Unfortunately there is a large minority of this country that would rather see people starve or be homeless rather than one person trace advantage of a generous and caring system. One side sees...
Unfortunately there is a large minority of this country that would rather see people starve or be homeless rather than one person trace advantage of a generous and caring system.
One side sees helping people as the goal, the other side focuses on making sure no one gets a single penny they don’t need/qualify for.
So called Christian nation. Jesus's great great great [etc] grandmother, king David's grandmother, Ruth relied on gleaning to survive. There was no income verification. Field owner Boaz didn't...
So called Christian nation. Jesus's great great great [etc] grandmother, king David's grandmother, Ruth relied on gleaning to survive. There was no income verification. Field owner Boaz didn't humiliate her by asking for proof of her dead husband and charge her for water and limit how much she could take home.
They really would rather set grain on fire than to see any go to the undeserving.
If you’re a parent, you might remember what happened when schools no longer had to determine eligibility. Not only were many more students eligible for meals, including those who had trouble paying before, but the removal of the layers of bureaucracy just made everything easier. “If you take away that paperwork, it’s such a benefit to families and students. And it also speeds up the lunch line,” says Diane Pratt-Heavner of the School Nutrition Association.
We usually associate critiques of bureaucracy and the complexity of government programs with conservatives, who often argue that government is inherently cumbersome and inefficient. In some cases they’re right — but it’s liberals who have the greatest interest in making government work better. Though some policy areas are unavoidably complicated (health care, for instance), liberals should be on the lookout for places where things can be simplified, because it helps more people and improves the government’s image.
It's this simple: if a government requires its citizens to be in a certain place for a certain amount of time, then the government must provide while the citizens are in that place at that time....
It's this simple: if a government requires its citizens to be in a certain place for a certain amount of time, then the government must provide while the citizens are in that place at that time.
In prison, inmates are fed. So should school children be fed.
Unfortunately there is a large minority of this country that would rather see people starve or be homeless rather than one person trace advantage of a generous and caring system.
One side sees helping people as the goal, the other side focuses on making sure no one gets a single penny they don’t need/qualify for.
So called Christian nation. Jesus's great great great [etc] grandmother, king David's grandmother, Ruth relied on gleaning to survive. There was no income verification. Field owner Boaz didn't humiliate her by asking for proof of her dead husband and charge her for water and limit how much she could take home.
They really would rather set grain on fire than to see any go to the undeserving.
It's this simple: if a government requires its citizens to be in a certain place for a certain amount of time, then the government must provide while the citizens are in that place at that time.
In prison, inmates are fed. So should school children be fed.