News

33010 readers

3073 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

256

Americans ‘dumbfounded by cruelty’ of Trump officials slashing SNAP benefits (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hcf@sh.itjust.works 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

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.