Subium • Bluesky web client
subium.com
    • reaper_cushions [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      31·
      4 days ago

      This is basically the rationale behind Prussia’s first laws on child labour. Some general whined about the lack of “valid” recruits to the king, as most young men were physically and/or mentally broken from having worked for a decade or so by the time they reached military age. Glad to see a return to the early to mid 19th century from the progressive half of the US.

  • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    31·
    4 days ago

    What if all the SNAP recipients had enough income to buy food without subsidies? Ik crazy idea. Paying them more would also be just as effective for “farmers” and the economy as spending whether private or government creates income.

    Also, capitalism has involuntary unemployment, there simply isn’t enough jobs for everyone to be employed no matter how hard an individual tries and no supply side bs like upskilling will fix that. Only a full employment policy can.

    And even voluntarily unemployed should be provided with food if they can’t afford it.

  • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    31·
    4 days ago

    Liberal to a fascist chud who derives perverse pleasure from watching the poor go hungry: Nooo you don’t understand SNAP is probably the most effective federal dollar we spend in terms of long term domestic economic outcomes

  • SwitchyandWitchy [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    16·
    4 days ago

    So the post linked in that thread does explicitly state that the economic reasons aren’t why SNAP should be supported/funded, and instead that it should “…because it is a moral imperative to feed the hungry.” They specifically say that these arguments are “…why even a growth-oriented ghoul shouldn’t oppose it.” Gotta be honest I don’t really have a problem with what’s being said here in that context. It’s not really different than pointing out what @reaper_cushions@hexbear.net posted here.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      5·
      4 days ago

      The OP mentioned morality. I can’t know if he or anybody else in that thread actually cares. But as I said in a different comment - he named himself after a West Wing reference in Latin. I don’t think he actually cares. But it’s notable that libs only remember the hungry and the needy when they can score political points. Look what the GOP is doing!

  • stink@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    16·
    4 days ago

    47919 skeets?!!?!?!!

    An average of 56 skeets per day, every day, since the creation of their account.

  • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    4 days ago

    The ‘reasoning’ behind thoughts such as the ones libs are having in this thread was a big part of my journey leftward

    It’s one of those things that seems decent at face value, but becomes more and more deranged with any conscious thought or critical examination, which I feel is a great encapsulation of liberalism as a whole. ‘SNAP stamps are important’ turns to ‘because it helps make healthier soldiers’ turns to ‘it’s not a handout because most of them have jobs’

    Which is all absolutely monstrous, because it implies

    1. A social program needs to be justified because of its importance/proximity to (an imperialistic and murderous) military and
    2. A person needs to be gainfully employed to be ‘worthy’ of the state keeping them alive

    It speaks to a widespread, jingoistic attitude in a society which is also infected with the notion that wealth accumulation is to be celebrated

    In summary, burn this shitheap down