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
[–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

    Free government provided food is a benefit. This is not even remotely debatable. It’s a benefit provided to low income earners. The middle class don’t get it. The upper class don’t get it. That would make it a benefit.

    I think you’re getting stuck on the word “benefit”, hence your use of the word “privilege”. Government Benefits are not privileges. The word benefit has multiple meanings, one of which is an advantage or profit - but the other is a payment or gift made by an employer/state/etc.

    Being born into a wealthy family comes with lots of benefits.

    Being poor qualifies you for some government benefits.

    The word benefit in those 2 sentences does not mean the same thing.

    I don’t get any government benefits because I earn too much money. Free food would be a benefit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 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 2 months ago* (17 children)

    Im “getting hung up on semantics” because the word being used incorrectly is literally the entire point of this chain of comments. Words have meanings, and “government benefits” are not the same as “privileges” or just “benefits”.

    Food stamps are a government benefit. Full stop. End of story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 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 2 months ago (15 children)

    Free food is not a human right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 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 2 months ago (13 children)

    No you’re not lol. Why do you think you are?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 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 2 months ago (11 children)

    And that’s why it’s a government benefit and not a human right. Human rights apply to everyone at all times.

    From what I’ve read, the new rules are trying to make sure that only people who really need the “free” food are getting it. If the states won’t keep records and means test to ensure this, their federal funding will reduce and the state will have to use their own money to make up the difference.

    As someone who detests government waste and fraud, that sounds like a good thing. Tax revenue isn’t something that should be wasted. Every person getting handouts from tax money should be properly vetted to make sure they actually qualify/need it.

    Every cent of government spending should be audited and publicly available. The only people against that are people who benefit from the waste/fraud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 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 2 months ago (9 children)

    If they’re being spent feeding children who live in households who can afford to feed them but are fraudulently getting taxpayer funded food, then that’s taking food off the plate of a kid who’s parents genuinely can’t afford it. That’s what needs to stop, and that’s what the new laws are trying to do - make sure the money goes to those who need it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 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 2 months ago (7 children)

    We all needed someone to go to war with Iran, because Iran have been preparing to launch a war on the entire western world for decades, and no one has done anything to stop them.

    I don’t think people on here understand the situation with Iran. They despise the west. They want everyone in the west dead. They have been enriching uranium, despite even previous democrat administrations saying they must never be allowed to while doing nothing to actually enforce it, to make nukes to launch at the west. It’s not to protect themselves, it’s to attack.

    There is no next generation if the west is a nuclear desert.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 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 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Iran is an aggressor. They will literally tell you this themselves lol

    The west don’t want everyone who doesn’t have their same religious beliefs dead. Can’t say the same about Iran and most of the Middle East.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 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 2 months ago* (3 children)

    I’m not immune to propaganda, though I’m smart enough to see through almost all of it at least, but I’m also not just going to ignore facts. Their official religion calls for the death of everyone that doesn’t follow Islam, among other grotesque and deplorable things, and their regime has a pretty good history of trying to make good on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 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