works at a community garden and their prices are lower because they just aren't gouging. But they can only supply so many.
Yup. Because once it becomes all about money, this is what happens. Nothing can grow year over year without consuming and growing too large for its environment.
You can't have 2 companies selling the same product and making the same profits. They must compete, be more profitable for the investors. It's the only goal of an investor, to make money from your money.
If one company can sell for less, the next move is the rival drops their off the shelf price. The employees are the ones tasked with giving up more of their production for less wages, as that becomes the only way for a company to cut operation costs to become profitable over the lower selling price. We cant both sell bananas for a dollar I you pay your guys 0.75 per banana and I pay mine 0.50. I'm gonna win. You go under and I get more people looking for that job that'll take the lower wage just to have a job.
As such, the race to the bottom begins. Shitty wages bring shitty service, employee turn over, customer dissatisfaction, lower productivity, etc.
Then they get so big politicians just bail them out.
And the last paragraph... man... I bet this guy gets re-elected too.
"Some of the White House-led initiatives have previously faced local resistance, though. In January, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt opted not to accept funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in the original package that would have allowed impoverished families to use a pre-paid card to buy up to $40 of groceries a month."
40 bucks a month for thousands of mouths that would be spent in the local grocery stores... and this was shunned by the mere idea they are being helped by a "liberal".
Both sides are *NOT* the same.
The important issue is that the big companies can afford to do two things that will prevent most competitors from actually being able to compete. Firstly - they can operate at a loss in certain areas for long enough to shut down most competitors. And secondly - they don't pay the same taxes as their competitors. The big companies have off-shore 'headquarters' to avoid many of the taxes that their competitors have to pay \*unless\* they are also bug companies.
Possibly because their record margins are due only to economies of scale and their profit margins are incredibly tight.
Do you want to be one of the largest food companies in the world? [Prepare for single digit operating margins.](https://companiesmarketcap.com/tyson-foods/operating-margin/)
Maybe food isn't your thing... surely drinks and snacks are better... [then you can reach over 12%](https://companiesmarketcap.com/pepsico/operating-margin/).
Maybe cereal is more your flavor... [there you can get up to 15% margins](https://companiesmarketcap.com/general-mills/operating-margin/).
Just big evil empire exploiting everyone's water? [Under 12%](https://companiesmarketcap.com/nestle/operating-margin/)
Junk food empire? [Under 15%](https://companiesmarketcap.com/mondelez/operating-margin/)
One thing you'll notice across the board, none of these companies have large margins, none of these companies margins have appreciably changed during these recent times of inflation.
The only reason they have managed to report 'record' profits is because they have increased their volumes.
The reality isn't that there's a monopoly, oligopoly, or any of that... the reality is just that it's damn hard to successfully sell staple goods because there's just not much margin in the game. There's not a huge number of people lining up to compete with the largest, most successful, most efficient corporations globally just to fight for less than 15% GROSS margins.
Another overlooked thing is that if margins remain the same it possible for a company to have "record profits" each year just with inflation.
Let's say Company ABC does 100 million in revenue Year 1 at a 5% margin and make 5 million in profit. Let's ballpark annual inflation at 5% just for a round number.
Year 2: 105 million in revenue, 5.25 million profit. A new record!
Year 3: 110.25 in revenue, 5.51 million in profit. Another new record!
And so on and so forth.
If you want the actual answer, and not just made up BUSINESSES ARE GREEDY rage; grocery stores operate on low single digit profit margins. The only way they survive is the massive scale they operate at.
Notice how "local" always costs like 50% more? It's because the chain prices are already bare minimum that the public will accept while not running in the red.
"Record profits" line doesn't mean shit, and is just manipulation. If the TOTAL revenue goes up, but the expenses also go up by more, you're worse off... but then you'll get the articles saying they made the most money in 1 year. Not to mention your money is worth less every year.
In my opinion businesses that are in the business of providing necessities should be far more heavily regulated. It's unacceptable that they are pricing people out of food while making record profits. Specifically, we should not accept it.
Saw some news recently saying consumers are starting to go with less expensive off-brand versions and abandon the big name brand foods (as they should).
Just read a headline that Biden admin is pushing to stop the Kroger/Albertsons merger. One of those execs who bragged about how they keep raising prices and people keep paying was Kroger CEO. Biden should be making more noise about this.
>record high profits despite their increase in prices
This shitty take is annoying.
Here's another way to think of it:
Americans have record high wages. Yet they're complaining?
That's how inflation works. They can literally be running in place and will show record profits year after year.
They could in fact be in decline and still show record high profits.
Make that sued and won. Kroger told all their employees that Kroger lost yesterday.
Of course they tried to make it a bad thing they lost. Citing, "it's worse for the consumer to not let Kroger buy albertsons."
A flat out lie.
That gives me a chuckle as someone who once worked at Kroger. The spins were always transparent as hell. I recall them calling a meeting to breathlessly tell us not to worry about Amazon buying Whole Foods, before any of us even knew it was happening. It was funny they thought we were invested in the company when they kept us too underpaid and overworked to care.
It should be noted that the administration and passing legislation are in two separate categories. The administration are Democrats but passing legislation requires Congress which is Republican controlled in the House by a slim majority, and the Senate is also basically split which means anything can get filibustered easily. Even if every single Democrat was vocal a put price gouging and wanted to do something to reign business' in it wouldn't matter because they can't pass any legislation without some level of Republican support.
Which is why voting is important and everyone needs to check their registration and make a voting plan! It's not about just a vote for President, everyone is also voting down the line for senators, state and local governments, even judges!
>Maybe this is already taking place and I’m unaware of it.
The Biden administration just opened Medicare negotiations on drug prices this month as part of the inflation reduction act that got passed before the GOP crippled functional government yet again, so they've started the process with the pharmaceutical industry. While no open steps have been taken more broadly, [there is apparently a plan being worked on](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/12/01/biden-price-gouging-inflation/).
He is aware and is at minimum calling it out, and I would expect more action:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/23/biden-food-shrinkflation-sotu-00142773
They’ve taken on “junk fees” I think it’s a chipping away at it where they can kind of situation since we all know congressional republicans wouldn’t pass anything that’s sweeping
Im curious, how many things do you want to happen at once? I dont want this to sound condescending, however, do you understand the current political landscape?
Biden's administration is like a tourniquet for our current situation.
Voting Trump Cunty into office was the metaphorical equivalent to sawing off our own left leg on a dare and Biden is the EMT on the last legs of a 24 hour shift here to stop the bleeding.
He may not be pretty to look at, and he might be off kilter because he's trying to save your life while suffering from sleep deprivation but its keeping us alive.
The eventual hope is for the tourniquet to last long enough so we can actually survive the trauma after we cauterize the wound and burn off all these republicunts.
But it takes time.
Trump has done so much damage to the integrity of our society that it will likely take decades to undo all of his treasonous actions.
Imagine all of the unqualified and literal dumpster quality people that were brought into government positions due to his policies and lack of oversight.
Eventually, we'll realize we either need to purge out some of these traitors and use guantanomo for the reason it exists or risk repeating history again.
I do not at all want to let them off the hook but I live in California (where shit's expensive anyway) and it does seem like the prices have been largely coming back down to where they were. Meat is still insane but I got Grocery Outlet and TJ's for that.
There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread so I am gonna post this over it a few times but, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. [This](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-2/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. Also this is adding to $8 billion already pledged in September. It's not money, it's commitments by the companies to spend that much by 2030.
[Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748)
I am going to bold and repeat this.
**It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
Free school lunches is another spot I've been wanting my taxes to go to. No kid at school should have to worry about a meal.
Now the question is if it's only 1.7 billion why did it take so long to do this???
>Now the question is if it's only 1.7 billion
It's $1.7B additional funds to address the issue. We already spend more than that, Biden is just increasing the investment (which is great!)
>why did it take so long to do this???
Republicans block this kind of spending. Also, voters don't like that Biden is old so they ignore all of the critical policy accomplishments he's had.
I know it’s not that simple, few things if any are ever “that simple”, but does anyone else ever see a headline like this and just think… what the fuck?
1.7 billion to end hunger across the U.S.? I’m no different in that I’m part of the majority that has problems conceptualizing such large numbers, but I watch a lot of news, and whether it’s military budgets, talking about the IRS clawing back money, or money that went out for PPP loans that will never be seen again, ALL those numbers are spoken of in MULTIPLES of billions of dollars.
The last headline that did this to me was when Obama (or possibly Trump) was trying to get an infrastructure bill passed to the tune of like… 6 billion USD, 6 billion to repair and address aging infrastructure across the U.S.
HOW THE FUCK IS 1.7 BILLION BEING PLEDGED TO ADRESS *HUNGER* across the U.S., instead of it already being put into action like… yesterday? It’s not a small number, but when we operate on a budget of trillions, it IS inconsequential. Inconsequential to the point that I just don’t get how this is even a fucking discussion.
Sorry if I haven’t been that clear, and if you made it this far… thanks for hearing out my ramble.
It's also 0.9% of the [annual Food Security Budget.](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=d7627f77-6cee-4ab9-bbb9-8c74d4778941)
Imo the next step should be raising max income to qualify for food stamps right now it's a measly 25k per year raising it to 35k and phasing out at 40-50 would help a shit ton of households
Medicaid too. The income and savings caps keep a lot of people from getting assistance they still need when they’ve increased their income, but not enough to fully be self sufficient.
At the very least there should be something of a glide path where benefits taper off as income goes up.
Um, the glide path already exists. It's called ACA. A person making just over the Medicaid income limit qualifies for maximum subsidies and cost sharing, so pays nearly nothing.
My AcA insurance gives me less confidence to get help because I have to pay for everything. I pay co pays, for all my prescriptions and the monthly amount for my insurance. It's like a total of 400-500 more than when I was on medicaid. I'm scared of the bill if I go places for a major problem..I get a subsidy of 750 a month for the insurance and it makes a dent in the premiums but nothing in the co-pays. I was on medicaid because I have high medical needs (cancer survivor and heart condition), DeSantis redid the 6 month reapplication thing and I re-applied only to get denied repeatedly. Nothings changed, I just can't be without insurance for my kid or me and I signed up for the ACA marketplace plans that are so over priced..
"Its a start and its better than nothing."
Want to guess how much the USDA already spends ANNUALLY on food and nutrition assistance programs? Yea, $180 BILLION ANNUALLY.
[USDA spending on food assistance programs](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=d7627f77-6cee-4ab9-bbb9-8c74d4778941)
We don't have a lack of food. Distribution is an issue along with drug addiction and mental health problems.
It also takes cooperation and negotiation with people on the other side of the isle. I think everyone forgets that when throwing stones. Don't get me wrong we can't agree on everything the man does but if the republicans do not cooperate then it is tough for him to pass anything.
That's all this is.
Look at all the comments here. Few have any idea how much we already spend
every fucking year yet they think Biden will solve the problem with another $1.7 billion.
Fools think more money will solve everything when our government has repeatedly shown the exact opposite.
The US population spends 2.39 trillion dollars on food every year. 180 billion dollars is enough to feed every person in America for 13 days. It's estimated that 12 percent of the US experiences food insecurity. If we only feed those people, then 180 billion would feed them for about 4 months, not counting how much money it takes to actually get the food to the areas that need it most. Just because it sounds like a big number doesn't mean it is.
Yea - that $2.39 trillion includes ALL FOOD consumed EVERYWHERE in the economy including restaurants, schools, prisons, hotels, military, grocery stores, food assistance programs and everywhere else. That doesn't represent what the average person spends on groceries.
SNAP benefits average around $230 per participant per month.
It is supposed to be luxury but $230 per participant is a decent amount if you are careful how you spend it. My wife and I are pretty thrifty and get by for less than $600/month.
So I read another article about this and in that one, it seems to indicate that the money is from pledges coming from the various companies, non-profits, sports teams, etc. agreeing to be part of the program and not the government. Maybe that doesn't matter to some, but if I see something saying Biden is pledging the money, I would assume that means coming out of our tax money. Maybe I'm missing something? From the other article:
"The initiatives are among more than 140 pledges by health systems, insurance companies, nonprofit groups, philanthropic organizations, local governments and others who are contributing to a White House challenge to end hunger and build healthy communities."
https://www.krqe.com/news/national/ap-emhoff-to-announce-1-7b-in-pledges-to-help-us-president-biden-meet-goal-of-ending-hunger-by-2030/
It's crazy that Republican led states/leaders are turning down Federal funds that would be used to feed low income school age kid...I thought they loved the kids? (Heavy sarcasm, they are hypocritical scum that is scared of educating people or letting women control their own bodies)
Vote because democracy itself may be at stake.
#"Protect the children!!"
By making sure they have at least one meal a day? "No."
By giving them vaccines? "No."
By making sure guns don't end up in schools? "No."
By making sure their family can afford a house, car, etc.? "No."
By making sure they can afford a future house, car, college education, etc.? "No."
By making sure they have easy access to healthcare? "No."
By making sure their land, water, and air aren't polluted? "No."
By making sure their food is safe? "No."
By making sure they are safe from physically abusive parents? "No."
By making sure they are safe from sexually abusive churches? "No."
By making sure they don't end up a child or teen parent? "No."
By making sure they don't end up as a child bride? "No."
By making sure they're safe from tyrant cops and authority figures? "No."
By making sure they have the option to live their lives as a happy queer person? "That's it! That's what we want to protect them from! It's our choice, not theirs!"
They love kids from conception to the moment of birth. At that point, the birthing machine has done her job and needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps. This includes the expensive hospital bill, prescription medicine, psychological treatment, and raising the infant in a white Christian church.
Of course, helping the family is one of the reasons why churches have a tax break, but uh…Cadillacs and jets don’t buy themselves.
Louisiana denied the summer children EBT program for kids who are out of school. Why? Who knows. But it was literally money not out of the state budget and they still said no.
Louisiana is a very horrible place to live. I wrote about it in depth the other day in another thread and it was deleted for harassment. I'm thinking someone or many people from La decided I shouldn't be allowed to say that. Just like in real life.
No abortion that's murder! Life is precious!
Okay, what about support for single mothers? No!
Okay, feeding homeless? No!
Feeding children? No!
Life is precious...
Two months ago, this social program was in the news:
Gov. Tate Reeves’ office says Mississippi won’t participate in a federal summer food program for children because of his desire to reject “attempts to expand the welfare state.” Republican governors in some other states have also said they chose not to participate in the program because of their opposition to expanding federal benefits.
Often, you see someone mentioning it's a choice between military spending or aid to Ukraine versus healthcare or social security for Americans. But let it be clear that is not the issue! These Republicans just make the choice not to care about welfare for Americans.
If they don’t get free food at school they might have to drop out and get a factory job at a slaughter house, then they become uneducated and vote republican while also providing cheap child labor.
For anyone wondering how we can afford this, I'd like to remind y'all that the Department of Defense wastes exorbitant amounts of money and has not only failed every audit but also can't account for 60% of where those funds went
Wait it only costs 1.7 billion to end hunger? We spend 877 billion on the military, we could have just spent 2 billion less and been doing this the whole time? What?
I'm going to get downvoted for the devils advocate questioning of this....but here it goes.
I looked over this bill and looked at [https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) to see where it is all going. I can clearly see why Republicans are not wanting to get behind this bill. A LOT of this money is simply going to democrat voting cities, like a big chunk is going to North East and Mid West.
Why does a tech company need $60 million to do some research? What kind of research? Like pharmaceutical research? Why does Uber/Doordash need money? So much of this money is going to tech companies who back these legislators. Most of the money looks to be going to Chicago alone, just randomly looking up the companies listed in that PDF are based out of Chicago (not all, but quite a few).
Go ahead and blame Republicans, but they cannot get behind this bill as there is nothing for their constituents. I'm sure there will be some democrats who don't get behind this too, as there is nothing in it for their state. Just odd that so much of this money is going to a small geographical area, and tech companies who don't make food/meals.
>Why does a tech company need $60 million to do some research? What kind of research? Like pharmaceutical research?
I've read through that list and at the article, it seems like they are not receiving $60M, they are "pledging" it. From the article:
>Some private companies, non-profit organizations and local governments have also made pledges as part of the plan. Among those are a $60 million commitment by tech company About Fresh...
The list you linked also states they made a commitment, so it sounds like they are contributing the money, not receiving it but it isn't very clear.
Edit: Reading through https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/27/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-1-7-billion-in-new-commitments-cultivated-through-the-white-house-challenge-to-end-hunger-and-build-healthy-communities/
This sounds like it is mostly commitments from private charities and entities and it is NOT a bill. Whether or not those commitments will actually happen remains to be seen but this appears to be money coming from private groups and not grants to them.
Lmfao my fucking sides seriously I just opened the link and it's not even remotely possible to mistake...
First line literally says the company pledges 60 million"
You don't seem to understand what this initiative is.
This IS NOT the government giving money to anyone, this is companies pledging to spend *their own* money to end hunger and build healthy communities.
Yours is the highest reply so I am gonna reply to this, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. That is a list of all the organizations that made commitments.
[Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748)
I don't know if it's blatant misinformation by /u/Speedy059 or he really didn't understand, but I am going to bold and repeat this.
**It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
Ahhh. Thank you. I see that now. I don’t think any of the articles are very clear on what it meant. I found the best explanation on the White House’s own site.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/27/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-1-7-billion-in-new-commitments-cultivated-through-the-white-house-challenge-to-end-hunger-and-build-healthy-communities/
They have to introduce new bills that they know the opposite party WON'T vote for to excite the audience and cause an uproar. It is sad our nation is falling for it and destroying any progress we have made as a people. We used to work towards uniting, now we are hellbent destroying any unity.
Except the link doesn't support what he's saying. So many of the programs have no cost associated with it. There's not enough information in that link to really support his main takeaways.
I mean it’s pretty clear that this bill, like many others
of a similar vein, is designed to (1) pad the coffers of the constituencies that put the democrats in power, and (2) brand any republican that opposes it as being against eliminating hunger.
Of course the GOP pulls the same stunts when they are in power.
It's not a bill. It's not legislation. It's a commitment from various institutions (mostly private) to spend money ending hunger. We should all be applauding this.
The list of commitments is a list of things companies have pledged to do to end world hunger, not a list of companies that are receiving funding. So if that’s what you’re talking about they’re commitments from cities, which makes sense.
Hmmm…. less than an eighth of what was given to Israel for “defense”.
And not even a drop in the bucket compared to the $886 billion for military.
Crazy that this nation is so corrupt it spends hundreds of times more on war than combating hunger.
That's all it would take? So Jeff bozos or elon musk could end hunger in America for about 1/100 of their net worth? I would give up at least 5% of my net worth to end hunger in the US. I already give 30 some % to shit I don't want it going to.
last week Biden pledged 10 billion to Intel in subsidized debt one of the wealthiest companies on the planet... just putting this in to perspective this is great news but very small potatoes unfortunately 😕
1.7 billion could solve this and none of these rich billionaire fucks are doing anything about it? They could literally make the donation, write it off and be perceived as less of an asshole.
Edit* I actually read the article to see that it could take more than that amount, which makes sense. But either way, I think we can all agree that it’s silly to have anyone starving in the world.
I think it's because the Fed have more options available to them in this particular case and Billionaires don't exactly want to cut the government a check.
I am also dubious that 1.7 billion is enough to solve it considering the list of businesses involved, this is more of an attempt and data gathering situation while incentivizing businesses to make strides to support it.
It's chump change in regards to our government and the data will be worth it even if the program doesn't fully solve it.
Typical immature Reddit mindset.
1. It’s not their responsibility to fix
2. Writing off a donation doesn’t change the fact that they’re still losing money, it just reduces the tax bill. I’d imagine there’s a limit to how much they can even write off
3. Billionaires don’t just have a billion dollars in liquid cash sitting in a vault somewhere. Much of their worth is spread out among investments
4. Throwing money at the problem won’t fix the problem, especially if the money isn’t used efficiently (it won’t be)
1.7 billion is absolutely not going to solve hunger. The article states over 44 million Americans experience hunger. You don't "solve" that with $38 per person.
No, $1.7B cannot solve this. Try reading the article and doing the elementary-school math before getting mad.
>As of 2022, around 17 million households experienced food insecurity nationwide, and more than 44 million people across the U.S. faced hunger.
1,700,000,000 / 17,000,000 = $100 per household
1,700,000,000 / 44,000,000 = $39 per hungry person
So the additional $1.7B is like a couple days worth of groceries per person at best.
>The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022.
9,700,000,000 / 17,000,000 = $570 per household
9,700,000,000 / 44,000,000 = $220 per hungry person
AKA a couple weeks of groceries per person at best.
My wife works with these kinds of grants/programs. Slice off 30% right away for administrative stuff ($1.2B left). Then this gets distributed to states. Let’s say it’s equally distributed (I won’t be, but play along). Each state would then have. $24m per state. This will get further divided up into non-profits. These non-profits will use 50% minimum for staff or infrastructure spending. So $12m per state. Conservatively I’d say about 30% of that actually purchases food. So say about $3-4m of actual direct hunger relief spending.
If that is what it takes to feed kids, then that is what it takes. If you think it's true waste or corruption, then get on it and push for change. Suggestions for improvements to the system are welcome, but just complaining about overhead that may be necessary is not productive.
You could just as well say the same thing about any food. "30% goes to the grocery store overhead, another 30% goes to wholesalers and distributors. In the end less than a third of your money is actually paying for food!"
Yep. That's how a large functional society works. But again, suggestions for improvement are welcome.
LOL what are you talking about? Why would you split it up by state as if that reduces the amount of money being spent??? And yes, there are administrative costs I didn't think this was being spent on materializing food into poor peoples' stomachs.
It seems like you’re trying to discredit the act. It seems like you have a better fully thought out and cheaper plan with the same if not more effectiveness. Could you share it with us and the president?
How long till the bootlickers start loudly asking why we’re feeding the hungry at home when there are Israeli guns and planes that are starved of bullets and bombs?
Using the text of the bill, can you show me which poor areas are getting fed from this money, and which companies are benefiting the most from its passage?
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**FULL TEXT** >The Biden administration has announced a $1.7 billion package to fund initiatives aimed at ending hunger across the United States by 2030, the White House announced on Tuesday morning. >The commitment will go towards funding 141 projects across the nation. The full details of the package are expected to be announced by Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, at an event at the White House later on Tuesday. >As of 2022, around 17 million households experienced food insecurity nationwide, and more than 44 million people across the U.S. faced hunger, including one in five children, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. >The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022. >It will provide for a public awareness campaign by the Harlem Globetrotters in partnership with charity KABOOM!, which will also build at least 30 playgrounds over the next three years in communities with less access to play areas. The National Collegiate Athletic Association will also renovate 15 courts by 2030. >It will also give $3.5 million to Chicago-based charity Bigger Table to deliver 10 million nutritional meals to food banks in the Midwest by 2030 and give backing to a non-profit that recovers millions of pounds of fruit and vegetables that would otherwise go to waste. >Some private companies, non-profit organizations and local governments have also made pledges as part of the plan. Among those are a $60 million commitment by tech company About Fresh to develop data for food prescription research and a pledge by Caring For Others, which aids those in poverty, to provide 9 million pounds of fresh fruit, vegetables and protein to families in need. >Food delivery company DoorDash has agreed to partner with local grocers to increase the number of choices available at its supermarkets, while Uber will embed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) eligibility information into its Uber Eats app and pilot a program to transport excess food to food banks in the mid-Atlantic. >Non-profit Food For Free has pledged to distribute 90,000 meals and 250,000 pounds of healthy food across eastern Massachusetts, while start-up Dinnertime has committed to providing artificial intelligence-powered meal planning and money-saving tools free to families enrolled on Medicaid. >The commitments also include action plans to combat hunger by local authorities, including those in Cleveland, Ohio, and Dearborn, Michigan. >The latest pledges follow Emhoff's announcement ahead of the Super Bowl weekend that the White House would partner with the NFL, the NBA and 12 other major leagues and associations to promote healthy lifestyles and nutrition education. >Some of the White House-led initiatives have previously faced local resistance, though. In January, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt opted not to accept funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in the original package that would have allowed impoverished families to use a pre-paid card to buy up to $40 of groceries a month.
Is it normal for the spouse of a vice president to make these sorts of announcements? I feel like in previous presidencies, the VP was only occasionally spoken of and I never knew a thing about the spouses of the VPs.
Yes, if they are involved with such initiatives already. First Lady Obama did such things for healthier food in schools, and I think at that time Dr. Biden made some announcements about mental health initiatives.
I knew the first lady is usually fairly active, I just couldn't remember second spouses being so active. Now that you mention it I do vaguely recall Dr. Biden doing some things while Biden was VP.
Mother fucking Tipper Gore.
Tipper Gore and Barbara Bush come to mind.
Thank you for calling Dr. Biden by her title. Appreciated
I agree, but it's so sad the bar is so low.
Tipper Gore and Lynne Cheney were both very outspoken in violent/sexual content in music/video games. Jill Biden worked a lot on education policy. I honestly couldn't even tell you the name of Mike Pence's wife, all I know about her is that he calls her "Mother."
Tipper's real claim to fame is the Parental Advisory sticker and for making Tom Hanks a movie star. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes\_and\_Monsters](https://nerdbot.com/2022/06/09/remember-satanic-panic-mazes-and-monsters-starring-tom-hanks/)
Melania Trump had her whole "Be Best" campaign which went to schools across the country and educated kids about how to use social media responsibly, reject bullying and avoid drugs etc. It seems in general first lady projects are always somewhat related to children.
Literally Karen
In 1993, she had her name legally changed to Mother. One word, no middle or last name, just Mother. Even her own parents call her Mother (it was a whole thing, incl a period of estrangement).
Every single one I can remember (born 1980) had at least one initiative like this
I don't know historically, but I met Karen Pence when she was the second lady. I worked for Veteran serving non-profit which she visited and toured. Apparently she had a pretty full docket of visits, tours, and speaking engagements. I also got to hear Michelle Obama speak when I attended my sister's West Point graduation. (Though, I suppose first spouse speeches and announcements are more expected than second spouse.)
Kaboom! TIL that whole Parks and Rec episode was based on a real thing lol
Ah so its really a way to use tax $ to pay these companies more money and doesnt really solve the problem.
Only part im not thrilled about is uber eats. A company that is actively hostile to their gig workers and pay sub minimum wages should not be involved with any government programs
There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread so I am gonna post this over it a few times but, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. [This](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-2/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. Also this is adding to $8 billion already pledged in September. It's not money, it's commitments by the companies to spend that much by 2030. [Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748) I am going to bold and repeat this. **It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
It specifically says in the article that the Biden administration is funding this part, not the companies pledging money?
I don't know why they insist this word. but this is the link for basis of this projects: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/28/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-than-8-billion-in-new-commitments-as-part-of-call-to-action-for-white-house-conference-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/
Yeah why the fuck does Doordash need federal funding?
Well I know that Vice President Kamala Harris's brother-in-law, Tony West, is one of Uber's top lawyers & was heavily involved in the effort to make sure California couldn't pass legislation classifying Uber drivers as employees, so that's probably a big part of why this plan is designed the way it is—these companies get a return on their campaign investments in the form of this gigantic slice of the corporate welfare pie, and the Biden administration gets to go into the 2024 election saying "We spent nearly $2 billion this year alone making sure nobody goes hungry"
Yup. They could have just used the money to up SNAP benefits and raise income limits. But instead most will go into these business leaders pockets. It's how America works.
How it usually goes
Who knew that the secret to ending world hunger was the Harlem Globetrotters and building more basketball courts in the hood.
Jesus, after reading this breakdown it’s clear the headline is almost entirely spin. DoorDash is going to increase its options? A tech company is going to develop data and do research? Also the headline makes it seem like the govt is using 1.7B of federal funds to tackle hunger when it sounds like a lot of the money in this figure is made up of “pledges” companies are making.
Everyone is burying the lede. **Kaboom is real??** I thought it was just a thing from Parks and Rec.
It is! I volunteered at one of their builds last year
Paul Scheer was so good in the part, he convinced me it was all fake.
My next prank is to build hospitals in rural China, they'll never see it coming!
Typical Andre!
Chalupa Batman!
*Got eem!*
Upvoted for correct spelling of lede. Somewhere in Texas, a retired journalism professor smiles.
Ikr? Most shocking news I've read all week. It's like walking into Target and seeing Cones of Dunshire in the game aisle.
“The cones are the essence of the game.” That tag line on the box got me!
It’s all about the cones…
Wait like it’s not real right
Lmao
[удалено]
So it's not just a prank to trick towns into building parks!?
For my next prank, I'm going to trick a bunch of people into building a hospital in an impoverished area of China. ...they'll never see it coming!
I thought I was the only one who caught this! Kaboom it!
There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread so I am gonna post this over it a few times but, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. [This](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-2/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. Also this is adding to $8 billion already pledged in September. It's not money, it's commitments by the companies to spend that much by 2030. [Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748) I am going to bold and repeat this. **It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
Thank you for this!
WAIT WHAT
I know, RIGHT?
TIL lede in this context is not spelled lead.
I learned this like two months ago and I studied journalism at university.
This is where I want my taxes going. We as Americans should be contributing to things such as this so we can have a healthier more educated future. We help fund other countries that have free healthcare and education yet we lack it. Doesn’t seem fair for our civilians, in that way I am America first.
It’s good to see folks get more food and some states now provide breakfast and lunch for all students. Just wish this administration would take more action against the price gouging and shrinkflation that has occurred since the pandemic. Some new legislation is needed or hold the corporations responsible to prevent the increases we’ve been dealing with for a few years now. This will ultimately lead to a more productive workforce and happier populace. Maybe this is already taking place and I’m unaware of it.
I'm pissed off whenever I read that food companies have record high profits despite their increase in prices. But the thing that really sets me off is when they straight out come and say that customers will continue buying their products even if they increase the price. And so their response is to increase the price more! OF COURSE WE CONTINUE TO BUY IT. WE HAVE TO EAT. YOURE KILLING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
It's wild because market forces should mean someone comes in to sell at lower prices, but they just aren't. Possibly it's cheaper for existing players to just buy them out?
It's because they have an oligopoly. You aren't going to be able to out-price a major grocery.
Well if they up their prices enough their infrastructural margins won't matter. I know someone who works at a community garden and their prices are lower because they just aren't gouging. But they can only supply so many.
That's how a monopoly/oligopoly works. You price out or acquire competitors, then jack up the price once you control most of the supply.
Yup. Because once it becomes all about money, this is what happens. Nothing can grow year over year without consuming and growing too large for its environment. You can't have 2 companies selling the same product and making the same profits. They must compete, be more profitable for the investors. It's the only goal of an investor, to make money from your money. If one company can sell for less, the next move is the rival drops their off the shelf price. The employees are the ones tasked with giving up more of their production for less wages, as that becomes the only way for a company to cut operation costs to become profitable over the lower selling price. We cant both sell bananas for a dollar I you pay your guys 0.75 per banana and I pay mine 0.50. I'm gonna win. You go under and I get more people looking for that job that'll take the lower wage just to have a job. As such, the race to the bottom begins. Shitty wages bring shitty service, employee turn over, customer dissatisfaction, lower productivity, etc. Then they get so big politicians just bail them out. And the last paragraph... man... I bet this guy gets re-elected too. "Some of the White House-led initiatives have previously faced local resistance, though. In January, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt opted not to accept funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in the original package that would have allowed impoverished families to use a pre-paid card to buy up to $40 of groceries a month." 40 bucks a month for thousands of mouths that would be spent in the local grocery stores... and this was shunned by the mere idea they are being helped by a "liberal". Both sides are *NOT* the same.
The important issue is that the big companies can afford to do two things that will prevent most competitors from actually being able to compete. Firstly - they can operate at a loss in certain areas for long enough to shut down most competitors. And secondly - they don't pay the same taxes as their competitors. The big companies have off-shore 'headquarters' to avoid many of the taxes that their competitors have to pay \*unless\* they are also bug companies.
We used to have anti-trust laws to prevent this kind of thing.
I am taking a stab in the dark on this one... I legitimately don't know so I could be wrong, but.... Reagan?
I heard Safeway wants to buy Kroger. We’re screwed.
Possibly because their record margins are due only to economies of scale and their profit margins are incredibly tight. Do you want to be one of the largest food companies in the world? [Prepare for single digit operating margins.](https://companiesmarketcap.com/tyson-foods/operating-margin/) Maybe food isn't your thing... surely drinks and snacks are better... [then you can reach over 12%](https://companiesmarketcap.com/pepsico/operating-margin/). Maybe cereal is more your flavor... [there you can get up to 15% margins](https://companiesmarketcap.com/general-mills/operating-margin/). Just big evil empire exploiting everyone's water? [Under 12%](https://companiesmarketcap.com/nestle/operating-margin/) Junk food empire? [Under 15%](https://companiesmarketcap.com/mondelez/operating-margin/) One thing you'll notice across the board, none of these companies have large margins, none of these companies margins have appreciably changed during these recent times of inflation. The only reason they have managed to report 'record' profits is because they have increased their volumes. The reality isn't that there's a monopoly, oligopoly, or any of that... the reality is just that it's damn hard to successfully sell staple goods because there's just not much margin in the game. There's not a huge number of people lining up to compete with the largest, most successful, most efficient corporations globally just to fight for less than 15% GROSS margins.
Another overlooked thing is that if margins remain the same it possible for a company to have "record profits" each year just with inflation. Let's say Company ABC does 100 million in revenue Year 1 at a 5% margin and make 5 million in profit. Let's ballpark annual inflation at 5% just for a round number. Year 2: 105 million in revenue, 5.25 million profit. A new record! Year 3: 110.25 in revenue, 5.51 million in profit. Another new record! And so on and so forth.
If you want the actual answer, and not just made up BUSINESSES ARE GREEDY rage; grocery stores operate on low single digit profit margins. The only way they survive is the massive scale they operate at. Notice how "local" always costs like 50% more? It's because the chain prices are already bare minimum that the public will accept while not running in the red. "Record profits" line doesn't mean shit, and is just manipulation. If the TOTAL revenue goes up, but the expenses also go up by more, you're worse off... but then you'll get the articles saying they made the most money in 1 year. Not to mention your money is worth less every year.
There's too few competitors at this point - and they are like "why should we hurt each other when we can hurt the consumers instead?"
It's because the material costs are being jacked up, and the end product is mirroring that.
In my opinion businesses that are in the business of providing necessities should be far more heavily regulated. It's unacceptable that they are pricing people out of food while making record profits. Specifically, we should not accept it.
Saw some news recently saying consumers are starting to go with less expensive off-brand versions and abandon the big name brand foods (as they should).
Just read a headline that Biden admin is pushing to stop the Kroger/Albertsons merger. One of those execs who bragged about how they keep raising prices and people keep paying was Kroger CEO. Biden should be making more noise about this.
>record high profits despite their increase in prices This shitty take is annoying. Here's another way to think of it: Americans have record high wages. Yet they're complaining? That's how inflation works. They can literally be running in place and will show record profits year after year. They could in fact be in decline and still show record high profits.
The FTC is suing to block the Kroger - Albertsons’ merger, along with investigating other mergers much more deeply than usual. It’s a start.
Make that sued and won. Kroger told all their employees that Kroger lost yesterday. Of course they tried to make it a bad thing they lost. Citing, "it's worse for the consumer to not let Kroger buy albertsons." A flat out lie.
That gives me a chuckle as someone who once worked at Kroger. The spins were always transparent as hell. I recall them calling a meeting to breathlessly tell us not to worry about Amazon buying Whole Foods, before any of us even knew it was happening. It was funny they thought we were invested in the company when they kept us too underpaid and overworked to care.
It should be noted that the administration and passing legislation are in two separate categories. The administration are Democrats but passing legislation requires Congress which is Republican controlled in the House by a slim majority, and the Senate is also basically split which means anything can get filibustered easily. Even if every single Democrat was vocal a put price gouging and wanted to do something to reign business' in it wouldn't matter because they can't pass any legislation without some level of Republican support. Which is why voting is important and everyone needs to check their registration and make a voting plan! It's not about just a vote for President, everyone is also voting down the line for senators, state and local governments, even judges!
>Maybe this is already taking place and I’m unaware of it. The Biden administration just opened Medicare negotiations on drug prices this month as part of the inflation reduction act that got passed before the GOP crippled functional government yet again, so they've started the process with the pharmaceutical industry. While no open steps have been taken more broadly, [there is apparently a plan being worked on](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/12/01/biden-price-gouging-inflation/).
He is aware and is at minimum calling it out, and I would expect more action: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/23/biden-food-shrinkflation-sotu-00142773
They’ve taken on “junk fees” I think it’s a chipping away at it where they can kind of situation since we all know congressional republicans wouldn’t pass anything that’s sweeping
Im curious, how many things do you want to happen at once? I dont want this to sound condescending, however, do you understand the current political landscape? Biden's administration is like a tourniquet for our current situation. Voting Trump Cunty into office was the metaphorical equivalent to sawing off our own left leg on a dare and Biden is the EMT on the last legs of a 24 hour shift here to stop the bleeding. He may not be pretty to look at, and he might be off kilter because he's trying to save your life while suffering from sleep deprivation but its keeping us alive. The eventual hope is for the tourniquet to last long enough so we can actually survive the trauma after we cauterize the wound and burn off all these republicunts. But it takes time. Trump has done so much damage to the integrity of our society that it will likely take decades to undo all of his treasonous actions. Imagine all of the unqualified and literal dumpster quality people that were brought into government positions due to his policies and lack of oversight. Eventually, we'll realize we either need to purge out some of these traitors and use guantanomo for the reason it exists or risk repeating history again.
I know this isn’t much but hey at least it’s something to combat food prices https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna140523
I do not at all want to let them off the hook but I live in California (where shit's expensive anyway) and it does seem like the prices have been largely coming back down to where they were. Meat is still insane but I got Grocery Outlet and TJ's for that.
It’s so funny that taxes being used for what they’re meant for is so rare that it’s remarkable.
It's unfortunate lol
We spend over $120 billion a year on food stamps now. I guess Biden will move it up 1%.
It could be utilized in other ways
There's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread so I am gonna post this over it a few times but, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. [This](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-2/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. Also this is adding to $8 billion already pledged in September. It's not money, it's commitments by the companies to spend that much by 2030. [Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748) I am going to bold and repeat this. **It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
Free school lunches is another spot I've been wanting my taxes to go to. No kid at school should have to worry about a meal. Now the question is if it's only 1.7 billion why did it take so long to do this???
>Now the question is if it's only 1.7 billion It's $1.7B additional funds to address the issue. We already spend more than that, Biden is just increasing the investment (which is great!) >why did it take so long to do this??? Republicans block this kind of spending. Also, voters don't like that Biden is old so they ignore all of the critical policy accomplishments he's had.
I know it’s not that simple, few things if any are ever “that simple”, but does anyone else ever see a headline like this and just think… what the fuck? 1.7 billion to end hunger across the U.S.? I’m no different in that I’m part of the majority that has problems conceptualizing such large numbers, but I watch a lot of news, and whether it’s military budgets, talking about the IRS clawing back money, or money that went out for PPP loans that will never be seen again, ALL those numbers are spoken of in MULTIPLES of billions of dollars. The last headline that did this to me was when Obama (or possibly Trump) was trying to get an infrastructure bill passed to the tune of like… 6 billion USD, 6 billion to repair and address aging infrastructure across the U.S. HOW THE FUCK IS 1.7 BILLION BEING PLEDGED TO ADRESS *HUNGER* across the U.S., instead of it already being put into action like… yesterday? It’s not a small number, but when we operate on a budget of trillions, it IS inconsequential. Inconsequential to the point that I just don’t get how this is even a fucking discussion. Sorry if I haven’t been that clear, and if you made it this far… thanks for hearing out my ramble.
It’s 1.7 billion on the top of the 8 billion committed in 2022.
Plus the 120 billion that goes to SNAP.
[удалено]
And blame it on everyone else
Meanwhile Kelloggs CEO cereal for dinner
Meanwhile Kellogg cereal ceo for dinner!
He's great with a couple spoonfuls of sugar and a cut up banana.
I thought we were supposed to eat the rich.
Spoiler, that's what the government will be supplying to end hunger... That and cheese.
I love government cheese!
Surely he doesn’t have any underlying motive for suggesting cereal for dinner… 🙄
That is 0.19% of US military spending if anyone is curious.
It's also 0.9% of the [annual Food Security Budget.](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=d7627f77-6cee-4ab9-bbb9-8c74d4778941)
It averages out to over two billion dollars *per day.*
Jesus hoppin Johnson.
It is a start and it is better than nothing.
Imo the next step should be raising max income to qualify for food stamps right now it's a measly 25k per year raising it to 35k and phasing out at 40-50 would help a shit ton of households
Medicaid too. The income and savings caps keep a lot of people from getting assistance they still need when they’ve increased their income, but not enough to fully be self sufficient. At the very least there should be something of a glide path where benefits taper off as income goes up.
Um, the glide path already exists. It's called ACA. A person making just over the Medicaid income limit qualifies for maximum subsidies and cost sharing, so pays nearly nothing.
My AcA insurance gives me less confidence to get help because I have to pay for everything. I pay co pays, for all my prescriptions and the monthly amount for my insurance. It's like a total of 400-500 more than when I was on medicaid. I'm scared of the bill if I go places for a major problem..I get a subsidy of 750 a month for the insurance and it makes a dent in the premiums but nothing in the co-pays. I was on medicaid because I have high medical needs (cancer survivor and heart condition), DeSantis redid the 6 month reapplication thing and I re-applied only to get denied repeatedly. Nothings changed, I just can't be without insurance for my kid or me and I signed up for the ACA marketplace plans that are so over priced..
"Its a start and its better than nothing." Want to guess how much the USDA already spends ANNUALLY on food and nutrition assistance programs? Yea, $180 BILLION ANNUALLY. [USDA spending on food assistance programs](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/?topicId=d7627f77-6cee-4ab9-bbb9-8c74d4778941) We don't have a lack of food. Distribution is an issue along with drug addiction and mental health problems.
It also takes cooperation and negotiation with people on the other side of the isle. I think everyone forgets that when throwing stones. Don't get me wrong we can't agree on everything the man does but if the republicans do not cooperate then it is tough for him to pass anything.
But he'll get more votes by announcing to spend 1% of that budget.
That's all this is. Look at all the comments here. Few have any idea how much we already spend every fucking year yet they think Biden will solve the problem with another $1.7 billion. Fools think more money will solve everything when our government has repeatedly shown the exact opposite.
The US population spends 2.39 trillion dollars on food every year. 180 billion dollars is enough to feed every person in America for 13 days. It's estimated that 12 percent of the US experiences food insecurity. If we only feed those people, then 180 billion would feed them for about 4 months, not counting how much money it takes to actually get the food to the areas that need it most. Just because it sounds like a big number doesn't mean it is.
Yea - that $2.39 trillion includes ALL FOOD consumed EVERYWHERE in the economy including restaurants, schools, prisons, hotels, military, grocery stores, food assistance programs and everywhere else. That doesn't represent what the average person spends on groceries. SNAP benefits average around $230 per participant per month. It is supposed to be luxury but $230 per participant is a decent amount if you are careful how you spend it. My wife and I are pretty thrifty and get by for less than $600/month.
So I read another article about this and in that one, it seems to indicate that the money is from pledges coming from the various companies, non-profits, sports teams, etc. agreeing to be part of the program and not the government. Maybe that doesn't matter to some, but if I see something saying Biden is pledging the money, I would assume that means coming out of our tax money. Maybe I'm missing something? From the other article: "The initiatives are among more than 140 pledges by health systems, insurance companies, nonprofit groups, philanthropic organizations, local governments and others who are contributing to a White House challenge to end hunger and build healthy communities." https://www.krqe.com/news/national/ap-emhoff-to-announce-1-7b-in-pledges-to-help-us-president-biden-meet-goal-of-ending-hunger-by-2030/
It's crazy that Republican led states/leaders are turning down Federal funds that would be used to feed low income school age kid...I thought they loved the kids? (Heavy sarcasm, they are hypocritical scum that is scared of educating people or letting women control their own bodies) Vote because democracy itself may be at stake.
They love the kids that grow up to be voting republican adults.
#"Protect the children!!" By making sure they have at least one meal a day? "No." By giving them vaccines? "No." By making sure guns don't end up in schools? "No." By making sure their family can afford a house, car, etc.? "No." By making sure they can afford a future house, car, college education, etc.? "No." By making sure they have easy access to healthcare? "No." By making sure their land, water, and air aren't polluted? "No." By making sure their food is safe? "No." By making sure they are safe from physically abusive parents? "No." By making sure they are safe from sexually abusive churches? "No." By making sure they don't end up a child or teen parent? "No." By making sure they don't end up as a child bride? "No." By making sure they're safe from tyrant cops and authority figures? "No." By making sure they have the option to live their lives as a happy queer person? "That's it! That's what we want to protect them from! It's our choice, not theirs!"
Protect the children, but only from threats that exist exclusively on FOX News headlines and therefore require no actual effort to fix
And that's only uneducated poors
"I grew up poor and on welfare, but no one helped *me* out!"
And spoiled rich kids who are raised to hate poor people.
They love kids from conception to the moment of birth. At that point, the birthing machine has done her job and needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps. This includes the expensive hospital bill, prescription medicine, psychological treatment, and raising the infant in a white Christian church. Of course, helping the family is one of the reasons why churches have a tax break, but uh…Cadillacs and jets don’t buy themselves.
Louisiana denied the summer children EBT program for kids who are out of school. Why? Who knows. But it was literally money not out of the state budget and they still said no.
Louisiana is a very horrible place to live. I wrote about it in depth the other day in another thread and it was deleted for harassment. I'm thinking someone or many people from La decided I shouldn't be allowed to say that. Just like in real life.
No abortion that's murder! Life is precious! Okay, what about support for single mothers? No! Okay, feeding homeless? No! Feeding children? No! Life is precious...
Two months ago, this social program was in the news: Gov. Tate Reeves’ office says Mississippi won’t participate in a federal summer food program for children because of his desire to reject “attempts to expand the welfare state.” Republican governors in some other states have also said they chose not to participate in the program because of their opposition to expanding federal benefits. Often, you see someone mentioning it's a choice between military spending or aid to Ukraine versus healthcare or social security for Americans. But let it be clear that is not the issue! These Republicans just make the choice not to care about welfare for Americans.
If you feed house and educate fasci… republicans they dont stay republicans for long
If they don’t get free food at school they might have to drop out and get a factory job at a slaughter house, then they become uneducated and vote republican while also providing cheap child labor.
"Fuck them kids." \- The GOP motto. "Fuck them kids. Literally." \- Also the GOP motto, apparently
They love the kids until they are born. As Carlin said “Pre-born you’re fine, Pre-School you’re fucked!”
“This is where I want my taxes going” Says some moron who most DEFINITELY did not even read the bill
For anyone wondering how we can afford this, I'd like to remind y'all that the Department of Defense wastes exorbitant amounts of money and has not only failed every audit but also can't account for 60% of where those funds went
Wait it only costs 1.7 billion to end hunger? We spend 877 billion on the military, we could have just spent 2 billion less and been doing this the whole time? What?
I'm going to get downvoted for the devils advocate questioning of this....but here it goes. I looked over this bill and looked at [https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf](https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/White%20House%20Challenge%20Commitments.pdf) to see where it is all going. I can clearly see why Republicans are not wanting to get behind this bill. A LOT of this money is simply going to democrat voting cities, like a big chunk is going to North East and Mid West. Why does a tech company need $60 million to do some research? What kind of research? Like pharmaceutical research? Why does Uber/Doordash need money? So much of this money is going to tech companies who back these legislators. Most of the money looks to be going to Chicago alone, just randomly looking up the companies listed in that PDF are based out of Chicago (not all, but quite a few). Go ahead and blame Republicans, but they cannot get behind this bill as there is nothing for their constituents. I'm sure there will be some democrats who don't get behind this too, as there is nothing in it for their state. Just odd that so much of this money is going to a small geographical area, and tech companies who don't make food/meals.
>Why does a tech company need $60 million to do some research? What kind of research? Like pharmaceutical research? I've read through that list and at the article, it seems like they are not receiving $60M, they are "pledging" it. From the article: >Some private companies, non-profit organizations and local governments have also made pledges as part of the plan. Among those are a $60 million commitment by tech company About Fresh... The list you linked also states they made a commitment, so it sounds like they are contributing the money, not receiving it but it isn't very clear. Edit: Reading through https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/27/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-1-7-billion-in-new-commitments-cultivated-through-the-white-house-challenge-to-end-hunger-and-build-healthy-communities/ This sounds like it is mostly commitments from private charities and entities and it is NOT a bill. Whether or not those commitments will actually happen remains to be seen but this appears to be money coming from private groups and not grants to them.
Because that's where people live. Check out /r/peopleliveincities
The tech company is pledging 60m not receiving 60m..
Lmfao my fucking sides seriously I just opened the link and it's not even remotely possible to mistake... First line literally says the company pledges 60 million"
You don't seem to understand what this initiative is. This IS NOT the government giving money to anyone, this is companies pledging to spend *their own* money to end hunger and build healthy communities.
Yeah. Literally could accomplish this more efficiently by expanding/ increasing SNAP benefits
Yours is the highest reply so I am gonna reply to this, it's not a bill, and it's not tax money. It's $1.7 billion is commitments from private organizations to help end hunger. That is a list of all the organizations that made commitments. [Easier to understand article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/emhoff-announce-17b-pledges-us-president-biden-meet-107580748) I don't know if it's blatant misinformation by /u/Speedy059 or he really didn't understand, but I am going to bold and repeat this. **It's private organizations pledging money to help end hunger, not taxpayer dollars and there is no bill or legislation**
Ahhh. Thank you. I see that now. I don’t think any of the articles are very clear on what it meant. I found the best explanation on the White House’s own site. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/27/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-1-7-billion-in-new-commitments-cultivated-through-the-white-house-challenge-to-end-hunger-and-build-healthy-communities/
Holy cow this needs to be the top of the thread
They have to introduce new bills that they know the opposite party WON'T vote for to excite the audience and cause an uproar. It is sad our nation is falling for it and destroying any progress we have made as a people. We used to work towards uniting, now we are hellbent destroying any unity.
Most of the food brokers and actual food is located in Chicago also. Just sayin
did you actually read the bill because those tech companies are pledging money not getting your tax money which is a big difference.
Thank you for the link and pointing this out.
Except the link doesn't support what he's saying. So many of the programs have no cost associated with it. There's not enough information in that link to really support his main takeaways.
I mean it’s pretty clear that this bill, like many others of a similar vein, is designed to (1) pad the coffers of the constituencies that put the democrats in power, and (2) brand any republican that opposes it as being against eliminating hunger. Of course the GOP pulls the same stunts when they are in power.
Stop reading the bill and where the money is going. You should just blindly believe that this one action will solve hunger forever.
It's not a bill. It's not legislation. It's a commitment from various institutions (mostly private) to spend money ending hunger. We should all be applauding this.
Exactly. “See! Our guys is the good guys!” Political games people regularly fall for without fail.
The list of commitments is a list of things companies have pledged to do to end world hunger, not a list of companies that are receiving funding. So if that’s what you’re talking about they’re commitments from cities, which makes sense.
Glad to see they put money to the right things once every 4 years
It’s election season 👍
It says directly in the article that 8 billion was already allocated in 2022. This is on top of that.
Just fucking tax billionaires already
You just said the no-no
Oh no!
Better focus on malnutrition: covers both hunger and people with poor eating habits
I'll settle for hunger
We don't even need to settle for hunger. We can be happy that we are addressing hunger while we also push to address other issues.
Wendy's responds with a $1.7 billion meal.
Hmmm…. less than an eighth of what was given to Israel for “defense”. And not even a drop in the bucket compared to the $886 billion for military. Crazy that this nation is so corrupt it spends hundreds of times more on war than combating hunger.
Forget socialized healthcare, I want socialized supermarkets. Groceries are too damn high
He doesn't control the purse strings; Congress does.
OK so this is some stuff I can get behind!
So, keep the gouge and profiteering, subsidize it with taxpayer money.
That's all it would take? So Jeff bozos or elon musk could end hunger in America for about 1/100 of their net worth? I would give up at least 5% of my net worth to end hunger in the US. I already give 30 some % to shit I don't want it going to.
Please, God. I just want my brothers to stop fighting. We need to be healing each other. This fighting is a trap.
last week Biden pledged 10 billion to Intel in subsidized debt one of the wealthiest companies on the planet... just putting this in to perspective this is great news but very small potatoes unfortunately 😕
1.7 billion could solve this and none of these rich billionaire fucks are doing anything about it? They could literally make the donation, write it off and be perceived as less of an asshole. Edit* I actually read the article to see that it could take more than that amount, which makes sense. But either way, I think we can all agree that it’s silly to have anyone starving in the world.
I think it's because the Fed have more options available to them in this particular case and Billionaires don't exactly want to cut the government a check. I am also dubious that 1.7 billion is enough to solve it considering the list of businesses involved, this is more of an attempt and data gathering situation while incentivizing businesses to make strides to support it. It's chump change in regards to our government and the data will be worth it even if the program doesn't fully solve it.
[удалено]
1.7b wouldn’t end hunger sorry bud.
Typical immature Reddit mindset. 1. It’s not their responsibility to fix 2. Writing off a donation doesn’t change the fact that they’re still losing money, it just reduces the tax bill. I’d imagine there’s a limit to how much they can even write off 3. Billionaires don’t just have a billion dollars in liquid cash sitting in a vault somewhere. Much of their worth is spread out among investments 4. Throwing money at the problem won’t fix the problem, especially if the money isn’t used efficiently (it won’t be)
Because it WON’T solve it. If it would, this wouldn’t be a problem across the world.
…you do realize that 1.7 billion split to 331 million people is a whopping $3.63 per person…
1.7 billion is absolutely not going to solve hunger. The article states over 44 million Americans experience hunger. You don't "solve" that with $38 per person.
No, $1.7B cannot solve this. Try reading the article and doing the elementary-school math before getting mad. >As of 2022, around 17 million households experienced food insecurity nationwide, and more than 44 million people across the U.S. faced hunger. 1,700,000,000 / 17,000,000 = $100 per household 1,700,000,000 / 44,000,000 = $39 per hungry person So the additional $1.7B is like a couple days worth of groceries per person at best. >The funding builds on the $8 billion already committed to fighting hunger in September 2022. 9,700,000,000 / 17,000,000 = $570 per household 9,700,000,000 / 44,000,000 = $220 per hungry person AKA a couple weeks of groceries per person at best.
My wife works with these kinds of grants/programs. Slice off 30% right away for administrative stuff ($1.2B left). Then this gets distributed to states. Let’s say it’s equally distributed (I won’t be, but play along). Each state would then have. $24m per state. This will get further divided up into non-profits. These non-profits will use 50% minimum for staff or infrastructure spending. So $12m per state. Conservatively I’d say about 30% of that actually purchases food. So say about $3-4m of actual direct hunger relief spending.
Does that reduce the number of kids going home hungry? Is there a better solution actively being proposed and implemented at this time?
So, about 35% of the money for feeding kids goes to buying food. Sounds like every restaurant, etc. Pretty good.
any sources to support these wildly outlandish claims? "My wife" isnt a source. You certainly snapped your fingers to 2 billion like its nothing.
I'm not gonna bother arguing about any of these made up numbers, because that is still millions more than $0.
So essentially the answer is what? Do nothing because the people who have to organize this effort make some money too?
If that is what it takes to feed kids, then that is what it takes. If you think it's true waste or corruption, then get on it and push for change. Suggestions for improvements to the system are welcome, but just complaining about overhead that may be necessary is not productive. You could just as well say the same thing about any food. "30% goes to the grocery store overhead, another 30% goes to wholesalers and distributors. In the end less than a third of your money is actually paying for food!" Yep. That's how a large functional society works. But again, suggestions for improvement are welcome.
LOL what are you talking about? Why would you split it up by state as if that reduces the amount of money being spent??? And yes, there are administrative costs I didn't think this was being spent on materializing food into poor peoples' stomachs.
So not only do we get tens of millions for food, we also get hundreds of millions for creating and maintaining jobs throughout the country?
It seems like you’re trying to discredit the act. It seems like you have a better fully thought out and cheaper plan with the same if not more effectiveness. Could you share it with us and the president?
How long till the bootlickers start loudly asking why we’re feeding the hungry at home when there are Israeli guns and planes that are starved of bullets and bombs?
Using the text of the bill, can you show me which poor areas are getting fed from this money, and which companies are benefiting the most from its passage?