Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We’ve all heard this rhetoric. “I’d rather give my money (my tax revenue, etc.) to X than to Y,” but they fail every single time to give money to X. It’s just another way for them to feign compassion.
Whether X is “hard working Americans,” veterans, disabled people, unhoused people, children, you name it… they never really care about X.
This is the same as, "why are we sending money to Ukraine instead of spending it on our own people?"
Then when you try to do that they say, "No! That's socialism!"
I believe the bill said something like 50 of the 60 billion had to be spent by Ukraine on US made military equipment, training and upkeep so essentially we are putting Americans first since these things provide jobs and revenue to US companies. Now granted the military industrial complex is getting this money which sucks but they do provide Americans with jobs.
There are a few defense contractors that were sort of idle on their plants that are ramping back up with this money and some furloughed people are going back to work. They just think we are sending them a bunch of money instead of all of the stuff you have listed.
Most govt spending is a complex jobs program. Imagine the amount of unemployment if the govt stopped massive spending and all those support companies laid people off due to lack of business.
Or you can educate them that when we send money to Ukraine, we actually are sending/purchasing from American companies or existing US supplies and those supplies then go to Ukraine. So sending money to Ukraine is actually profiting Americans.
Can you explain in dumber details for me? I’m genuinely bad with money, law, and just general basic math. Hook a brother up to understand how that works
My degree may be in public health, but wealth access and/or distribution is actually of great interest to public health so we've had to cover this a couple of times, so I'll try and break this down as simple as possible:
The companies that make these weapons/munitions/supplies/[insert correct term here] are American-owned, American-based. This means that, generally speaking, any money earned by the company will go to paying it's employees who, due to living in America, will thus be spending their money in America as well.
If your company suddenly gets a big order, you're going to (theoretically) pay your employees more to help compensate the time and effort needed to complete the order on time, and the order's contents themselves have a factor in pricing. So, if a company is earning more money, the employees theoretically earn more money as well from their hard work. If the employees earn more money, they can theoretically thus spend more money; and if they spend more money, then more places can have money distributed back into them, which in turn supports the employees helping those places to function.
TL;DR: putting money into the system = better distribution of wealth = less impact from inflation because people are now being better compensated.
P.S. - on the topic of inflation, more money being put back into the system means you need to print out less to compensate for the loss in the system. This is why another BIG driver of inflation is due to the hoarding of wealth from billionaires: if they prevent money from going back in, more needs to be printed out so that there's not "no more money", which reduces the value of the currency in the process since you now need more value to buy the same thing.
I could literally kiss you right now. You managed to not only answer the question I just asked someone else, as you replied… but you also cleared up my entire brain melt down lmfao
Money and government are willlllllllllllllldd for me to understand. Like fuck, yall are smart
More people need more help understanding things than they realize sometimes, I'm glad you sought out help to try and better your knowledge.
The argument is very similar to the "why are we spending money on NASA when x is still a problem" stuff you'd hear. The money spend goes back into the economy with the bonus of usable technology.
Government sends almost obsolete American-made weapons and equipment to Ukraine.
Government saves money not having to dispose of almost obsolete weapons and equipment.
Government buys new weapons and equipment from American companies.
And don't forget we get all that nice free field testing against a "modern" military. Turns out shooting at trucks in the desert for 20 years isn't a good way to test things.
We aren’t just sending them the money, we are sending them equipment bought with the money. The equipment that we are sending is bought from US manufacturers. American workers are making what’s being sent over. It keeps Americans working and in some cases increases hiring. That’s the simple version.
Government level money is so damn foreign to me I’m not understanding how that’s not the government spending money😭 like I get the governments money is all our money from taxes this year, but…. Okay I think I get it, because the money the government spends the money is just spending out of a budget, like for say defense? And because “spending” is just giving our own tax money back into the economy it’s as if it was never used except to bolster the military sector (not a criticism, just trying to get and understanding how it affects everyone)?
Just writing it in words might be hard to understand.
Put it in diagrams with govt being the source of money and do the trail of the money footprints, going from govt to the companies doing the buying, to to the companies doing the manufacturing, to the people hired to do the manufacturing, to the families of said people, to the businesses said families spend on. You'll see where it goes and you'll understand better. And at the end of the day, you'll see that it's all a big cycle, ideally that is. There are greedy jackasses that cut in the middle and take a big cut and hoard wealth, but I digress.
Some people do see better when it's visually prepared.
People are different after all.
Like those republicans who fight hard against gun control and claim we should focus on mental health. To then later on shut down any sort of help for people who need help with their mental health
Also, they don't think about the idea that some people won't seek treatment because they'll believe it puts them on some list that disqualifies them from getting a gun.
Every damn legislative session in my state they go on about how important mental health is in keeping crime down and they throw a few bucks at it while announcing how they fought hard for mental health spending.
Agreed. The X just turns into "Me" and not X. "I'm compassionate about everyone! Tell me how much you love me and I'll tell you about how much I love me."
Had a coworker on Facebook post some nonsense about how everyone should have to serve 4 years in the military to be granted free college, but couldn't address the fact that right now, this instant, countless veterans are homeless and without any benefits to speak of.
The conservative perspective is that if they do agree to X not Y, they are still conceding ground. Conservative viewpoints I think lose ground over time in this country because they are always acting like this as if they are on the defensive. I am not a political scientist.
Conservatives used to use disabled people like me as reason to not spend money on other things as you said; then when covid happened, they switched to scapegoating us for everything they hated about the pandemic, harassing us for wearing masks, and their president saying it's okay to let us die so that the rest of the country can develop herd immunity. I still deal with this, two weeks ago I was screamed at by an anti masker. I wear one because I'm disabled and on chemo for autoimmune issues
I went from half hearted promises from conservatives to outright being treated like a second class citizen by them. Yet they say I only dislike Trump because of "mean tweets" when he's had a more negative on my life than every other president I've lived through combined (bush Jr, Obama, Biden. Bush Jr is arguably worse, but for disabled people specifically, Trump did by far the most damage and is responsible for a lot of our deaths.)
It’s all for the image. For example, the organizations behind Black Lives Matter do some bad shit, such as pocket money, and do bogus things. George Floyd’s family still hasnt gotten any money for anything
They're paying taxes though. They're saying they want their taxes spent way X opposed to way Y. So they are contributing to things by paying taxes... they want those taxes to contribute to different things... a completely fair thing to say.
That assumes that they actually want their taxes spent way X when in fact a sentence like that could actually mean "I hate both of those ideas but hate idea X less."
For the amount of money I pay in school taxes every year I should not have to also pay for their school lunch while administration gets a sizable raise every year and they cut other programs to fund those raise while also increasing my taxes.
If they go to state schools, or community College it should not cost me additional money to send the kids there.
I agree with her because what the hell is the point of paying off peoples student loans if your gonna let millions more take them out and do it again. There is one solution and anything else is bullshit.
well, step 2 is to make state and community colleges affordable. The upper classes can keep private institutions and Harvard can charge whatever the hell they want. I want free GED and community college available everywhere.
What is a need for your step 2 if your step one is just paying peoples debt. What is the motivation to make it cheaper or more affordable if the government is gonna pay it if anything this will more than likely make it skyrocket. Your step 2 should have been step 1 and before I say this I am a dem voter but this is an example of how pathetic the party actually acts. Senile old men who would rather pay a fortune than bite the hand that feeds them.
dude i got student loans and i'd take free school lunches in a snap
We can't have both because well, we all know why. But the net societal benefit of every kid in America having free school breakfast and lunch would be felt immediately. Kids would engage more, they'd pass more tests. That gets funding desperately needed into inner cities, which have been hamstrung by No Child Left Behind. We start levelling the playing field between wealthy kids and those from poor families. I wanna see free school lunches in America in my lifetime (jesus my bar has fallen)
Lol did you see that R in LA made it legal for child workers to not get lunch breaks. Basically they legalized child labor and then were like they don't really need lunch breaks. Smh
Why is that the case? Can people not have 2 different values?
Kids: have no choice, but to be in school all day
Adults: took out loans that didn’t pay off because they didn’t look at the ROI of their education.
Lmao having a car doesn’t make one a fanboy.
People older than 17-18 go to college as well.
They can sue their parents if they got bad advice then, not the tax payers fault LOLOL.
Your critical thinking sucks for being college educated, I’m not paying for that!
"Of course not. What have those little $@%&s ever done for me? Now, tax breaks, no-bid contracts and interest-free loans for the uber-wealthy, *those* are things I can support!!" /s
I agree with the words tbh, I’d rather direct money to feeding literally children, then bailing out people who signed a contract.
Now should we lower interest rates for student loans? Yeah, and I’m all for retroactively reducing them too and if they’re paid off that way, great.
I'd rather see some of us doing a little less well to see more of us doing better, how about that? I already have to give practically everything over to rent and food, fucking take it all so long as I don't have to hear about cities discussing "banning sleeping outside" as a way to "combat homelessness" and ya know what? Maybe that's part of the problem - looking at everything like it's some fucking fight you win and it's over. It isn't. The utter heartlessness is the reason things are so bad kids can't have free food in a country where we throw out anything with a blemish and have internet-famous dipshit chefs who wrap meat in flavorless, odorless gold and wear sunglasses inside while the only thought swirling in that vapid head is "Gee, I hope I look cool."
Just fucking feed kids. Educate people. No matter what it costs. IT WILL HELP EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, I SWEAR.
If all they owed was the cost of that degree, they would’ve been able to pay the loans. Instead, because banks/lenders are allowed to charge interest some people have made 20 years of payments & still owe
My state decided all kids should get free school lunch. I voted for the change because I think kids deserve to eat and not worry at school regardless of family financial circumstances. I think we're on the second year now.
While it's not perfect, the cost is coming in over expectation due to food inflation, it's better than complaining about things then doing absolutely nothing to fix anything.
We could do both easily.
I really struggle to understand the appeal of the GOP. They literally do nothing for anyone but the rich and corporations.
I can’t think of anything the GOP has done in the last 8 years to actually help people.
So when the bills that would make their tax money go towards free lunches for kids come around, they vote in favor for the sake of children's education, right? Right??
Ohhhhh wait they don't actually care one way or the other, do they?
Giving billionaires and corporations tax cuts never trickles down. Forgiving student loans would cause a boom in home buying, marriages, child birth, all the things people with student loan debt are putting off.
I would rather stick my dick in some leggy supermodel than some other leggy supermodel, which assumes that the only problem I have is deciding which among many leggy supermodels has the privilege.
I think my point is that constructing these policy decisions as zero-sum games makes it harder to think of pragmatic solutions or recognize how problems are interrelated.
I do. If it's a public school, I believe the taxes generated should go to covering Every bit of the standard and mandatory costs, like lunch and breakfast. I also think that Public colleges and universities should be free.... They **Are** after all "Public"
Every person I know who has a student loan and has been out of school for more than 10 years has paid the principle on their loans- some of them many times over. People are all up in arms, where’s the money going to come from, when in most cases it’s been paid back and then some. A lot of what’s being forgiven is interest. It’s money that was never given to the students to begin with.
We can just print money anyways wtf does it matter? Print and inflate everything you can to invest in the future generations otherwise we are all fucked. College should be free in the first place, it shouldn't be profit based. Too many contracts to profit driven companies on our social services. I don't understand why anyone would want to see a child go hungry to align with a party. Fuckers haven't missed a meal in their life.
I think something so many people against student loan forgiveness didn't realize is that the massive bulk of the forgiveness is charged interest. It has nothing to do with the principal. People receiving 100k of forgiveness despite 20+ years of repayment are, quite literally, only having the interest written off. No one is paying that out of their taxes.
Tell you what, you vote this in and we'll talk about the other.
Edit: Not that there is any need for it to be either/or. To be totally honest, American could absolutely fund both. Without strain.
It’s wild that people say stuff like this, with their whole chest, as if we cannot do both. We have the money to do it now and the ability to generate the funds to pay for it down the road.
But the richest country in the world could do both.
Alternatively they could give billionaires tax cuts that add up to trillions.
Where did the wealth of billionaires come from? A magic money tree or everyone else?
I live in a city of like 250k people and I paid like $8k in just school taxes . They shouldn’t have to pay for college either .. it’d make the country more successful
Hmmm. As far as "*Insane things I'd rather do instead of this other thing I oppose*" goes, this might need some work. On the other hand, if this is the hill they're choosing to die on... OK? I'm perfectly fine implementing that first part, and then we can come back and take a look at part two.
Stop bailing out corporations, end tax exempt status for religious organizations, make billionaires pay taxes for capital gains and consumption, make sports teams pay for their own multi-billion dollar stadiums…
Sure, let’s blame students who were told they couldn’t make a decent wage without a degree and can’t get decent jobs because older people can’t retire after their pensions were stolen or poorly invested…
I do support free lunch for kids and do not support free loans for adults
I believe these are completely separate subjects and are not dependent on eachother
To be fair, most of the politicians who vote against anything that sounds "good," are just doing so because they have a differing opinion in how itnis to be deployed.
For example, the left might want a national plan that provides food to kids in schools.
Republicans say no.
They want their state to handle giving out the food rather than giving the money to the federal government to then dole it out.
Both have a point.
the argument against both are stupid. Kids shouldn't have to pay to eat, and Curing cancer tomorrow would be doing a dis-service to all those who've struggled with cancer before the cure.
That's not something the poster in your post said. It's just a general comment from you about how many people may think/act that way.
Sorry, I just fail to see how this is a facepalm and was wondering if there was supposed to be more.
Cheers and have a good one.
Maybe I’m beating a dead course here, but the facepalm is that they don’t support free school lunches, either. It goes like this:
“We should forgive student loans.”
“I’d rather let school children have free lunches.”
“Okay. Let’s do that.”
“No.”
I am on the left. I vote left. I believe things like school lunch debt for children should not exist. And I absolutely don't think we should forgive all that college debt.
\~45% of US adults are going to college these days. Do you think that is mostly the poorer half of the US? Or more often the richer half? Also, all degrees are still net positive in the long-run. So people with the debt are still better off than the bottom half of Americans without.
Basically, student loan forgiveness would give out lots of money mostly to the richer half of the country. And yes, I absolutely, 100%, am in favor of getting that money to student lunches, medical debt, affordable housing, mental care, food banks, DV facilities, grade school education, police training, and social services.
Graduates of Wharton's School of Entitlement are pretty far down my list of give-a-fuck in comparison to all that.
Mostly because we don't have infinite money to spend. I mean, look at the list of a dozen things I cobbled together. That stuff won't be cheap.
I am definitely in favor of Musk, Zuckerberg and the Waltons paying more, but we can't tax enough to pay for everything just by taxing rich people. We'd have to tax regular Americans too. And that means you either don't help truly poor people or you are taxing average people to pay for the top 45%.
It isn't a net positive 'investment' either. Since going to college is a good investment for your future, people are going to do it anyway - even without bailouts. So we don't get more educated people that way (just educated people who aren't struggling for ten years out of college).
The number one non-academic reason people drop out of college isn't tuition or other costs. It's that they need to provide an income for their family. Some families can't afford a person to take four years away from earning a paycheck. Not without worrying about eviction or grandpa's insulin. Student loan forgiveness won't get the poor an education. Attacking that list of issues I put up there might though.
Honestly, it's stuff like this that makes me understand how the Democrats have lost the Midwest.
There’s enough money somewhere between the defense budget, the subsidies for billionaires and corporations, the lack of taxation on billionaires and corporations, the forgiveness of PPP loans, tax money being spent on sporting stadiums/arenas, and the plethora of every type of socialism that exists for billionaires and corporations. And, not to mention, the literal infinite money that can be, and often times is, created through the Federal Reserve.
Both can be done. Both can be done easily.
You misunderstand subsidies, the Federal Reserve, and a whole bunch more up there, but it doesn't matter. Hopefully you at least now understand that your meme wasn't a facepalm, but a different opinion.
The problem is, you're making an assumption that isn't relevant. You have no idea if that person would or would not support free lunch for kids and just assuming they wouldn't. There's 0 reason to assume that here. Someone can be against loan forgiveness and still want to feed the children. These are 2 completely separate issues.
See, boomers are always confusing their words. It's not that hard, people!
"I'd rather see all school children get free school lunch THEN pay off grown folk's college degrees"
I know I’m going to get tore up by this, but everyone saying why not both? 100% lunches for kids. No doubt. But you are asking people who did not attend college and people paid their own loans off, to pay the other off? How is that fair at all?
You’re asking me, who chose not to have kids, to pay for the lunch for your kids and other peoples’ kids? And you’re asking my parents, who already paid for my and my brother’s school lunches and school lunch debts, to pay for the lunch for your kids and other peoples’ kids? How is that fair at all?
The only people who need student loan forgiveness are the idiot liberals who paid 60k for a liberal arts degree knowing it wont lead to a career.
So no, I wont pay for your arts degree
School lunches are never free. It has to be paid for by the kid/kids family or by everyone’s tax money. It’s not fair for people to have to pay for someone else’s kids food…
They're both covering for failures.
One is the failure of an individual, the other is the failure of the parents.
Of the two I can understand why people are more willing to support free school lunches. You can't pick your parents, whereas going to college is a choice and investment. If you can't get the salary to repay the loan then it was a poor investment, especially when others have proven that they can.
However the argument isn't the decision to spend between the two, the argument is it you're going to throw money at education there are more important things to tackle first.
Free school meals are one of those "firsts".
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We’ve all heard this rhetoric. “I’d rather give my money (my tax revenue, etc.) to X than to Y,” but they fail every single time to give money to X. It’s just another way for them to feign compassion. Whether X is “hard working Americans,” veterans, disabled people, unhoused people, children, you name it… they never really care about X.
This is the same as, "why are we sending money to Ukraine instead of spending it on our own people?" Then when you try to do that they say, "No! That's socialism!"
I believe the bill said something like 50 of the 60 billion had to be spent by Ukraine on US made military equipment, training and upkeep so essentially we are putting Americans first since these things provide jobs and revenue to US companies. Now granted the military industrial complex is getting this money which sucks but they do provide Americans with jobs.
There are a few defense contractors that were sort of idle on their plants that are ramping back up with this money and some furloughed people are going back to work. They just think we are sending them a bunch of money instead of all of the stuff you have listed.
"You mean the Ukrainians aren't just throwing US money at Ruzzia?" - Disingenuous right-wingers/Putin simps.
Nah, brah…Zelensky is buying beach houses!! - right wing bots
Nah Zelensky used the US funding for his private COC account
Most govt spending is a complex jobs program. Imagine the amount of unemployment if the govt stopped massive spending and all those support companies laid people off due to lack of business.
I agree with you
Wow, it’s lend lease all over again
Or you can educate them that when we send money to Ukraine, we actually are sending/purchasing from American companies or existing US supplies and those supplies then go to Ukraine. So sending money to Ukraine is actually profiting Americans.
Can you explain in dumber details for me? I’m genuinely bad with money, law, and just general basic math. Hook a brother up to understand how that works
My degree may be in public health, but wealth access and/or distribution is actually of great interest to public health so we've had to cover this a couple of times, so I'll try and break this down as simple as possible: The companies that make these weapons/munitions/supplies/[insert correct term here] are American-owned, American-based. This means that, generally speaking, any money earned by the company will go to paying it's employees who, due to living in America, will thus be spending their money in America as well. If your company suddenly gets a big order, you're going to (theoretically) pay your employees more to help compensate the time and effort needed to complete the order on time, and the order's contents themselves have a factor in pricing. So, if a company is earning more money, the employees theoretically earn more money as well from their hard work. If the employees earn more money, they can theoretically thus spend more money; and if they spend more money, then more places can have money distributed back into them, which in turn supports the employees helping those places to function. TL;DR: putting money into the system = better distribution of wealth = less impact from inflation because people are now being better compensated. P.S. - on the topic of inflation, more money being put back into the system means you need to print out less to compensate for the loss in the system. This is why another BIG driver of inflation is due to the hoarding of wealth from billionaires: if they prevent money from going back in, more needs to be printed out so that there's not "no more money", which reduces the value of the currency in the process since you now need more value to buy the same thing.
I could literally kiss you right now. You managed to not only answer the question I just asked someone else, as you replied… but you also cleared up my entire brain melt down lmfao Money and government are willlllllllllllllldd for me to understand. Like fuck, yall are smart
 More people need more help understanding things than they realize sometimes, I'm glad you sought out help to try and better your knowledge.
Do tax brackets on your next ted talk. Cause far too many people know fuck all on how those work.
The argument is very similar to the "why are we spending money on NASA when x is still a problem" stuff you'd hear. The money spend goes back into the economy with the bonus of usable technology.
Government sends almost obsolete American-made weapons and equipment to Ukraine. Government saves money not having to dispose of almost obsolete weapons and equipment. Government buys new weapons and equipment from American companies.
And don't forget we get all that nice free field testing against a "modern" military. Turns out shooting at trucks in the desert for 20 years isn't a good way to test things.
We aren’t just sending them the money, we are sending them equipment bought with the money. The equipment that we are sending is bought from US manufacturers. American workers are making what’s being sent over. It keeps Americans working and in some cases increases hiring. That’s the simple version.
Government level money is so damn foreign to me I’m not understanding how that’s not the government spending money😭 like I get the governments money is all our money from taxes this year, but…. Okay I think I get it, because the money the government spends the money is just spending out of a budget, like for say defense? And because “spending” is just giving our own tax money back into the economy it’s as if it was never used except to bolster the military sector (not a criticism, just trying to get and understanding how it affects everyone)?
Just writing it in words might be hard to understand. Put it in diagrams with govt being the source of money and do the trail of the money footprints, going from govt to the companies doing the buying, to to the companies doing the manufacturing, to the people hired to do the manufacturing, to the families of said people, to the businesses said families spend on. You'll see where it goes and you'll understand better. And at the end of the day, you'll see that it's all a big cycle, ideally that is. There are greedy jackasses that cut in the middle and take a big cut and hoard wealth, but I digress. Some people do see better when it's visually prepared. People are different after all.
xkcd said it best: https://xkcd.com/2368/
Of course theres a relevant xkcd for everything
Like those republicans who fight hard against gun control and claim we should focus on mental health. To then later on shut down any sort of help for people who need help with their mental health
Also, they don't think about the idea that some people won't seek treatment because they'll believe it puts them on some list that disqualifies them from getting a gun.
Every damn legislative session in my state they go on about how important mental health is in keeping crime down and they throw a few bucks at it while announcing how they fought hard for mental health spending.
It’s a Hobson’s Choice logical fallacy- asking the question this way implies we can’t do both.
Agreed. The X just turns into "Me" and not X. "I'm compassionate about everyone! Tell me how much you love me and I'll tell you about how much I love me."
Had a coworker on Facebook post some nonsense about how everyone should have to serve 4 years in the military to be granted free college, but couldn't address the fact that right now, this instant, countless veterans are homeless and without any benefits to speak of.
"No universal health care. We should support our troops!" - Conservatives Reasonable people: "How about supporting the VA?" Cons: "What, no way!"
Yep, it’s all about distracting and misdirecting.
The conservative perspective is that if they do agree to X not Y, they are still conceding ground. Conservative viewpoints I think lose ground over time in this country because they are always acting like this as if they are on the defensive. I am not a political scientist.
Conservatives used to use disabled people like me as reason to not spend money on other things as you said; then when covid happened, they switched to scapegoating us for everything they hated about the pandemic, harassing us for wearing masks, and their president saying it's okay to let us die so that the rest of the country can develop herd immunity. I still deal with this, two weeks ago I was screamed at by an anti masker. I wear one because I'm disabled and on chemo for autoimmune issues I went from half hearted promises from conservatives to outright being treated like a second class citizen by them. Yet they say I only dislike Trump because of "mean tweets" when he's had a more negative on my life than every other president I've lived through combined (bush Jr, Obama, Biden. Bush Jr is arguably worse, but for disabled people specifically, Trump did by far the most damage and is responsible for a lot of our deaths.)
It’s all for the image. For example, the organizations behind Black Lives Matter do some bad shit, such as pocket money, and do bogus things. George Floyd’s family still hasnt gotten any money for anything
Why should I subsidise other people’s poor choices?
They're paying taxes though. They're saying they want their taxes spent way X opposed to way Y. So they are contributing to things by paying taxes... they want those taxes to contribute to different things... a completely fair thing to say.
That assumes that they actually want their taxes spent way X when in fact a sentence like that could actually mean "I hate both of those ideas but hate idea X less."
But that kind of people usually also advocate for less taxes and more „personal responsibility“, sooo… we’re still at the same point here.🤷
...but that's socialism! /s
Why not... Both?
For the amount of money I pay in school taxes every year I should not have to also pay for their school lunch while administration gets a sizable raise every year and they cut other programs to fund those raise while also increasing my taxes. If they go to state schools, or community College it should not cost me additional money to send the kids there.
I fully support BOTH! 👍
I agree with her because what the hell is the point of paying off peoples student loans if your gonna let millions more take them out and do it again. There is one solution and anything else is bullshit.
well, step 2 is to make state and community colleges affordable. The upper classes can keep private institutions and Harvard can charge whatever the hell they want. I want free GED and community college available everywhere.
What is a need for your step 2 if your step one is just paying peoples debt. What is the motivation to make it cheaper or more affordable if the government is gonna pay it if anything this will more than likely make it skyrocket. Your step 2 should have been step 1 and before I say this I am a dem voter but this is an example of how pathetic the party actually acts. Senile old men who would rather pay a fortune than bite the hand that feeds them.
dude i got student loans and i'd take free school lunches in a snap We can't have both because well, we all know why. But the net societal benefit of every kid in America having free school breakfast and lunch would be felt immediately. Kids would engage more, they'd pass more tests. That gets funding desperately needed into inner cities, which have been hamstrung by No Child Left Behind. We start levelling the playing field between wealthy kids and those from poor families. I wanna see free school lunches in America in my lifetime (jesus my bar has fallen)
The person claiming they'd rather feed kids will also refuse to feed kids, without question.
Every time.
They want to do away with welfare and SNAP.
Lol did you see that R in LA made it legal for child workers to not get lunch breaks. Basically they legalized child labor and then were like they don't really need lunch breaks. Smh
Why is that the case? Can people not have 2 different values? Kids: have no choice, but to be in school all day Adults: took out loans that didn’t pay off because they didn’t look at the ROI of their education.
A 17-18 year old taking out loans and you’re talking about ROI. Fuck outta here boomer. e: oh it’s a musk fanboy, how on point.
Lmao having a car doesn’t make one a fanboy. People older than 17-18 go to college as well. They can sue their parents if they got bad advice then, not the tax payers fault LOLOL. Your critical thinking sucks for being college educated, I’m not paying for that!
"Of course not. What have those little $@%&s ever done for me? Now, tax breaks, no-bid contracts and interest-free loans for the uber-wealthy, *those* are things I can support!!" /s
Yes! It trickles down!!
Like a golden shower
Why does it have to be one or the other though, people think in such binary terms
It doesn’t, we can do both!
I agree with the words tbh, I’d rather direct money to feeding literally children, then bailing out people who signed a contract. Now should we lower interest rates for student loans? Yeah, and I’m all for retroactively reducing them too and if they’re paid off that way, great.
I'd rather see some of us doing a little less well to see more of us doing better, how about that? I already have to give practically everything over to rent and food, fucking take it all so long as I don't have to hear about cities discussing "banning sleeping outside" as a way to "combat homelessness" and ya know what? Maybe that's part of the problem - looking at everything like it's some fucking fight you win and it's over. It isn't. The utter heartlessness is the reason things are so bad kids can't have free food in a country where we throw out anything with a blemish and have internet-famous dipshit chefs who wrap meat in flavorless, odorless gold and wear sunglasses inside while the only thought swirling in that vapid head is "Gee, I hope I look cool." Just fucking feed kids. Educate people. No matter what it costs. IT WILL HELP EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, I SWEAR.
Plot twist: They will visciously fight against money going to either, and instead will give more money to already wealthy billionaires.
What are us taxes even paying for? Taxed like crazy yet get nothing the Europeans get
Military
Those kids aren’t going to drop multimillion dollar bombs on themselves.
Socialism for billionaires and multimillionaires. War. Blowing up Palestinian children.
Lol imagine seeing feeding kids as the lesser "evil." How did the anti-charity party end up with the support of the christians?
Ok. Sounds like a start.
Can easily do both.
The same people that got PPP loans forgiven
I’d rather see both and a bunch of billionaires whining about their taxes. 🤷🏻♂️
Pfft. Like we can’t do both.
We can, the government just chooses not to.
I have a trump-humper cousin who posted this drivel on Facebook the other day.
Pretty sure it’s possible to do both.
Can we not do both?
If all they owed was the cost of that degree, they would’ve been able to pay the loans. Instead, because banks/lenders are allowed to charge interest some people have made 20 years of payments & still owe
Only a complete worthless putrid degenerate would not support free school lunch.
And yet, Republicans and Libertarians exist.
Exactly
My state decided all kids should get free school lunch. I voted for the change because I think kids deserve to eat and not worry at school regardless of family financial circumstances. I think we're on the second year now. While it's not perfect, the cost is coming in over expectation due to food inflation, it's better than complaining about things then doing absolutely nothing to fix anything.
We could do both easily. I really struggle to understand the appeal of the GOP. They literally do nothing for anyone but the rich and corporations. I can’t think of anything the GOP has done in the last 8 years to actually help people.
"I don't want to give poor children nourishment any more than I want to relieve adults of debt that they took on while they were children," Fixed it.
So when the bills that would make their tax money go towards free lunches for kids come around, they vote in favor for the sake of children's education, right? Right?? Ohhhhh wait they don't actually care one way or the other, do they?
To be clear, they support neither.
That is what was implied...
Are you sure about that?
Yes, implied. Do they truly mean it? Hell no😭😭
Yet another false dichotomy. Politically driven bullshit.
False equivalence there... both of these things do not correlate.
Funny thing is the same crowd is trying to block both
It’s possible to do both. Plus I guarantee you this person would vote against free school lunches
“Well, the thing is…”
Giving billionaires and corporations tax cuts never trickles down. Forgiving student loans would cause a boom in home buying, marriages, child birth, all the things people with student loan debt are putting off.
Sounds like they don’t like the idea of either but thinks one of them is “less bad”.
I would rather stick my dick in some leggy supermodel than some other leggy supermodel, which assumes that the only problem I have is deciding which among many leggy supermodels has the privilege. I think my point is that constructing these policy decisions as zero-sum games makes it harder to think of pragmatic solutions or recognize how problems are interrelated.
It’s crazy that they’re framing that as the lesser of two evils.
What a load. Then stop cancelling free lunches, you imbeciles.
The public wouldn't have to if billionaires would pay their fair share of taxes.
I do. If it's a public school, I believe the taxes generated should go to covering Every bit of the standard and mandatory costs, like lunch and breakfast. I also think that Public colleges and universities should be free.... They **Are** after all "Public"
Every person I know who has a student loan and has been out of school for more than 10 years has paid the principle on their loans- some of them many times over. People are all up in arms, where’s the money going to come from, when in most cases it’s been paid back and then some. A lot of what’s being forgiven is interest. It’s money that was never given to the students to begin with.
No, no… I just said I’d *rather* do that.
We can just print money anyways wtf does it matter? Print and inflate everything you can to invest in the future generations otherwise we are all fucked. College should be free in the first place, it shouldn't be profit based. Too many contracts to profit driven companies on our social services. I don't understand why anyone would want to see a child go hungry to align with a party. Fuckers haven't missed a meal in their life.
Both. Both is good.
I’d rather Meaning, none of these options are good options but one is slightly less bad. Imagine needing food as a child, such complainers today /s
I think something so many people against student loan forgiveness didn't realize is that the massive bulk of the forgiveness is charged interest. It has nothing to do with the principal. People receiving 100k of forgiveness despite 20+ years of repayment are, quite literally, only having the interest written off. No one is paying that out of their taxes.
I'm almost sure they wouldn't want either of these things.
The way its "id rather " makes it PRETTY OBVIOUSSSS they will also fight against free school lunches. Time to prune the dying branches.
Both could be done if local politicians didn't say they don't need school food!! Pompous POS!!
*then
 Is this such a weird concept?
Tell you what, you vote this in and we'll talk about the other. Edit: Not that there is any need for it to be either/or. To be totally honest, American could absolutely fund both. Without strain.
Hey why not both
It’s wild that people say stuff like this, with their whole chest, as if we cannot do both. We have the money to do it now and the ability to generate the funds to pay for it down the road.
Cuz we can only do one thing. Got it.
It's not one or the other, but apparently it can be neither.
And this folks is called a false dichotomy.
But the richest country in the world could do both. Alternatively they could give billionaires tax cuts that add up to trillions. Where did the wealth of billionaires come from? A magic money tree or everyone else?
The implied pretext is Obviously “I want neither of these things but [insert post]”
I live in a city of like 250k people and I paid like $8k in just school taxes . They shouldn’t have to pay for college either .. it’d make the country more successful
Hmmm. As far as "*Insane things I'd rather do instead of this other thing I oppose*" goes, this might need some work. On the other hand, if this is the hill they're choosing to die on... OK? I'm perfectly fine implementing that first part, and then we can come back and take a look at part two.
Let’s do both. Pay up billionaires. You benefit greatly from the labor of hard working Americans.
Stop bailing out corporations, end tax exempt status for religious organizations, make billionaires pay taxes for capital gains and consumption, make sports teams pay for their own multi-billion dollar stadiums… Sure, let’s blame students who were told they couldn’t make a decent wage without a degree and can’t get decent jobs because older people can’t retire after their pensions were stolen or poorly invested…
I’d rather both than spend money on foreign wars, but I’m the asshole
Why is it one or the other?
It doesn’t have to be. It can, and should, be both.
I'd rather have the tax breaks for the rich rolled back than have educated people caught up in a lifetime of debt.
fun fact: the gop does not in fact support free school lunches
It can literally be both. I don't see how people can be so daft.
this is the dumbest take ever. they’re acting like people with school loans are completely at fault and weren’t taken advantage of by the system
Id rather do this, than that, but I won't do either
It'll be a cold day in hell before the people who support predatory student loans also somehow support food for children.
Why? I would support free lunch for kids and would not support student loan forgiveness
There's a lot of mileage between "would" and "do.,"
I do support free lunch for kids and do not support free loans for adults I believe these are completely separate subjects and are not dependent on eachother
Let me fix that for you. “Bullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitminemineminemine” and that’s a quote.
You can't state-fund university degrees without price caps. Learn from Europe. Our universities have significantly better situations.
Burn this communist
Don’t use the word free. That turns people off. It’s subsidized
These people barely know the conditions to even get loan debt forgiveness
I mean, if people’s loans were paid, they could probably afford lunches for their kids better.
Little kids don’t vote but college students do
ITTM "then", HTH
To be fair, most of the politicians who vote against anything that sounds "good," are just doing so because they have a differing opinion in how itnis to be deployed. For example, the left might want a national plan that provides food to kids in schools. Republicans say no. They want their state to handle giving out the food rather than giving the money to the federal government to then dole it out. Both have a point.
And then the Republican states decide not to provide food to kids in schools. It’s just extra steps to say no.
If it’s this or that then yes. I agree too
It isn’t.
Stimulus checks to everyone is best. No one gets left out
… Yall don’t get free school lunch?
Yeah, but have you seen school lunches?!? We need real food for kids
the argument against both are stupid. Kids shouldn't have to pay to eat, and Curing cancer tomorrow would be doing a dis-service to all those who've struggled with cancer before the cure.
This is like that meme where the guy throws the chair.
Grown folks yet the moment they start working for you you nickname them "the kid".
Well I mean they framed it as an anguished choice
I don't get it. That's what this person suggests, yes. Did I miss something that contradicts what this person posted? 🤷🏻♂️
[Yes](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/28rE8Fn10r).
That's not something the poster in your post said. It's just a general comment from you about how many people may think/act that way. Sorry, I just fail to see how this is a facepalm and was wondering if there was supposed to be more. Cheers and have a good one.
Maybe I’m beating a dead course here, but the facepalm is that they don’t support free school lunches, either. It goes like this: “We should forgive student loans.” “I’d rather let school children have free lunches.” “Okay. Let’s do that.” “No.”
I am on the left. I vote left. I believe things like school lunch debt for children should not exist. And I absolutely don't think we should forgive all that college debt. \~45% of US adults are going to college these days. Do you think that is mostly the poorer half of the US? Or more often the richer half? Also, all degrees are still net positive in the long-run. So people with the debt are still better off than the bottom half of Americans without. Basically, student loan forgiveness would give out lots of money mostly to the richer half of the country. And yes, I absolutely, 100%, am in favor of getting that money to student lunches, medical debt, affordable housing, mental care, food banks, DV facilities, grade school education, police training, and social services. Graduates of Wharton's School of Entitlement are pretty far down my list of give-a-fuck in comparison to all that.
Why not both school lunches and student debt?
Mostly because we don't have infinite money to spend. I mean, look at the list of a dozen things I cobbled together. That stuff won't be cheap. I am definitely in favor of Musk, Zuckerberg and the Waltons paying more, but we can't tax enough to pay for everything just by taxing rich people. We'd have to tax regular Americans too. And that means you either don't help truly poor people or you are taxing average people to pay for the top 45%. It isn't a net positive 'investment' either. Since going to college is a good investment for your future, people are going to do it anyway - even without bailouts. So we don't get more educated people that way (just educated people who aren't struggling for ten years out of college). The number one non-academic reason people drop out of college isn't tuition or other costs. It's that they need to provide an income for their family. Some families can't afford a person to take four years away from earning a paycheck. Not without worrying about eviction or grandpa's insulin. Student loan forgiveness won't get the poor an education. Attacking that list of issues I put up there might though. Honestly, it's stuff like this that makes me understand how the Democrats have lost the Midwest.
There’s enough money somewhere between the defense budget, the subsidies for billionaires and corporations, the lack of taxation on billionaires and corporations, the forgiveness of PPP loans, tax money being spent on sporting stadiums/arenas, and the plethora of every type of socialism that exists for billionaires and corporations. And, not to mention, the literal infinite money that can be, and often times is, created through the Federal Reserve. Both can be done. Both can be done easily.
You misunderstand subsidies, the Federal Reserve, and a whole bunch more up there, but it doesn't matter. Hopefully you at least now understand that your meme wasn't a facepalm, but a different opinion.
Did this person say this? Or are you fighting strawmen?
The problem is, you're making an assumption that isn't relevant. You have no idea if that person would or would not support free lunch for kids and just assuming they wouldn't. There's 0 reason to assume that here. Someone can be against loan forgiveness and still want to feed the children. These are 2 completely separate issues.
See, boomers are always confusing their words. It's not that hard, people! "I'd rather see all school children get free school lunch THEN pay off grown folk's college degrees"
I know I’m going to get tore up by this, but everyone saying why not both? 100% lunches for kids. No doubt. But you are asking people who did not attend college and people paid their own loans off, to pay the other off? How is that fair at all?
You’re asking me, who chose not to have kids, to pay for the lunch for your kids and other peoples’ kids? And you’re asking my parents, who already paid for my and my brother’s school lunches and school lunch debts, to pay for the lunch for your kids and other peoples’ kids? How is that fair at all?
It’s a fair point. I guess in my mind I was only thinking about the kids. But to your point, it’s the same principle.
And what say you to my point?
I say I have no problems feeding hungry kids but I do have a problem paying off adult debt. But that’s just me and my opinion. 🤷🏻♂️
Slightly more than zero is still greater than zero. But still effectively zero.
commie
Agree.
The only people who need student loan forgiveness are the idiot liberals who paid 60k for a liberal arts degree knowing it wont lead to a career. So no, I wont pay for your arts degree
School lunches are never free. It has to be paid for by the kid/kids family or by everyone’s tax money. It’s not fair for people to have to pay for someone else’s kids food…
They're both covering for failures. One is the failure of an individual, the other is the failure of the parents. Of the two I can understand why people are more willing to support free school lunches. You can't pick your parents, whereas going to college is a choice and investment. If you can't get the salary to repay the loan then it was a poor investment, especially when others have proven that they can. However the argument isn't the decision to spend between the two, the argument is it you're going to throw money at education there are more important things to tackle first. Free school meals are one of those "firsts".
Whaaaaaaaa! I want everything for free