- 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.
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.