this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
109 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18142 readers
4942 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Since Mike Johnson’s recent ascent to House speaker, food insecurity advocates have been sounding the alarm. As Politico reported last week, Johnson is a proponent of more hard-line efforts to overhaul America’s largest anti-hunger program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which currently serves over 40 million people.

In 2018, per the publication, he referred to SNAP as “our nation’s most broken and bloated welfare program.”

[I]t was during the controversial War on Poverty that conservatives really began to focus their attention on food stamps as a political instrument that needed to be either managed or mitigated. Many argued that the program, as well as associated welfare initiatives, would discourage self-reliance and personal responsibility and breed a generation of Americans who were always seeking a handout. This nasty stereotype about people in poverty, especially people of color, was infamously cemented into our nation’s broader consciousness during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign with his popularization of the phrase “welfare queen.”

"There's a woman in Chicago,” he said during a campaign speech. “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000.”

Since then, food insecurity advocates have been attempting to undo the tremendous amount of damage done by that rhetoric. Meanwhile, catalyzed by Reagan’s unflattering stereotype — and perhaps their already-held beliefs that most welfare recipients are fraudulent and undeserving, rather than fellow citizens genuinely in need of government assistance — generations of conservative politicians have attempted to decrease the program’s reach.

In the 1990s, then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a vocal critic of the welfare system, including SNAP, referring to it as a “culture of poverty.” This attitude was heavily reflected in the Trump administration’s plans to tighten eligibility for SNAP (which were ultimately largely unfulfilled), as well as Republicans’ more successful efforts this year, which come at a critical time for hunger in the United States.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 58 points 8 months ago (6 children)

"There's a woman in Chicago,” he said during a campaign speech. “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000.”

Why do I doubt this? Politicians love to trot out examples like this, but they are often made up out of thin air or gross exaggerations. Like maybe they looked up a common name, found 12 people with that name listed, and just assumed it's all the same woman scamming the system. (Like how they assumed that dead people voted because people voted that had the same names as dead people. Because nobody has the same name as anyone else!)

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"There's a woman in Chicago,” he said during a campaign speech. “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000.”

If this is actually true I imagine the FBI or whatever federal agency deals with fraud would love to build a case so why not forward that information on to them?

Oh, right, because this is made up bullshit.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

How dare you light their strawman on fire!

[–] flipht@kbin.social 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Reagan made up a bunch of shit. He had Alzheimer's, and people would tell him things. Either he willfully misrepresented or was beginning to lose the ability to sift fact from fiction.

He also claimed that vets were spit on when they came back, but they didn't come back from Vietnam through normal commercial airports, and there was a vibrant internal military protest movement, which everyone knew about. No one was spitting on random soldiers, and in the event that it happened once, it wasn't an organized zeitgeist like they tried to make it out to be.

Regressives are liars.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Wow, even with all that scanning, she's still not as much of a leech as billionaires and executives. You could scam the government for a million a day, and you still won't get close to the money the government freely gives away to rich people.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yes. Exactly. You can always tell when they all use the same examples or if the story sounds too perfect.

I'm sure there ARE people that have found ways to take advantage of the system. But are those outliers enough of a reason to dismantle the whole system? It sounds like we have ways of finding those individuals if we found them in order to parade those cases around.

I'm happy to pay into a safety net that works to end domestic hunger. Who the fuck cares if .005% goes to some assholes.

Pretty sure the asshole to charity ratio is a lot higher in corporate bailouts, the state taxes that go to "crisis pregnancy" centers, public tax school vouchers for private schools, rich dickbag tax loopholes, wage theft, etc. etc. Let's go find those wankers instead of harassing a bunch of hungry people and making them jump through hoops. The administration of those hoops probably costs more than the scammers.

[–] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Why do I doubt this?

Because Reagan said it.

[–] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Because Reagan completely fabricated this.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (1 children)

our nations most broken and bloated welfare program

Nah, that would be the fossil fuel industry subsidies.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What about the military industrial complex?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's as or even more broken and bloated, but I didn't feel comfortable calling it a welfare program since part of it is victims of propaganda dying for what they thought was a good cause rather than MIC profits..

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 25 points 8 months ago (1 children)

a culture of willful ignorance and a complete lack of empathy. this isnt a problem... its a feature of the republican party.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

GOP Party Slogan (2024):

Good news everyone, the beatings will continue until morale improves!

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago

"How did it become a hot button issue?"

In the article: "Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign"

Oh.

The conservative side has always been against helping the needy with government assistance though, it's not any more of a hot button issue than it has been for 80 years.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

The Bible is Mike Johnson's worldview, after all. Let's see what his Bible says about it. Let's read from the book of Reagan, Chapter 25, verses 35-37:

"For I was hungry and you told me to get a better job, for those bootstraps won't pull themselves. I was thirsty and you said I was lying, I was a stranger and you deported me, I needed clothes and you threw me in jail, I was sick and you took away my medicine, I was in prison and you threw away the key....."

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

McCarthy was bad. This guy is evil.

I bet people are wishing for McCarthy again.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

McCarthy tried to overthrow the government. So, no.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

To be fair, so did Mike Johnson. The country basically traded the "Used Car Salesman" fascist for the "Ned Flanders" fascist. Same 🤡, different costume.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

do they give out nobel prizes for attempted chemistry?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago
[–] esc27@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Prosperity gospel is one of the most vile and evil things to ever come out of the church. It is not just an easy way to scam "christians" into funding private jets for influential "pastors" but permeates the world view of many Americans. If you believe wealth is a direct result of personal effort and holiness, then all rich people no matter how obviously corrupt must be "good", "godly" people worthy of respect and conversely, all poor people must be horrible sinners who deserve their poverty.

Never mind verses like " 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” " (Matthew 19)

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how much in health-care costs could be saved if all vegetables were free to the consumer?

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How much would the healthcare and insurance industries lobby against that?

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Well, that depends on whether we simultaneously legalize beating insurance people with overripe zucchini.