States that participate in the federal program are required to cover half of the administrative costs, which would cost Nebraska an estimated $300,000. Advocates of the program note that the administrative cost is far outweighed by the $18 million benefit, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates would benefit 175,000 Nebraska children who might otherwise go hungry on some days during the summer.
Imagine being such a reprehensible monster that you'd let 175k children in your state starve rather than participate in a federal program that'd help feed them when school is out each summer. It's unconscionable.
It’s unconscionable.
BUt... but... he doesn't believe in welfare! how dare you intrude onto his lack of belief!
(/s. this guy can fuck off to the nether.)
I keep hearing that violence isn't the answer but I swear it feels like.... FOR LEGAL REASONS THIS IS SATIRE
What are we supposed to do when our leaders and the wealthy (i.e., a small minority who holds all of the influence) have effectively declared war on the rest of us (i.e., almost everybody)?
No no no, violence can be the answer, depending on what the question is. Like this:
Historically, what happens when the poorest citizens of a nation have no food, no homes, and no hope for the future, because the rich are hording it all?
Violence isn't the answer. It is a question and the answer is, 'yes'.
Republicans get off on dead children. It's as simple as that.
John Wayne Gacy would be proud.
It's unconscionable
It's conservative.
Every farmer in that state receives welfare. Every fucking farmer benefits from agricultural subsidies.
The governor believes in federal welfare, just not welfare that directly benefits kids.
Imagine being such a reprehensible monster that you'd let 175k children in your state starve rather than participate in a federal program that'd help feed them when school is out each summer. It's unconscionable.
BUt... but... he doesn't believe in welfare! how dare you intrude onto his lack of belief!
(/s. this guy can fuck off to the nether.)
I keep hearing that violence isn't the answer but I swear it feels like.... FOR LEGAL REASONS THIS IS SATIRE
You reminded me of: https://youtu.be/eg3_kUaYFJA
This is what I think we should do. Also this is satire.
https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY?si=YZH_TmiXRZNXCeGc
What are we supposed to do when our leaders and the wealthy (i.e., a small minority who holds all of the influence) have effectively declared war on the rest of us (i.e., almost everybody)?
No no no, violence can be the answer, depending on what the question is. Like this:
Violence isn't the answer. It is a question and the answer is, 'yes'.
Republicans get off on dead children. It's as simple as that.
John Wayne Gacy would be proud.
It's conservative.
Every farmer in that state receives welfare. Every fucking farmer benefits from agricultural subsidies.
The governor believes in federal welfare, just not welfare that directly benefits kids.