- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Those among the 42 million enrolled in the program worry that cutoff of the benefit will send their lives into a tailspin
Across the country, Americans who depend on government help to buy groceries are preparing for the worst.
As a result of the ongoing federal government shutdown, Donald Trump has threatened to, for the first time in the program’s more than 60-year history, cut off benefits provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP). A federal judge last week prevented the US Department of Agriculture from suspending Snap altogether, but the Trump administration now says enrollees will receive only half of their usual benefits.
The Guardian wanted to know how important Snap was to the approximately 42 million people enrolled in the program. Many of those who responded to our callout were elderly, or out of the workforce because of significant mental of physical health issues, and worried that a cutoff of the benefit would send their lives into a tailspin.
Plenty enough of the poor, disabled and elderly in the U.S. failed to vote against Trump such that they caused this.
Let’s completely ignore how Republicans have been rat fucking elections.
So? Still should try to vote. Many millions didn’t bother, and even a small fraction of those votes could have made the difference.
Well, no…a few million in the right places would have made the difference
You know who I blame? The people who’s job it is to mobilize those people to vote, and acted like entitled pieces of shit instead of upholding democracy. It was an unforgivable shit show of two half assed campaigns in a trenchcoat
I blame my lazy and stupid countrymen failing an open book test. You do not need to be coerced to vote against fascism; that’s a lazy stupid take that absolves the citizens of their duty and obligation to be informed and engaged in the civic process, including voting and understanding how our system actually works in practice as well as theory.
If you didn’t vote or voted third party you are very nearly as responsible as the trump voters. It is not the Democratic party’s responsibility to motivate you to save yourself from an existential threat. Blaming them knowing it’s coming makes you stupid and complicit.
Bullshit. The Democrats played chicken with fascism, AGAIN, refused to call it what it was, and then collaborated with the fascists until it became clear they were all going to lose their jobs next election
They literally paved the path for Trump’s victory. They created a situation with so little hope for the future that enough dumbasses desperate for change believed a con man… Again
People with your attitude for the last thirty years enfeebled the Democrats. It is always the people’s fault. Anything else is cope.
The people are incredibly susceptible to propaganda. They’re fucking sheep. Do you realize how few people are actually self conscious?
And here I thought it was the Muslims standing up for Gaza.
Them too. There were so many eligible voters who didn’t bother to vote and the margins were thin. There’s a lot of different groups that could have made the difference.
Harris received 6.8 million votes fewer than Biden received in 2020. Even assuming every single one of those 6.8 million votes were SNAP recipients, you’re essentially saying that 42 million people deserve to go hungry because 3 in 20 (or around 16%) of them chose not to vote in 2024.
Moreover, DJT only received 2.8 million more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. So let’s assume all 2.8 million of those were SNAP recipients, and then let’s assume SNAP recipients entirely determined the election result. 2.8 million + 6.8 million voters is about 22% of all SNAP recipients (or about 1 in 5).
Never mind the fact that around 39% of SNAP recipients are children (i.e. unable to vote).
So 2 children and 3 adults deserve to go hungry if 1 of the adults either doesn’t vote or votes for the wrong person?
Do you realize how incredibly fucking insane you sound?
Actually, you’re the one coming off a bit nutty. No offense.
Everyone who could have voted against trump but didn’t bother is to blame. There’s a pretty big group who are suffer because of trump who didn’t vote against him. Of course there were many who did what they could against trump but still suffer and that sucks, of course. But there’s fuck all we can do about it - except to vote against trump/repubs whenever the opportunity is there. That is the only chance we have left - for today’s elections, and for the midterms. We can’t pussy foot about playing one cause off on another - or being sensitive to those who find it difficult - just get out there and vote.
That’s not how statistics works.
“ThATs NoT hOW sTatIStICS wORks” he says, in the midst of a conversation in which the motion being debated is whether some of the poors not voting correctly means all of the poors deserve to go hungry.
Forgive me if I don’t take your “nuh uh” as a persuasive rationale for starving 16 million kids. You’re clearly the more intelligent of the two of us.
I’m not weighing in on your argument. Just that the case you made is made up of useless statistics making it incredibly easy to dismiss.
Because it was a hypothetical based upon an argument from absurdity.
I know that the statistics were absurd. The premise was, “let’s assume everyone who didn’t show up to vote this time around and everyone that voted for Trump (but didn’t last time) are at fault.”
My goal was not to demonstrate what statistically plausible number of people that were “responsible for Trump winning” that were on SNAP benefits.
My entire point was that even if you do shitty, uncharitable, worst-case-scenario statistics about the election, the original argument would amount to saying 42 million people should go hungry because less than a quarter of them didn’t vote hard enough. My point was that even lying with the numbers would still result in the original premise being flimsy.
Your gripe is that my math is wrong. My gripe is that even shitty math can’t come close to justifying 42 million people thrown off SNAP, which further highlights the assholery of stating “hurr durr didn’t vote hard enough so let them eat cake”.
Your pedantry misses the sarcasm and tone of my response, and—judging from your comment history—is perfectly in line with your MO of dropping one liners designed to be maximally contrarian without contributing further to the discussion.
Like… no shit the real stats are wildly different—they would very likely show that a much smaller number of people who determined the outcome of the 2024 election are currently SNAP recipients. Which, again, would not make the original premise that I was responding to any stronger.
You’re failing at reading comprehension.