Discussion: House GOP Proposes School Lunch Program For 'Rural' Kids Only

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #223006

2

Racism pure and simple. Why would we expect anything else?

21 Likes
3

They’re such rabid partisan maniacs that they won’t feed hungry children. It defies belief, it really does.

20 Likes
4

Yep. Conservatives even pronounce the word “urban” with the same distain they use when pronouncing “Chicago”, “Detroit”, “thug”, and “food stamps”, among others. They’re all synonyms for the same word.

11 Likes
5

Pushing for a rural/urban divide. Divide and conquer. We all need to stand together for support and equal treatment.

13 Likes
6

And yet, fools that they truly are, they seem not to realize there are quite a few poor black rural children in this country, mainly in their beloved Confederacy.

2 Likes
7

I despise these scum sucking slime ball sorry excuses for human beings.

16 Likes
8

Rural kids should be able to forage.

6 Likes
9

No wonder they don’t want to feed “urban” children; feeding black children would cause black children to grow up, which would cause black adults, which would cause , oh, I don’t know, scary things like hoodies. Benghazi. Gun laws. Abortion. I’m trying for some Republican logic here, but really, it’s practically impossible.

9 Likes
10
"African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits [but] White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent…." -- NYT

Think about that: Poor “white” folks get 2 ½ times the per capita benefits of poor “black” folks.

Also:

"Federal assistance is more likely to go … to rural residents than urban or suburban (62% vs. 54% vs. 53%)" -- The Atlantic

So much for the fantasies of the GOP base, so painstakingly fabricated by Reagan, Atwater, and the current management of the House.

A more-accurate meme (although just as spiteful and demagogic) would be “The Tractor-Driving Welfare Queen”….

29 Likes
11

One word alone explains this happening under the GOP/Teatroll-controlled House:

KLANGRESS.

17 Likes
12

Which is probably why they restricted the program to children in Appalachia. As the article said, that area is overwhelmingly white.

3 Likes
13

Or give 'em some seeds to plant a backyard garden.

1 Like
14

They’re showing their true colors. Or maybe their true flag. If this is a pilot program, as they proclaim, what evidence is there it should only be continued in Alabama - aside from the interesting figures cited by IrasDad above.

But this is the real divide in America - between people who think of themselves as “rural” and those that think of themselves as “urban”. Now, there are a number of the former in nominally urban/suburban areas, and even a few of the latter in rural areas, but that’s where the real split is.

So what do we do. Well for one thing, call it out. Make it clear that the urban and suburban taxpayers of this country, which vastly outnumbers the rural population, are getting screwed, because we’re being bilked by the real takers.

And, get serious about state-level politics again. This year, in 2016, and especially in 2020, when we’ll have a favorable election cycle tied to redistricting. I would love to see every state follow California’s redistricting (and primary) model, but I’m no dreamer. Still, there are ways to recut districts in and around cities that stop the overloading of Democratic votes against too many seats.

8 Likes
15

“…rural…”

So, Republicans want to take my tax dollars and give it to people they choose? What about the kids in my own – perish the thought – urban community?

More taxes for me, right?

Think it’ll work for you?

4 Likes
16

“the GOP bill brings down the $85 million in funding to $27 million and limits the program to only rural kids in Appalachian counties”

I guess poor kids outside of Appalachia don’t get hungry. That’s a good thing to know ya know. I mean, what if I was gonna open a super market there. Wouldn’t do at all if the local population doesn’t eat… Sheesh GOP. would it hurt ya to have some basic humanity?

4 Likes
17

Geeze, Chammy, that should go without saying.[quote=“chammy, post:7, topic:4183”]
scum sucking slime ball sorry excuses for human beings.
[/quote]
And I think you are being far too kind. These people are assuming urban poor kids don’t get hungry, or rather, don’t deserve to eat. How any thinking human being with a shred of decency can bring themselves to vote for these … no, I can’t post that… is beyond my understanding.

8 Likes
18

The only good thing is that they aren’t fooling anybody with this rural/urban thing. I just hope I live long enough to see them go the way of the Whigs, ‘cause its commin’ as sure as a rattlesnake in Wikiup.

5 Likes
19

“It’s not clear to me if this was a fuck-up or if it was plainly mean-spirited or what happened,” said a House Democratic aide. “But we’re going to work to change it.”

In defense of children I’ll dispense with my normal reticence in using certain words. Mr democratic aide, it’s pretty damned obvious to me that this ain’t no fuck up on the GOP’s part. It’s a very deliberate move on their part for rural votes. In this case votes trump kids. It’s more important to these scum suckers to get votes than it is to feed hungry poor children. What have we come to? Are they willing to let children to go hungry just to get elected so that they can get elected and do nothing and pull down $174,000 a year? Shameful sons of bitches.

8 Likes
20

Dems should jump on this and talk about it on every show on every cable news channel. When the question arises as to why the GOP would do this, the answer should always be the same: racism. Then let the GOP blow it’s top and come up with a better answer, which they won’t, but it would provide lot’s of video clips of Rethugs stuttering and stammering, trying to explain away what is obvious. Ah, but the Democrats will never do that…it would be impolite.