• chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    $40 per child per month.

    That’s still not much, but with a little budgeting and meal planning it goes further than you’d think, if not as far as it sometimes needs to.

    I’ve lived on not much more than that per month.

    It does mean zero luxuries, and that might be the worst part of it.

    So I do agree with you that it should be more. We should all have a bit more. No one should ever have to scrip and save in order to eat each month.

    Every man woman and child should be guaranteed food, water, and housing as a minimum.

    • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Okay folks you have $40 to eat on for the next 30 days, and you need as much nutrition as a growing child. What you buying?

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Every man woman and child should be guaranteed food, water, and housing as a minimum.

      The problem with that seems to be that the more a government system tries to provide these things, the worse the market becomes, which ironically makes it less probable that every man, woman and child gets those things.

      (Except water. That’s a natural monopoly when done properly by utilities, so that can and should be provided by government.)

      Dunno if that’s the steelmanned position of the republican lady, but it could be.