- 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.
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.