this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026

230 points (99.6% liked)

politics

26915 readers

2195 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

230

Trump administration reportedly freezes all childcare payments to all states (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 20 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Trump official says funds will be released ‘only when states prove they are being spent legitimately’

The changes to US childcare services as part of a response to a viral video, made by a self-described “independent journalist” and rightwing influencer, that purported to discover massive fraud at daycare centers operated by Somali Americans in Minneapolis.

However, other news outlets have not been able to verify the claims made in the video. Allegations of exploitation of Minnesota's social safety net have also been extensively covered by local and national news media over the past several years, and prosecutors brought charges over one allegedly massive scheme during the Biden administration.

In recent weeks, Trump has intensified his xenophobic attacks on Somali Americans, including his long-running nemesis Ilhan Omar, a representative from Minnesota who is Somali American and came to the US as a refugee. He has said that Omar is "garbage" and said Somalia is "no good for a reason".

top 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pleaseletmein@lemmy.zip 9 points 5 hours ago

The president has a documented history of liking it when kids get fucked.

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

This country so desperately wants loads of children, but makes it so challenging to support the kids

[–] h3ll3rsh4nks@ani.social 6 points 5 hours ago

It's because they want the children to yern for the mines. THAT'S what "make America great again" REALLY means.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

They want fetuses because that makes jeebus happy

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

As long as Elon can afford his 50th yacht and fund a robot army for himself, that’s the most important thing.

[–] bender223@lemmy.today 34 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The GOP motto is, "fuck them kids"

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Love a fetus though.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 29 points 13 hours ago

When he's not fucking kids one way, he's fucking them another.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 74 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Project 2025. So that women will have to stay home.

Ain't gonna go like they think it will.

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Why won't it? Because I think it will. Americans are complacent.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

How would it? Just because they have an insane idea doesn't mean A actually does lead to B.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 25 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Women are not having babies anymore. And more and more of us are taking a very firm stand on this.

[+] I_Jedi@lemmy.today -13 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I dunno about that. Even if being a minor is a crime punishable by summary execution, people will still pop out more humans anyway. Nothing but complete infertility of the human race can stop that.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

You do know that worldwide birthrates have dropped dramatically in the last few years, right? For example it is estimated that by 2050 China will have about 600 million people. There are still babies being made but not to the extent there should be this is why the birthrate is declining.

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

Of course I do. But they haven't fallen enough.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What do you mean by "should be"

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago

Looks like "at replacement rate", which is a little over 2 for humans overall since we're a near-even split on sex and not every human born will have children.

China's per-uterus replacement rate is probably substantially higher than other countries, due to an unintended effect of their "one child" policy.

They've known that their population is too huge for decades, and if they manage to drop down to USA-equivalent levels for their habitable size without become a failed state it'll be the single greatest achievement of a communist state towards world peace.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

We should start feeding all the dead bodies to sharks.

The oceans would have so many sharks.

Sharks, as far as the eye can see. Ah. What a world that would be.

Hammerhead sharks. Nurse sharks. Great white sharks. Reef sharks. So many sharks.

Edit:

SHARKS!

Sharks?

Where?

They're over here and over there, in fact they're everywhere!

They're in the rivers in the sea, why there's sharks! Sharks! As far as the eye can so. Oh what a world that would be.

But Fred, I don't see any sharks around, this might be in your head. Are confused? Are you concussed? Have you been fooled? Is this a ruse? Fred? Fred!?

They haven't been born yet Mark, but look around this lovely park, it's full of old ones, covered in gold bond, they're not long for this earth, and then what is their worth?

Mark, mark, just think about the people in this park, their walkers gone without a song to sing with mouths or hearts. Should we bury them in stinking earth or burn them in Fort Worth?

There's one solution that I see, it's sharks, and mankind's future's there in shimmering seas.

When it's my time to depart this earth, my body's lost its only worth, so wait until the night is dark and throw me to the sharks.

The sharks, the sharks, they'll feed on human flesh and breed and choke the rivers and the seas, this I ask my dearest Fred, that you do when I'm dead, the shark, the sharks, that's the burial for me.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 21 points 15 hours ago

But they aren't ....

Birth rate is lowest in history.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 15 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The statistics show that you're mostly wrong. Yes of course some births will continue, but the birth rate has dropped and will continue to do so. Just look at Japan or South Korea to see how it looks.

[–] Xander707@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago

Daycare is woke. Just another obvious win for the average American and MAGA voter.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 15 points 15 hours ago

It’s like taking candy from a baby. In that it is taking food from babies.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 15 points 15 hours ago

Gotta pay for the tax cuts for billionaires somehow.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 51 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

This will definitely encourage more people to have kids.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 31 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

The US is just speed running Japan in the 90s so they can have a couple of lost decades and lose all significance in the world.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

By design.

[–] DrDickHandler@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

This is more than lost decades. America isn't rec9vering from this.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Ooh! Can we get the deflation too??

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Deflation to wages? Sure.

Everything else will stay expensive.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

OK but they were having the wrong KIND of kids

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 19 points 17 hours ago

Because that's what a total asshole would do.

Anyway....all sorts of meat products have vegan food smeared all over them... Like ketchup! In your face everyone! You guys thought you were being funny. In reality we vegans have been trolling your ass the entire time! So don't worry, you're not as big an asshole as the guy taking childcare services away.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 19 hours ago

Is that how the law was written for disbursements?

[+] BigBolillo@mgtowlemmy.org -62 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Maybe people should think about how they will afford a child before having it..

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 2 points 2 hours ago

If people were to say that people shouldnt have kids because of most other unchosen life circumstances (for example, "you shouldnt have kids because you belong to a cultural/ethnic group that we dont like"), that sentiment would be seen as prejudice. If one was to go further and suggest that government policy should reflect this, that policy would be seen as an injustice. But if people say "you shouldnt have kids because you're poor", that's somehow seen as wisdom, and advocating that government policy reflect this by cutting off support systems is somehow seen as an acceptable position to hold. Given that people dont exactly choose to be poor, I find this inconsistent.

In any case, kids are not merely some expensive luxury. They are both something that any society needs a certain number of to sustainably function (since obviously, a society simply cant exist without people, and people dont live forever), and which represent a significant amount of generally unpaid labor to raise. Not everyone needs to have them, and some people just arent good with them or dont want them, but when your society's birthrate is below what is sustainable in the long run, telling some of the people that actually do want to have kids not to, because you expect those people to pay for everything themselves without help from the society that eventually needs those people, is a stupid policy, and not exactly fair. Why should everyone else get to avoid the consequences of an aging and declining society, but expect only those that choose to be parents to pay for that?

[–] Ach@lemmy.world 37 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You can work a forty hour work week, live responsibly, pay all your bills and taxes on time, etc, and still be below the poverty line in America. You can have kids while financially stable and get hurt or sick. You could have kids and your spouse could die.

This is a foolish, uneducated comment.

[+] BigBolillo@mgtowlemmy.org -48 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

Isn't foolish, it's just common sense.. if you can't afford kids why will you have them in the first place?

I mean it's 2026 isn't like birth control was invented yesterday.

[–] Ach@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Ah, so you can't read. You are uneducated.

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 32 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You paid absolutely ZERO attention to the comment Ach made.

Your situation today is NOT guaranteed to be your situation tomorrow. You can afford kids today and get hit by a bus tomorrow, and now you can't. Don't pretend to be so thick you don't understand how circumstances can change beyond one's control.

[–] Ach@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

I want to refine my comment.

He is a foolish, uneducated person.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 8 points 14 hours ago

Right. Except that half of pregnancies are unplanned... Not sure where that takes your reasoning.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 22 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What about the people who thought about it, budgeted the payments into those plans but now can’t afford the children because of the unforeseeable changes?

[–] Xander707@lemmy.world 17 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t think the person you are responding to has nearly enough brain cells to comprehend such an obvious follow up question.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 13 points 15 hours ago

I mean yes they’re on a ‘men going their own way’ instance of Lemmy so you’re probably not wrong.