I don't understand how you can say "you have to have a kid even if you can't support it" when it comes to abortion and then say "I don't want my taxes to help pay for your kid's food" when it comes to food assistance. The consequence is obviously going to be food insecurity for kids, why would you not want your tax money to help fix that? 8.4% of US kids are food insecure.

[–] Kingofthezyx@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, it makes perfect sense when you realize these people view kids as nothing more than instruments of economic growth - forcing parents to work in conditions they don't want to, to make ends meet. And nowadays, even lowering working age and working conditions for the kids themselves to force them to work as well. They are purely pro-capitalism and they want the kids to be forced to be born so there will be a steady supply of meat for the grinder. It's that simple.

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe that's what corpos want, but I think the average american Republican is just so braindead hyper-individualistic that they don't quite grasp the consequences of their own philosophy. Seems like it's just "take care of yourself, I don't want to have to hear about you", full stop with 0 consideration for what that actually means.

[–] Kingofthezyx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I suppose I could have clarified by differentiating between "Republican leaders" and "Republican followers" - the latter group being largely irrelevant to discussion because they'll believe and regurgitate whatever the first group tells them to. So by "they" in this case, I mean billionaires, politicians, and "influencers" of those philosophies

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)