Arizona recorded the largest drop in enrollment after the bill became law. The legislation tightened eligibility rules for food assistance and increased state screening requirements. State data through May shows that more than 450,000 Arizonans have come off Snap, cutting overall participation within the state in half.

According to the CBPP analysis, children make up a significant portion of those losing benefits, with more than 1 million children across the 19 states studied no longer receiving Snap assistance.

In Louisiana, nearly one in four children receiving Snap benefits lost assistance. Massachusetts and Texas each saw close to one-fifth of children enrolled in the program removed from Snap.

And further below, the cause for the suffering of children:

The report says the steep decline in participation is likely tied in large part to the 2025 Republican reconciliation law, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which shifted a substantial share of Snap benefit costs to states based on their payment error rates.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -5 points 3 months ago (44 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    It's actually a human right as defined by the UN - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

    Article 25

    Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control

    Goes very nicely with

    Article 22

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality

    Does the US uphold human rights? No. That's the main issue here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Yes. And Elon already is wildly subsidized by the government...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am pointing out that the government already subsidized Elon. What he decides to do with that money has been largely left up to him. So yes, we the people have provided Elon with the housing and feeding of his questionable ideas in the form of Twitter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (12 children)
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    If you work a 40 hour week you should recieve food, shelter, medicine and entertainment.

    I believe this is achievable thanks to the incredible innovation over the past 2 centuries.

    What's absurd is the current system. Where billionaires can extract from nations without giving anything back. It's absurd that food for children is being cut to bomb children on the other side of the world.

    What I believe may sound absurd to you. But look at our reality. It's fucking crazy!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    The collective pays for it through tax collection. The people who already make it will still make it. If you wanted to move you would give up your current house and trade it for a different one.

    Why can you not imagine a better, fairer society?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Yes! It would be extremely difficult but that's the dream!

    There's already millions of empty homes due to capitilism. 100% tax on any income above $100,000,000 would be a start lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Those things are happening right now under capitalism. No system is immune from corruption. That's why it's so important to stamp it out when you see it.

    No one should earn over $100mil full stop. The design is flawed.

    I don't really see the issue. With all our technological advancements, people shouldn't have to work as much as they do. I would love to see people have more time off. Yes some would sit around and do nothing, maybe they need the rest, but I think the majority would get bored and do something they actually wanted to do. In would be a net positive for society. Parents could spend more time with their kids.

    I do understand how hard it would be to achieve. But I believe it's possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    That's just not true though.

    I understand the importance of a CEO. It's a difficult job and requires dedication. But how can you honestly say they deserve to earn x1000 times more than someone who works just as hard but doesn't have the right connections.

    Then there are shareholders. They use their wealth to aquire more wealth. Yes they make decisions about where the company should make investment but they also only care about one thing, portfolio growth. This leads to loopholes in tax laws, private equity gutting companies, attacks on workers rights and criminal cover ups.

    No one earns a billion fairly. Just because you are well off doesn't mean you deserve to be. The notion that 'these people create jobs' is a cop out. These people need to be reigned in.

    I've seen figures saying total billionaire worth is $21trillion. Divided equally, that would give every person on Earth $2500. I don't know about you but that would help me enourmously. And imagine the difference it would make to someone from Iraq or Sudan.

    Obviously it wouldn't make sense to just hand it out like that. It's just an example to show how much wealth is owned by those who don't actually need it. They're not even doing anything useful with it and would still be unfathomably rich if they gave some away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    We police how people spend their money all the time! Taxes! Laws. Life is full of resitrictions. Just because you have money it doesn't mean you're above the law.

    By law you must also contribute to society through taxes. How is it fair that a handful of individuals can buy the presidency to reduce their tax contributions. How is it fair that their companies can lobby the government to bend/break the rules.

    Musk and Bezos have done well. They had innovative ideas and expanded them incrdibly well. They deserve to live in luxury. They could give half their wealth away and still live in luxury.

    I still want to live in a meritocracy where good ideas are rewarded. But the amount of power these individuals have is monstrous. Some of their wealth must be taken away.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (20 children)

    No it is absolutely not a benefit, but a bad solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
    A more proper non propagandist name would be basic food aid.

    The reasons people need food aid are typically things like not being able to get a job or being sick. Needing food aid is not a "privilege" or "benefit", it's a sickness of a malfunctioning society.

    To call it a "benefit" is propaganda to make it seem like an evil system that cater to the rich is benevolent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (19 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (18 children)

    This is a thread about the US governement taking food away from children and you're getting hung up on semantics.

    It's good to know you're privileged enough not to need support from the governement. Others are not so lucky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (16 children)

    Ok fair. SNAP is a government benefit if you must use the technical term. It's not the end of the story though.

    I think there is some truth in the original comment of this thread. They are called government benefits to make people believe they are not entitled to them. When in reality they are your right as a human being.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (14 children)

    It is. It may not be provided in many countries and that is something we should aim to fix, but as a human being you are entitled to free food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    I suppose the caveat is, you have to be unable to afford it to recieve it for free. Like you, I have a high enough income that I'm not entitled to free food. It's good to know that it's available if i fall on hard times though. I'd like to see it expanded not reduced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Ok yeah I see what you mean. Definitely agree about government spending being auditable and public. And obviously wasted taxes are bad. But I'd argue taxes are never wasted on feeding the population, especially children!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    Does the US need a war with Iran. Does it need to invest so heavily in AI. I'd say no. I'd say that money would be far better spent providing support to the next generation. Or literally anything else. Green tech, healthcare, education are far more worthy causes than tax cuts for the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Iran hates the West because the West has been invading the Middle East for hundreds of years. The crusades were a horrendous time. Muslims and Jews lived fairly peacefully in Palestine before the West sent the WW2 european jewish refugees there and created the state of Israel. They did this to establish a base of influence in the region and further the US imperialist conquest. Maybe Iran wants nukes just so the West will leave it alone. Iran is not the aggressor. You are not immune to propaganda. Neither am I of course, I spent many years thinking the West were the good guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    You are not immune to propaganda. The people of Iran do not want all Christians dead, they do not want all Jews dead. They want peace in the region. The US government and it's allies make that very difficult.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Dude wtf are you talking about?? Islam does not call for the death of non believers. You've fallen for propaganda. Muslims are not your enemy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments