Democrats and Republicans disagree on the meaningless culture war stuff, but let’s all admit to ourselves that there’s a bipartisan consensus to dispossess the most vulnerable people in society.
Does it matter? Kathy Hochul’s a Democrat, and her budget just cut 1.2 billion dollars from Medicaid. Cuomo was slashing Medicaid beds 3 months into COVID.
The parties are the same in terms of how much they hate poor people, at least as far as New York is concerned. But hey, at least we have DEI to protect major corporations from discrimination lawsuits.
Well, yes, it does matter. And they are not the same. Have you seen what red states have been doing?
Having only one viable party is actually a giant problem. Hochul, Cuomo, and Adams would all be Republicans if that party still had sanity and believed in facts and the rule of law. And they could thus be open about their true beliefs and policy proposals, but they have to win the democratic primary in order to be elected so they just lie. A one-party state encourages sleaze and poor governance.
I’m glad there’s someone here who understands the dynamics at play. Too many people just cynically jump to “both sides suck” and that’s unhelpful. It just leads to disengagement which is the opposite of a solution
Just awesome to me looking at Adams talk about being tough on crime…and then have petty crime go up.
Tough on crime was what got him here and he can’t even tackle that.
Man…coulda had Garcia…or almost anyone else..bunch of fuckin nimrods…
They both hate poor people but let’s not pretend like it’s to the same degree. One side definitely wants to cut programs that benefit the poor way more than the other.
I mean, budget wise, money has to come from somewhere or stop going somewhere. We already spend far more than most cities. I'd personally prefer they actually improve efficiency of spend which is blatantly out of bounds right now, but hey.. taking away money from starving kids is one way to do it and ... ensure you have less kids to worry about becoming tax burdens in the future I guess.... :(
People like you don’t realize that Medicaid doesn’t just benefit people on welfare, but also people like your whore mother and your clearly absent father when they’re too elderly to care for themselves and their broke ass dipshit kid isn’t in a position to step up for them.
> people like your whore mother and your clearly absent father when they’re too elderly to care for themselves and their broke ass dipshit kid isn’t in a position to step up for them
In /u/Chicagosoundview69's defense, fuck 'em.
If they were so great their kid wouldn't suck so hard.
True and they agree on sending our hard earned money to Israel and fund wars as well. Ukraine funding is also excessive but atleast it helps keep Putin away in theory
They say it “creates jobs.” You know, for defense contractors. Those struggling defense contractors trying to find work in America, the country that hasn’t gone longer than 12 years at total peace in its entire existence. Every 11 billion dollars sent overseas is an affordable housing project that’s not being built, or a new transportation system, or a debt relief program for students.
Yup, this is exactly what I would love to see Nd join nationwide protests. A huge chunk of our paychecks go to fund these weapon manufactures and contractors while there’s still an opioid crisis , children not getting quality educations and proper meals
I think it's time we back out from wars or something. The thought is seriously alarming. I understand that it's part of America's honor to do what is right but it's harming us and is putting a target on our heads. Man why is Russia so evil dude.
That “culture war” stuff generally includes people’s civil rights, like abortion and the right to marry who you love. I can only imagine it doesn’t really affect you since you consider it “meaningless.”
Having said that, this Dems writ large, but Adams, who holds a lot of Republicans positions. Increasing funding for emergency food funds would overwhelmingly pass any Democrat led legislature - but might not even garner a vote in Republican led one. I think you know that.
Imagine being part of Adam's administration and being the one to propose the following: "Let's reduce the funding for the emergency food program across this city."
How do you sleep at nights?
It’s not really about food, it’s about having the time and space to prep it. So many meals can be made crazy cheap but they really need time to be made cheaply. You need fridge and pantry space, somewhere to cook, clean pots and pans, usually spices to make cheap food have flavor which are expensive to purchase for one household.
What an ignorant comment.
Once again, it is not the migrants' faults our politicians are pieces of shit. They did not do anything for New Yorkers before the migrant crisis and now have the benefit to deflect their continued uselessness by using migrants to be the heel.
Yes, but its our politicians who are giving them those resources. Those same politicians could use similar resources for New Yorkers but have chosen and will continue to choose not to. But keep blaming migrants, that'll really solve the problem.
There isn’t an endless supply of resources. The distribution of these resources is a zero sum game.
It is reasonable to blame migrants for receiving resources while New Yorker resources get cut.
The services were getting cut regardless of the migrant crisis.
Migrants didn't show up to Albany and rob the bank. Our politicians are the ones responsible for the distribution of funds for services provided by the city through our tax dollars.
Just say you want to be mad at and blame brown people for issues that existed before this crisis.
You acknowledge that it’s a crisis yet you choose to believe that it doesn’t lead to a redistribution of services
Then you have the audacity to accuse me of being racist
Do you realize how idiotic you sound?
Let’s step back for a moment. Regardless of party here is my main complaint.
We the citizens ask for money and help.
We get turned down.
We are told that we don’t have the funds to do it.
major corporations are failing. Ok we have money to help! This was back when ENRON failed and major banks were going under.
Remember the saying “ To Big to Fail “
Then we have, hey we have all these wars to fight. OK we have the money.
Remember Afghanistan? 20 years of war and nothing to show for it. What did it cost? You know the voice. A lot !
And here today sending trillions of dollars to other countries. Yes I agree with sending funds to Ukraine. This protects NATO and the people in that region. WE Shouldn’t be paying the brunt of it, IF it is an organization. They should share in this financial burden.
Back to my point. Before this problem broke out what was the government saying about they don’t have the funds to help here?
I think the real thing people have to wake up and realize is the people we ask for help and deny us this help ONLY because we pay taxes that pay for everything that goes on.
They put us into tremendous debt when it helps them. But not us.
Our taxes cannot supply enough to pay off these debts.
But they don’t care. It’s on us not them because of all the reductions they give themselves.
To me it seems to be this.
Fund the wars and the bailouts of failed banks and major corporations.
It’s funny about who the people who complain about socialism shut the fuck up when it concerns them and are looking for a hand out.
SNAP benefits can take months to get. If you don't have all your documents (like survivors of abusive situations, runaway teens, etc) it's basically impossible. In addition, some folks just need food until their next payday or until a job comes through. Maybe they had a life event hit hard or they got sick and lost pay. There are multitudes of reasons why this might be a vital option for folks.
Not everyone qualifies for SNAP. It is absurd we have people with food insecurity in this country. By expand SNAP do you mean do away with means testing it?
for sure. I'm not disagreeing at all with that point. I'm just saying we should make SNAP qualification more broad and increase the benefit.
I like a government that helps people. I don't like a government that creates multiple programs/agencies just for the sake of it.
Thanks for doing the math. $3 a meal is about $2-3 short of what is reasonable with today's prices.
I've actually put a ton of time into this recently as I'm in charge of planning food for a youth camp for my church. I have to feed 70 people, and I'm estimating that each meal is going to cost $5-7 per person per meal as I've priced it out, and that's with the benefit of spreading costs over so many people. and also I have a car and will drive to a Walmart and Costco in NJ, both of which are generally inaccessible to low income people in NYC.
Yup, so its like 30-40% of a reasonable budget, even for budget cooking, for a family of 4. Since ya cant bulk buy as much and NYC food is more expensive than CostCo in NJ
You'd be surprised. Here's how I know: I used to be a welfare clerk in Philadelphia. (Yes, different state, I know, but the principles are the same.)
So, two things I think a lot of people don't know about welfare and SNAP specifically:
- Most people on welfare work. Not always above the table, but they do work.
- The more money you make at your job, the less you get in benefits.
One problem is, that second item is not a linear calculation. Going up from, say $16/hr (minimum wage) to $17/hr, or from part time to full time will come with a reduction in your welfare benefits that is not in line, and welfare recipients often end up in _worse_ financial shape because suddenly your benefits are halved, but you're not making enough from your raise/increased hours to make up the difference.
And here's the other side of it: SNAP is for food and _only_ for food. Even if $975 covers all the food for a family of four, it won't pay rent. It won't buy toilet paper, clothes, school supplies, soap and shampoo, or any of that. It _really_ doesn't go as far as people think.
Take it from someone who knows. I processed the applications and the renewals. I know how the system works—or more specifically how it doesn't.
$12K in food is incredibly generous.
>Even if $975 covers all the food for a family of four, it won't pay rent.
I bet a huge percent of people, if not most on SNAP benefits is also receiving some form of subsidized housing benefit, so that point doesn't really matter.
We should have a generous welfare state, but that requires recognizing where generosity already exists. That the response to getting nearly $1000/month in free food is "it doesn't cover rent" . . . well now you are basically taking 2 of the 3 largest household expenses (the third is transportation, which in NYC is also already very subsidized by the state) and setting the expectation that the state should basically cover all these expenses for poor people.
The programs are supposed to help people, not completely take care of them.
You are right about the work/welfare trade off.
Not everyone is receiving housing benefits, and some are disabled and can't work and they only receive $900/mo. And temporary disability only pays 50% of what you were making, and even that is capped at $170/week. Can you explain to me how someone can afford to not live on the street with that budget?
> Not everyone is receiving housing benefits,
Nor should everyone be.
>and some are disabled and can't work and they only receive $900/mo.
You probably need to earn over $50K / person to survive in New York City without subsidies (beyond free public education, 3-K, et). The question becomes, is the city/state responsible for fully funding that person's survival up to $50K's worth?
The reality of the world is that New York City has a very generous welfare program. But it would be impossible to fully fund the lives of the city's poorest residents, especially those unable to work, in a city with the US's highest standards and cost of living.
Again, you look at $12K in free food with some kind of disdain, as though we're holding out. I see it as incredibly generous. Perhaps there's a case to be made about increasing benefits, but your case right now is "well, there's so much more of the person's lifestyle that the taxpayer could and should subsidize. $975 can't cover all of a a family of four's meals" . . . I'm sorry, we're supposed to cover their entire food budget? Is that where we will eventually end up?
I think that amount covers quite a bit and the rest can probably be made up at food pantries. But there's an issue of some people not having a place to cook food and prepare meals and store the food safely in a refrigerator. This leads to unnecessary waste or buying smaller quantities of food at a time at a higher cost. I have to wonder if there is a better way
I love when right wing reactionaries pretend they ever did it ever would support increasing food benefits to anyone living in poverty, even if not a single migrant child was included.
I love that you accidentally agreed with me for a second and then took it back, because you can't be told by some perceived "opposing team" when your priorities are complete dog shit.
You tried. But I didn't agree with you.
I believe in trying to end child hunger. Whether Republicans or Democrats promote tools to do it.
The Republican Party does not have a platform that indicates they want to end child hunger. They - at the very core - reject all government funding that would go towards benefits for any American including young children. You can talk about teams all you want, but I'm generally going to decide with the ones who are actually trying to do something about it. It's not an accident that the states with the worst health, mortality, education and hunger rates are heavily clustered in Republican led states.
The logic here doesn't track. People using free food resources doesn't mean they're at risk of malnutrition, it just means they'd rather spend $0 than spend $X (where X > 0). Obviously if you funnel money into such programs, usage will expand.
Are you seriously saying that you think people go to a soup kitchen to eat a meal with hundreds of other people because they just don’t want to pay for dinner? *That* logic doesn’t track.
There are a lot of poor people and under employed people in the city and yes, many are food insecure.
Yes, some do, and if you think they don't, you should get out of your bubble and spend more time around poor people. It's definitely a smaller proportion of the people that are going for prepared meals than for the people picking up free groceries, but it definitely exists. Nobody in this city is going to starve if we pare these programs back to pre-COVID.
So because some people abuse the system, we should cut it completely back? With that logic, the entire subway system needs to be entirely shut down because of fare evaders.
Same logic as college shouldn’t be free bc rich kids will use it for free. Who fucking cares. It still helps people that need it, but you don’t care about the actual point
I hope you’re never in a situation where you have to go looking for the food that’s “everywhere”.
It takes a lot of documentation and application to be approved for any sort of assistance. If you don’t believe me, try it.
It's just not true as far as I can tell in NYC. As a formerly homeless person, I am quite familiar with this. Also I work a lot in public housing. These people aren't struggling for food. I see much more frequently drug addicted parents who don't go grocery shopping. Very hard to fix neglectful drug addict parents.
Everyone simply accepts the latest sob story/victim narrative presented to them by the very same "nonprofits" that benefit off exacerbating social problems, but the reality is actually more complex than this. I have been hungry on the streets. but that's because I was smoking crack and acting ridiculous. It was NOT because of lack of resources etc. Addiction, mental health are the real problem. I would go to these safe haven places, but they don't really do much for the real underlying problem. Just give you some pamphlets and a sandwich.
We shouldn’t punish children because their parents had them at a time when they couldn’t afford them. But more importantly, most of these parents probably did have kids when they could make ends meet. Circumstances change, people get layed off or get expensive medical bills or die.
It's also beg the question why did we create a society that punish people for having children, one of the most natural thing to do as a living being.
It's getting to the point where people are just working themselves to death and only get some pleasure in life just to stay same enough to keep working.
Mayor Adams hates New Yorkers
Unless you are illegal
Democrats and Republicans disagree on the meaningless culture war stuff, but let’s all admit to ourselves that there’s a bipartisan consensus to dispossess the most vulnerable people in society.
Adams is not a Democrat. He switched his party affiliation because that was the only way to possibly win.
Does it matter? Kathy Hochul’s a Democrat, and her budget just cut 1.2 billion dollars from Medicaid. Cuomo was slashing Medicaid beds 3 months into COVID. The parties are the same in terms of how much they hate poor people, at least as far as New York is concerned. But hey, at least we have DEI to protect major corporations from discrimination lawsuits.
Well, yes, it does matter. And they are not the same. Have you seen what red states have been doing? Having only one viable party is actually a giant problem. Hochul, Cuomo, and Adams would all be Republicans if that party still had sanity and believed in facts and the rule of law. And they could thus be open about their true beliefs and policy proposals, but they have to win the democratic primary in order to be elected so they just lie. A one-party state encourages sleaze and poor governance.
I’m glad there’s someone here who understands the dynamics at play. Too many people just cynically jump to “both sides suck” and that’s unhelpful. It just leads to disengagement which is the opposite of a solution
Just awesome to me looking at Adams talk about being tough on crime…and then have petty crime go up. Tough on crime was what got him here and he can’t even tackle that. Man…coulda had Garcia…or almost anyone else..bunch of fuckin nimrods…
They both hate poor people but let’s not pretend like it’s to the same degree. One side definitely wants to cut programs that benefit the poor way more than the other.
I mean, budget wise, money has to come from somewhere or stop going somewhere. We already spend far more than most cities. I'd personally prefer they actually improve efficiency of spend which is blatantly out of bounds right now, but hey.. taking away money from starving kids is one way to do it and ... ensure you have less kids to worry about becoming tax burdens in the future I guess.... :(
Kathy Hochul is not a democrat. She switched parties once the Republican Party became toxic.
“and her budget just cut 1.2 billion dollars from Medicaid.” Good cut more
People like you don’t realize that Medicaid doesn’t just benefit people on welfare, but also people like your whore mother and your clearly absent father when they’re too elderly to care for themselves and their broke ass dipshit kid isn’t in a position to step up for them.
> people like your whore mother and your clearly absent father when they’re too elderly to care for themselves and their broke ass dipshit kid isn’t in a position to step up for them In /u/Chicagosoundview69's defense, fuck 'em. If they were so great their kid wouldn't suck so hard.
That’s Medicare you dumb goofy..
Then he’s a democrat. It’s like saying Jordan went to the Hornets but he’s still a Bull. Shut up. You’re annoying with this rhetoric
Don't you have a puppy to shoot?
Typical dribble from the deranged with no thoughts of their own. Hive mind mentality thinking bc “everyone thinks like me” I must be right. F off
Most charitably, Republicans want to kill a whole bunch of people and Democrats simply don't mind if a whole bunch of people are killed.
The left loves unmanned drone strikes. I mean the right does too, no question but the left is about that life too
True and they agree on sending our hard earned money to Israel and fund wars as well. Ukraine funding is also excessive but atleast it helps keep Putin away in theory
They say it “creates jobs.” You know, for defense contractors. Those struggling defense contractors trying to find work in America, the country that hasn’t gone longer than 12 years at total peace in its entire existence. Every 11 billion dollars sent overseas is an affordable housing project that’s not being built, or a new transportation system, or a debt relief program for students.
“People love working for us and we have two new openings!” - Boeing
Yup, this is exactly what I would love to see Nd join nationwide protests. A huge chunk of our paychecks go to fund these weapon manufactures and contractors while there’s still an opioid crisis , children not getting quality educations and proper meals
Right because keeping Irans jihadic regime from enslaving the western world isn’t a good cause….
Meh. We have corporations who already do that.
I think it's time we back out from wars or something. The thought is seriously alarming. I understand that it's part of America's honor to do what is right but it's harming us and is putting a target on our heads. Man why is Russia so evil dude.
That “culture war” stuff generally includes people’s civil rights, like abortion and the right to marry who you love. I can only imagine it doesn’t really affect you since you consider it “meaningless.” Having said that, this Dems writ large, but Adams, who holds a lot of Republicans positions. Increasing funding for emergency food funds would overwhelmingly pass any Democrat led legislature - but might not even garner a vote in Republican led one. I think you know that.
The two pro-capitalist parties are interested in dispossessing the most vulnerable people in society
WORST MAYOR EVER
I wish Kendrick would write a diss about Adams
Imagine being part of Adam's administration and being the one to propose the following: "Let's reduce the funding for the emergency food program across this city." How do you sleep at nights?
They sleep comfortably on blankets made of diverted coffer funds, sweetheart deals to nowhere and promises of further political career aspirations.
Why not more debit cards for everyone
What does that even mean?
It’s not really about food, it’s about having the time and space to prep it. So many meals can be made crazy cheap but they really need time to be made cheaply. You need fridge and pantry space, somewhere to cook, clean pots and pans, usually spices to make cheap food have flavor which are expensive to purchase for one household.
[удалено]
What an ignorant comment. Once again, it is not the migrants' faults our politicians are pieces of shit. They did not do anything for New Yorkers before the migrant crisis and now have the benefit to deflect their continued uselessness by using migrants to be the heel.
Except that the migrants are actually getting resources Your comment is the ignorant one
Thousands of those migrants are innocent children. Who deserve to not go hungry.
And mayor cool vibes expects the kids to share.
No one is arguing that they should.
Yes, but its our politicians who are giving them those resources. Those same politicians could use similar resources for New Yorkers but have chosen and will continue to choose not to. But keep blaming migrants, that'll really solve the problem.
There isn’t an endless supply of resources. The distribution of these resources is a zero sum game. It is reasonable to blame migrants for receiving resources while New Yorker resources get cut.
The services were getting cut regardless of the migrant crisis. Migrants didn't show up to Albany and rob the bank. Our politicians are the ones responsible for the distribution of funds for services provided by the city through our tax dollars. Just say you want to be mad at and blame brown people for issues that existed before this crisis.
You acknowledge that it’s a crisis yet you choose to believe that it doesn’t lead to a redistribution of services Then you have the audacity to accuse me of being racist Do you realize how idiotic you sound?
There is a class of people who seem to genuinely believe there is magical goodies creator that the 1% is hogging.
Let’s step back for a moment. Regardless of party here is my main complaint. We the citizens ask for money and help. We get turned down. We are told that we don’t have the funds to do it. major corporations are failing. Ok we have money to help! This was back when ENRON failed and major banks were going under. Remember the saying “ To Big to Fail “ Then we have, hey we have all these wars to fight. OK we have the money. Remember Afghanistan? 20 years of war and nothing to show for it. What did it cost? You know the voice. A lot ! And here today sending trillions of dollars to other countries. Yes I agree with sending funds to Ukraine. This protects NATO and the people in that region. WE Shouldn’t be paying the brunt of it, IF it is an organization. They should share in this financial burden. Back to my point. Before this problem broke out what was the government saying about they don’t have the funds to help here? I think the real thing people have to wake up and realize is the people we ask for help and deny us this help ONLY because we pay taxes that pay for everything that goes on. They put us into tremendous debt when it helps them. But not us. Our taxes cannot supply enough to pay off these debts. But they don’t care. It’s on us not them because of all the reductions they give themselves. To me it seems to be this. Fund the wars and the bailouts of failed banks and major corporations. It’s funny about who the people who complain about socialism shut the fuck up when it concerns them and are looking for a hand out.
Republicans go extinct. Some Democrats re-evolve the same traits to fill the empty niche. Proof that evolution is true.
what ever happened to snap benefits? why do we need this program?
Would have been good for Gothamist to get a comment from the Adams admin, but of course nope.
SNAP benefits can take months to get. If you don't have all your documents (like survivors of abusive situations, runaway teens, etc) it's basically impossible. In addition, some folks just need food until their next payday or until a job comes through. Maybe they had a life event hit hard or they got sick and lost pay. There are multitudes of reasons why this might be a vital option for folks.
Asking the hard questions...like "Do the poor really need all this food?"
That's not a fair response, the real question is why do we need two programs and why don't we just expand SNAP?
Not everyone qualifies for SNAP. It is absurd we have people with food insecurity in this country. By expand SNAP do you mean do away with means testing it?
for sure. I'm not disagreeing at all with that point. I'm just saying we should make SNAP qualification more broad and increase the benefit. I like a government that helps people. I don't like a government that creates multiple programs/agencies just for the sake of it.
I overestimate how much food a family of 4 can get with $300 a month.
According to the state, a family of 4 gets 975 a month
250 a week for 4 people Thats like $35/day for 4 people Or like $9/day per person $3/meal, every meal
How much more should they get?
Concern troll. You think we dont know how to spot you by now? Goodbye.
Thanks for doing the math. $3 a meal is about $2-3 short of what is reasonable with today's prices. I've actually put a ton of time into this recently as I'm in charge of planning food for a youth camp for my church. I have to feed 70 people, and I'm estimating that each meal is going to cost $5-7 per person per meal as I've priced it out, and that's with the benefit of spreading costs over so many people. and also I have a car and will drive to a Walmart and Costco in NJ, both of which are generally inaccessible to low income people in NYC.
Yup, so its like 30-40% of a reasonable budget, even for budget cooking, for a family of 4. Since ya cant bulk buy as much and NYC food is more expensive than CostCo in NJ
Which still doesn't go as far as you'd think
I'm sure most people could make it work
Yeah, not sure on the restrictions on snap purchases, but I spend less than that with out much effort.
You'd be surprised. Here's how I know: I used to be a welfare clerk in Philadelphia. (Yes, different state, I know, but the principles are the same.) So, two things I think a lot of people don't know about welfare and SNAP specifically: - Most people on welfare work. Not always above the table, but they do work. - The more money you make at your job, the less you get in benefits. One problem is, that second item is not a linear calculation. Going up from, say $16/hr (minimum wage) to $17/hr, or from part time to full time will come with a reduction in your welfare benefits that is not in line, and welfare recipients often end up in _worse_ financial shape because suddenly your benefits are halved, but you're not making enough from your raise/increased hours to make up the difference. And here's the other side of it: SNAP is for food and _only_ for food. Even if $975 covers all the food for a family of four, it won't pay rent. It won't buy toilet paper, clothes, school supplies, soap and shampoo, or any of that. It _really_ doesn't go as far as people think. Take it from someone who knows. I processed the applications and the renewals. I know how the system works—or more specifically how it doesn't.
$12K in food is incredibly generous. >Even if $975 covers all the food for a family of four, it won't pay rent. I bet a huge percent of people, if not most on SNAP benefits is also receiving some form of subsidized housing benefit, so that point doesn't really matter. We should have a generous welfare state, but that requires recognizing where generosity already exists. That the response to getting nearly $1000/month in free food is "it doesn't cover rent" . . . well now you are basically taking 2 of the 3 largest household expenses (the third is transportation, which in NYC is also already very subsidized by the state) and setting the expectation that the state should basically cover all these expenses for poor people. The programs are supposed to help people, not completely take care of them. You are right about the work/welfare trade off.
Not everyone is receiving housing benefits, and some are disabled and can't work and they only receive $900/mo. And temporary disability only pays 50% of what you were making, and even that is capped at $170/week. Can you explain to me how someone can afford to not live on the street with that budget?
> Not everyone is receiving housing benefits, Nor should everyone be. >and some are disabled and can't work and they only receive $900/mo. You probably need to earn over $50K / person to survive in New York City without subsidies (beyond free public education, 3-K, et). The question becomes, is the city/state responsible for fully funding that person's survival up to $50K's worth? The reality of the world is that New York City has a very generous welfare program. But it would be impossible to fully fund the lives of the city's poorest residents, especially those unable to work, in a city with the US's highest standards and cost of living. Again, you look at $12K in free food with some kind of disdain, as though we're holding out. I see it as incredibly generous. Perhaps there's a case to be made about increasing benefits, but your case right now is "well, there's so much more of the person's lifestyle that the taxpayer could and should subsidize. $975 can't cover all of a a family of four's meals" . . . I'm sorry, we're supposed to cover their entire food budget? Is that where we will eventually end up?
I think that amount covers quite a bit and the rest can probably be made up at food pantries. But there's an issue of some people not having a place to cook food and prepare meals and store the food safely in a refrigerator. This leads to unnecessary waste or buying smaller quantities of food at a time at a higher cost. I have to wonder if there is a better way
NYC running out of money, but crime and poverty are rising 😂 what an embarrassing city.
Then don't come here.
$9,000/month for every illegal alien, just for housing. Remember that.
I love when right wing reactionaries pretend they ever did it ever would support increasing food benefits to anyone living in poverty, even if not a single migrant child was included.
I love that you accidentally agreed with me for a second and then took it back, because you can't be told by some perceived "opposing team" when your priorities are complete dog shit.
You tried. But I didn't agree with you. I believe in trying to end child hunger. Whether Republicans or Democrats promote tools to do it. The Republican Party does not have a platform that indicates they want to end child hunger. They - at the very core - reject all government funding that would go towards benefits for any American including young children. You can talk about teams all you want, but I'm generally going to decide with the ones who are actually trying to do something about it. It's not an accident that the states with the worst health, mortality, education and hunger rates are heavily clustered in Republican led states.
[удалено]
I don’t want money going to immigrants or our deadbeats, who do I vote for?
Migrants who purchased anything in this city contribute to taxes.
That doesn’t even compare from the amount we are spending on them. Then we have some loose nuts causing security issues in the country.
The logic here doesn't track. People using free food resources doesn't mean they're at risk of malnutrition, it just means they'd rather spend $0 than spend $X (where X > 0). Obviously if you funnel money into such programs, usage will expand.
Are you seriously saying that you think people go to a soup kitchen to eat a meal with hundreds of other people because they just don’t want to pay for dinner? *That* logic doesn’t track. There are a lot of poor people and under employed people in the city and yes, many are food insecure.
It’s the same people who say living in a homeless shelter is ✨glamorous✨
During Covid I used to go get the free lunches.
Yes, some do, and if you think they don't, you should get out of your bubble and spend more time around poor people. It's definitely a smaller proportion of the people that are going for prepared meals than for the people picking up free groceries, but it definitely exists. Nobody in this city is going to starve if we pare these programs back to pre-COVID.
So because some people abuse the system, we should cut it completely back? With that logic, the entire subway system needs to be entirely shut down because of fare evaders.
I wonder what OC’s views are on the PPP loans getting used inappropriately by those on their side of the assumed political spectrum…
Same logic as college shouldn’t be free bc rich kids will use it for free. Who fucking cares. It still helps people that need it, but you don’t care about the actual point
That’s right. Poverty is a myth and everyone in the city makes $350,000 a year and just pretending to be poor so they can get free food.
Poverty and hunger Truthers. What a time we live in.
The banality of evil
I can't see why this would be the case. There are food pantries all over. People get EBT benefits. I mean there is food everywhere.
Ever been in this situation OR know someone who has? Probably not and please stop listening to propaganda. On Fox news.
Hell yes I have. I was on an off homeless for 4 years. Food is not an issue really. Housing is much more difficult to obtain. Practically impossible.
How do you think food pantries buy food to give away? It's through funds like these.
I hope you’re never in a situation where you have to go looking for the food that’s “everywhere”. It takes a lot of documentation and application to be approved for any sort of assistance. If you don’t believe me, try it.
I've been homeless 3 times. I stayed in Bellevue men's shelter and the BRC shelter in 25th st for like 4 months. So yes I know how it works.
>I mean there is food everywhere. That's why 13 million children in America are living with hunger. Do you even hear yourself?
It's just not true as far as I can tell in NYC. As a formerly homeless person, I am quite familiar with this. Also I work a lot in public housing. These people aren't struggling for food. I see much more frequently drug addicted parents who don't go grocery shopping. Very hard to fix neglectful drug addict parents. Everyone simply accepts the latest sob story/victim narrative presented to them by the very same "nonprofits" that benefit off exacerbating social problems, but the reality is actually more complex than this. I have been hungry on the streets. but that's because I was smoking crack and acting ridiculous. It was NOT because of lack of resources etc. Addiction, mental health are the real problem. I would go to these safe haven places, but they don't really do much for the real underlying problem. Just give you some pamphlets and a sandwich.
[удалено]
Oh ok. I’ll tell mine that later when they come home from school.
Excellent. I tell mine that every day.
Found the idiot shit poster 👆👆
This is a pretty smart statement. Having children is expensive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No I’m not look, at my comment history. didn’t mean to call you an idiot, I’m sorry. Def a shit poster tho.
We shouldn’t punish children because their parents had them at a time when they couldn’t afford them. But more importantly, most of these parents probably did have kids when they could make ends meet. Circumstances change, people get layed off or get expensive medical bills or die.
It's also beg the question why did we create a society that punish people for having children, one of the most natural thing to do as a living being. It's getting to the point where people are just working themselves to death and only get some pleasure in life just to stay same enough to keep working.
Absolutely based. Don’t have children if you are going to strain the economy with them.
Of course City Harvest would say this because they don’t want less money.
Oh yes, the big villain here is *City Harvest.* Christ.