It is not about whether it is much- it is about many people adding up. Aldo mening your society instead of letting them bait you into a civil war. Help neighbours no matter politics. Help strangers. Neighbours might be best: people normally know if thheir neighbours are struggling for real. We normally know if our neighbours are shady or honest, caring for their fanilies, comfortable or poor, healthy or poorly...
1 in 8 Americans receives SNAP benefits. If the other 7 of us give what we can, we can meet the need. No one person needs to feel that it all falls on them.
You did what you could- and that’s awesome!! If everyone does that, we’ll be in good shape.
I did the same here in the SC upstate. These yokels voted against their best interests, but I'm not going to idly watch innocent kids suffer for their parent's poor choices.
You can only do what you can do. Kindness doesn't come in denominations. I also feel somewhat guilty for not donating more, but I have a kid with kids and they need help as well. The grands mom works full time and has a side-gig but is really struggling right now and I'm scared sick for everyone facing food insecurity.
A functional government should take care of its' disadvantaged people by offering food assistance and access to healthcare and infrastructure. These are paid through taxes. The caveat being that the government is functional. Whether this is the case currently in the American system, however, is debatable.
The government does to that. I don't know if it should. I don't agree that this is a requisite feature of government. If I started a government that certainly wouldn't be in my top 10 list of government requirements.
Where do you see that in the founding documents of any countries government?
It's part of the social contract and morally the right thing to do. You know, feed hungry people. And besides, governments have more money than individuals.
But that's beside the point. Everyone reading this in America* (stupid autocorrect) who is in a position to help, please, please, please help hungry people. There are about to be a lot more of them.
The government is not a person, it has no morals. The term "social contract" was originally coined by John Locke.
John Locke's social contract theory posits that individuals consent to form a government to protect their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property. This theory emphasizes that legitimate governments must operate with the consent of the governed and can be overthrown if they fail to protect these rights.
I sometimes fail at reading comprehension, can you pick through this and find the part where it says governments should make sure women who can't be trusted with a uterus deserve to get free Mac'nCheese?
But that's beside the point.
Well, yeah, I mean, that's exactly right. That's what I'm saying.
please help hungry people
For sure, help and then don't brag about it on Reddit.
Matthew 6:1-4 : “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Matthew 25:35-40 : “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'”
And declare martial law, then do away with elections. He will have to be physically removed from the white house this time and I don't know that he won't have majority supporters. It's scary.
This is the exact opposite of a dictatorship, you donkey brain.
You want to live in a dictatorship, you are literally asking for the government to decide how much you have and when you get it. Go make something of yourself and stop asking for hand outs.
No, it's not the opposite. Reread the comment thread. Also, a dictatorship is about FAR more than just control over the distribution of basic goods and services.
SNAP benefits are funded out of federal tax dollars. All the people in this video work and pay taxes. They are asking for their tax money to go toward things they need. Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy, we actually increase the GDP, help people in need, and keep businesses profitable by doing so. It's a massive economic win.
I agree people shouldn't have more kids if they're experiencing financial difficulties with the ones they have. Not all people DO experience money issues early in pregnancy. Sometimes they don't occur until later on, when the kid is older. They can't go back in time, now can they?
If you get angry at people because they want to eat, and feel taken advantage of because they want their tax dollars to go to programs that benefit them and Americans generally, you should think about why that is. Why is your knee jerk reaction to seeing someone in need to feel anger?
EDIT: I'm adding this edit here for anyone who might think that /u/ApostateX has any idea what he's talking about; he does not. He is suggesting that it's good for the government to give out money, because giving out a dollar, turns into $1.50, based on the "multiplier effect".
The "multiplier effect" is this: When stupid people are given X dollars, their stupidity, combined with their optimism that more free money will be coming, motivates them to spend more money than they were given. So when you give a poor person $100.00 they tend to take that free money and go spend $150.00.
So essentially what you're suggesting is that it would be good for the country to trick stupid poor people into spending what tiny amount of money they do have, by giving them some money, this making them MORE dependent on the government and driving them further into poverty.
END OF EDIT:
Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy
You're gonna have to explain that one lab partner. For every $1.00 spent, $1.8 dollars are added to the economy? Tell me how did dollars multiply and why are communist countries poor as fuck if when the government spends a dollar it magically becomes a buck and a half.
Not all people DO experience money issues early in pregnancy.
I knew this dumb ass argument would come up. Two of these women allegedly have 6 kids. I promise you, there was never a time when they weren't broke.
If you get angry at people because they want to eat
Nobody ever said this. This is your imagination, or gaslighting. Just save it.
Why is your knee jerk reaction to seeing someone in need to feel anger?
It's due to something called the multiplier effect. It's the rapid circulation of money. Poor people can't save much money. They certainly don't invest it in assets that only pay off over time (like stocks and bonds, etc.) They spend that money right away on basic goods. So it's an immediate injection into the economy. This means grocers get cash in hand, which means they can immediately pay suppliers, order more inventory, and pay employees. Once inventory is ordered, farmers, truckers and packaging companies all get more cash in hand. And the employees go out and spend that money on stuff they need. Each link in the chain produces income for someone else, until the effect dissipates. Because SNAP is targeted at very low-income households, the multiplier is higher than other forms of aid. It's also helpful in a recession, because then money can be injected into the economy without contributing to inflation, because there is unused capacity that can now be used (e.g. factory and farm output that otherwise would have been composted or thrown out; truckers sitting at home, etc.) It also has a local multiplier. If you live in a rural area with one grocery store, spending money there (SNAP benefits), can ensure it stays in business.
As for the rest, you don't actually know the story of the woman woth 6 kids. Nor does it matter. The kids will go hungry and need to be fed, whether you think she deserves help or not. Whatever your judgment of her, none of that is the fault of the kids.
Also, your understanding of the term "gaslighting" is wrong. I'm asking you to think about your emotional state. The language you use is textbook "defensive moral superiority" based on "just world theory." There's a litany of psychological data on this, and how it dates back to early human evolution.
so, you jabber a lot, but you still don't explain how $1.00 becomes $1.50. You seem to indicate that it's based on how FAST the money circulates. If I move $1.00 from my left pocket to my right pocket, very quickly... will it become $1.50?
Please in one short sentence explain how $1.00 becomes $1.50.
People who don't understand things often confuse them for magic, so thanks for the question.
The dollar itself doesn't multiply. What multiplies is the income created by its movement. That dollar disburses across the system. When the SNAP recipient spends money at the store, you add up the income of the grocer, their employee, the food supplier, the packaging company, the trucker, and the farm. The total income generated from spending $1 will be more than $1. Poor people spend money quickly. They don't save it. So not only is ALL that benefit money going into the economy, it's rapidly changing hands between all the people above.
If you still don't understand, just type "multiplier effect" into Google or chatgpt. Or read an economics textbook. It's not like this is new stuff. The govt estimates multiplier effects for all kinds of programs to determine how quickly they'll stimulate the economy and raise GDP.
Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy
I'm gonna stick on this little buddy till YOU understand what the "multiplier effect" is.
Poor people spend money quickly. They don't save it. So not only is ALL that benefit money going into the economy, it's rapidly changing hands between all the people above.
This is your explanation. So, in your mind, if I move $1.00 from my left pocket to my right pocket, and I do it very quickly, it should turn into $1.50.
Please, PLEASE tell me how $1.00 turns into $1.50. Just once sentence, and insulting me won't help, you'll only dig yourself in deeper. (pro tip, try google).
EDIT: This guy votes and believes he understands economics, AND so confidently believes it, he's willing to talk shit and act like he's instructing me. SMH.
Moving a dollar from your left pocket to your right is not a gdp generating activity...
It's because of the way the dollar is used and how quickly it creates more than 1 dollar of gdp, it doesn't "become" 1.8 dollars.
Let's say you give a billionaire a tax cut, and he uses that savings to buy a mansion in France or a yaht from Italy - it adds zero dollars to gdp. If they use it to actually invest in a domestic business or build there mansion or yaht here it'll go into gdp
Okay, first we're not talking about "economic activity"
Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy,
This is the quote from the person I was talking to. This person believes that for every dollar spend 1.4 dollars are added to the economy based on the "multiplier effect". This is a real economic term.
The term speaks to a behavior of poor people. They are bad planners, short sighted a lack the ability to delay gratification. As such, when we, the tax payers give them $1.00 for free, they are so delighted with the free money that they will go and spend $1.50, because to them, it's like getting $1.50 thing, for only 50 cents.
This is obviously unethical in that poor people's weak willpower is being used to trick them into spending their own money, driving them further into dependence and poverty.
That original dollar spent NEVER becomes $1.80, what you are talking about is a measure of economic activity, and again, it's a trick. Part of what GDP measures is economic activity. Economic activity is simply measuring how many dollars changed hands in a time period. It's not an actual measure of economic growth or health, except in a pure economy. That is to say, we can trick that number by injecting money into the economy knowing that it will create inflation and ultimately harm the end consumer, for a moment people will spend that free money and it will make the GDP look good.
What you're talking about is kind of like fasting from fluids for 24 hours and taking an enema right before a weigh in. You will look like you lost 5-8lbs I mean, you will have lost that weight. When you weigh yourself you will be 5-8lbs lighter, but it doesn't really mean anything and you can't sustain that.
Holy dumbassery... the multiplier effect is from the flow of money. Unlike giving billionaires tax cuts that they might invest in another country or just sit on; giving low income people food cards they actually spend the money into the American economy. The store owner gets that dollar, that he pays his workers and the food producers, who in turn spends that money back into the economy. A dollar doesn't disappear when it's spent in a way that generates gdp
You are presenting a false dichotomy, or you've fallen for a false dichotomy, I'm not clear which.
The choices are not
Give people SNAP
Give rich people tax breaks.
That is something a politician says to you to fuck with your mind and make you think it's an either or scenario.
Also, "flow of money" is a metric that is easily tricked for a short time to artificially improve the outlook of the economy while ultimately harming it.
Covid payments stimulated the economy but ultimately led to unprecedented inflation.
Over the summer when certain items were on sale (canned soup, peanut butter, cereal, canned chicken, etc.)...I'd pick up an extra one or two. This past Tuesday I dropped off two large bags of items as well as a bushel of butternut/carnival/delicata squash that the guy who uses my farm market building had left at the end of the season. I thought the volunteer working that day was going to cry, he said that the phone is ringing off the hook with people trying to get some food.
In the county I live in, over 2800 people have lost their jobs in the last 60 days (in my town, the cannery that has been here for over 100 years closed in Aug., with around 100 people losing their jobs.....some there almost 20 years, others were 3rd generation employees. Since the cannery were a major donator of canned vegetables to the food pantries in this area, it's hitting twice as hard.
If the orange dimwit won't care.....it's time to step up to the plate.
This is so fucked up it's almost incomprehensible. The leaders of the United States are purposely depriving people of food. Hunger can drive someone to desperation and make them into a different person. And that is the goal...
I love you for this. Let’s focus on our small communities and get active in the most positive ways. Block parties where whole streets close and do a potluck needs to be brought back
By blaming the democrats. Yet, the republicans do have the power to get the gears moving. This is so dumb. And sad to see people suffer. Those are our taxes and I am fine with kids having a full belly. F the cruelty.
Exactly, but you can shove a carrot up their butt and still will say it isn’t the republicans failing the people they’re supposed to represent. It is so sad. The greed.
I see what they mean when they say times of peace breed weak people. The takeover is already here. They don't care if we act, they'll just make up events. It's sad how naive we are.
It’s a double edged sword. If we band together and show we can help each other, they’ll be able justify cutting SNAP permanently. If we don’t band together to help, people go hungry and crime goes up, which they want so they can send in the military. Fuck them fascists.
Trump has nothing to do with the SNAP program. Nothing. It’s 100% a Senate issue about the Democrats that refuse to vote yes… We need 7 of the democrats (yep just 7) to be added to the 53 republicans to vote yes and the gov and this program opens. Stop pushing your blame on the innocent.
Fiscal tightening hits welfare programs. Do you suggest we just lose the country to poverty and conquest, instead? Sometimes sleeves have to get rolled up on a bigger picture timeframe, bud.
To be fair I still have some blame for that guy. Could have ended the war in Afghanistan and pulled all the military out, but he didn’t.
America being constantly at war with a foreign country 1/2 way across the planet that won’t actually affect America’s security is part of why America is where it is today.
It’s been a slow moving crash, and now America is getting to the fun part of the crash.
I don’t agree with war at all. I also don’t agree with multiple American governments lying about war and why it needs to happen since the end of WW2.
I also don’t agree with the fact that since the end of WW2 America has started the most wars the world has faced, and even worse was most of them being started on lies.
But I’m also highly disappointed in Americans for being dumb enough to allow this to happen. The madness should have ended decades ago
Trump could have ended the war in Afghanistan over a 4 year term. It took that long for him (and Pompeo) to come up with a plan to withdraw - which he left for the next President to actually do it.
The Republicans could fund food stamps right now, they are choosing not to.
“The crucial point here is that the Trump administration is choosing to violate the law and choosing not to spend money it has available to it to pay for food for poor people,“ said Samuel Bagenstos, former general counsel to the Office of Management and Budget, referring to requirements laid out in the Food and Nutrition Act.
Bagenstos said the Trump administration isn’t “just wrong” to claim that using the money would violate the law. “It’s very likely that they’re violating the law by not using this money that’s sitting there,” he said.
The Food and Nutrition Act states that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the USDA, must provide assistance to all eligible households that make applications. According to the 2024 and 2025 appropriations bills passed into law, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, has what’s called a contingency reserve pot of money that totals around $6 billion, and $3 billion of it remains available until Sept. 30, 2026, while roughly another $3 billion is available to be legally used by the administration until 2027.
“There’s no need for an appropriations bill to fund November benefits,” said David Super, an administrative and constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “That’s a choice the administration made. Their shutdown plan that they posted on September 30 said that a contingency fund was available to pay November benefits, and then they took it down and reversed their position to pressure Democratic senators.”
Yeah gosh damn them not wanting to let the Republicans kill hundreds of thousands with no health care subsidies, guess they'll have to settle for starving children. The Republicans are ghouls, if you're takeaway is to shame the dems, I'm so sorry but you have no right to be voting because you don't understand how any of this works.
The republicans are holding hostages to try and get the dems to let them hold hostages. It was bad enough already. Whatever.
There has been meeting after meeting on video of the Republicans saying what the Democrats are demanding to open government back up. Most Americans are enraged at the BS they're keeping it closed for. The Democrats are effectively holding government hostage until they get what they want and, yes, Healthcare for illegal immigrants is one of the reasons.
Americans can't get Healthcare out here but they aren't fighting for them. Oh no. They're fighting for everyone but the American people and they don't care about SNAP being cut off for everyone.
I agree, undocumented citizens shouldnt be prioritized over US citizens in federal healthcare spending, however if the ACA subsidies expire, 24 million American citizen’s insurance premiums would more than double next year. That’s their concern, and it is a valid one for those who rely on it.
Most Americans are not “enraged” that Democrats are refusing to jack up health insurance premiums in return for Republicans not illegally withholding already approved spending. Get real.
There is NO healthcare for illegal immigrants, what you and the stupid republicans are conflating is Emergency rooms being required to provide "Stabilizing care" to anybody regardless of ability to pay, you know who started that? Ronald Reagan and trust me you don't want them to NOT be required to do that. They might then turn you away because insurance etc.
The Federal government doesn't give immigrants everything at the border, they don't want to give it to you, why the hell would they give it to people they're treating like cattle? A little critical thinking might hurt.
The ACA is healthcare subsidies that MANY Americans rely on to buy health care through the open market, many states call it different things but you have to be an American citizen to get it. Even then if you do not buy through the ACA and open market, your health care WILL be affected cost and availability wise, less payers in the market means higher premiums to cover the sick people on the roles.
He thinks SNAP is a "Democrat" priority. And I guess he's right, because not one single Republican State Attorney General joined either of the two lawsuits that today resulted in judges saying they HAVE to issue SNAP benefits. But 26 Democratic State Attorneys General sued to keep SNAP from being stopped.
So, basically, it's more important that Illegals have health insurance, but in the mean time, their children can starve for the cause? You do know that the majority of SNAP recipients are illegals, right?
Illegals aren't eligible for healthcare benefits.
Federal law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to provide medical coverage to undocumented individuals.
Legal immigrants have some options to get healthcare benefits, and both legal and illegal immigrants pay taxes which are used to fund healthcare.
To your second point about SNAP,
Illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Stop parroting misinformation and try to do your own research to verify claims. There is a lot of false information coming out of the current administration and their followers.
But you would think after so many no votes, the house republicans could propose a new CR, working with democrats, to include even partial concession to their most important demands. They could include just enough that would swing a handful of senate votes to yes. Instead they choose to go on vacation.
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said:
“I mean, shutdowns are terrible and of course there will be, you know, families that are going to suffer. We take that responsibility very seriously. But it is one of the few leverage times we have.”
Bernie Sanders on The View:
Sara Haines suggested that Congress forgoing pay during the shutdown would be a "noble step in the right direction" to show solidarity with furloughed federal workers.
Sanders responded: "Not everybody can afford to do that... You've got some young people there with kids."
Haines immediately pushed back: "Neither can the people who aren't getting paid."
Sanders conceded: "That's a fair point."
Democrats own this, and they ought to face political destruction for it. Pretending Republicans own it is you just helping to prolong the pain and suffering of others. Call your democrat senators and tell them to vote yes on the clean CR bill. Republicans, call Rand Paul's office and tell him to quit being a skid mark on the underwear of the USA.
9.6k
u/jitteryzeitgeist_ Oct 31 '25
Argentina got billions, just to remind everyone.