There is not a single congressional district in the U.S. where more than 15% of voters support cuts to SNAP, the federal program that provides food assistance to millions of low-income Americans.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
But it’s not a break point for people. Sure they don’t support it but as long as republicans continue to attack marginalized communities, their voter base will remain.
Even though the Congressional Budget Office provided them with /lots/ of data about the catastrophic effects this bill would have, they apparently didn't care. They probably know how unpopular many of its provisions are and apparently don't care about that either. I have no idea honestly.
No no, you don't understand. We have to get rid of SNAP because of the possibility that there may be at least one person somewhere in the country undeserving of it! Therefore NO one should get it!
The way they cut it shows cruelty is the point. Cutting off who counts as dependent children at 7. That's right, 8 to 17 years should be able to put food on their own tables.
Related: they're trying to eliminate all funding for education, and repeal child-labor laws. So yeah, they actually do expect 8-17 year olds to put food on the table.
Wait, you want the House of Representatives to have almost *seven thousand* (340x20) elected members? Twice the size of China's and more than ten times the size of the next largest body, the UK parliament?
I'm actually really curious what other changes you'd make to support managing that scale...
"what changes are you planning to make to support this" would be a real weird way to say "we can't do this", it invites its own disproof? I don't feel like it's a weird question to ask when scaling something up by an order of magnitude, and it's one he had a ready answer for.
and at this point it circles back around to being called the "democracy of the proletariat", and ironically enough it becomes a literal actual dictatorship of 300 million dictators at once
The argument the founders made is that since the government has to care for everyone in the nation, where they live should get more representation because they are caring for more people.
You don’t need to make it that big to realize some benefits. It should be at least the size of UK Parliament and probably something like that proportion would be good too.
We should start there. Fall back to 1 per 100k or maybe 150k. But at some point it becomes functionally impossible to say they are "representatives". When they can gerrymander or be bought, then it's useless.
I'm on board with the spirit of what you're saying but I feel like having that many people in actual government would increase beaurocracy, not democracy
In UK its number of voting eligible residents, not total pop.
1 rep per 100k voter eligible pop would give you c. 1600 members of Congress.
The EU have 720 MEPs on a voter pop of 357m, c. 1 per 500k. It's a secondary Parliament for EU citizens, so smaller than it would be as a federal house.
It helps, but I'm not sure it's a surefire fix to either gerrymandering or buying? It does make them harder and personal-scale efforts more effective, but e.g. "you need to spread your money more" *is* something you can throw "more money" at.
I do think there's advantages to making it bigger - like just making it split up more evenly among states - just I'm wary of scaling up super quickly. There's still benefits at smaller boosts. (Doing it over time would help transition - "add another 400 seats over the next 10 years")
The voters in my state that have the most support to cut SNAP are the ones most likely to need it. This also applies to healthcare and any government assistance because they want to “own the libs”.
Bingo. Rural WI residents vote overwhelmingly Republican and on average about 15% of them are on SNAP and Medicaid. However, going without health insurance and food is a small price to pay so the kid down the street can't color his hair blue.
I know they (unjustly!) don't have reps in Congress, but still would be interested in polling of US territories. "SNAP operates in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, but not in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands."
my friend, this is paying for tax cuts. people who need help buying food in a land of plenty are doing without so their boss's boss can get a tax break, have a larger pile of money.
this bad attitude impoverishes you.
This is driving up health care costs because the poorest and unhealthiest are subsidized by the healthy. Healthy people never use their insurance, it's the poor unhealthy ones who drive up insurance rates paid by others.
I depend on Medicaid to cope with an inborn, /genetic/ neurological disorder which is deeply disabling without treatment. It results from a structural defect in my neurons and is not helped by eating vegetables or exercising (both of which I enjoy). I drink water, tea, or black coffee, not soda.
Well, (a) the cuts they're proposing making to Medicaid are even bigger than those to SNAP, but also (b) I was responding to your claim that "healthy people never use their insurance". That's an extremely coarse perspective. People can have health problems regardless of their lifestyle.
The legend, bins, and color gradient chosen for this map to make the point this post is making are abysmal. Dark to light is terrible for least to greatest. If no data point exceeds 15% why are there bins for 15 and 18? The inverse data point makes a better map where the bins are 85%+ "no cuts".
UGH. inhumane and embarrassing that our supposedly "Christian" leaders would allow this....indeed advocate for this. The hypocrisy is.... unbearable. How Does It Feel, Dexter Drive, off of their album March to War.
Our leaders want us dead. Either side, there is little other way to interpret the callous indifference of one side, or the spineless failure of the other.
We have to start doing separate polling. One for voters and constituents opinion. And one for donor opinion. It is clear that big money donors in both parties dictate policy over the preferences of constituents.
I’m thinking that if those 3 D Reps hadn’t died in office, all the Rs who voted “no” or “present” would have switched their votes to “yes. It’s a cynical political game, and the Ds have pulled similar crap in the past. It’s why we don’t have a public health care option.
Yeah and they voted in the middle of the night nothing says big beautiful bill like sneaking around in the middle of the night to jam it down our throats
The action of the current congress and administration make me wonder if they intend to ever let us vote again. Will we have elections again? Seems like to me of you're doing things that NO ONE wants, you don't care much about pissing off EVERYONE, you're not worried about getting votes.
Lol @ Western Kansas being remotely anti-SNAP. Kansan farmers are some of the biggest beneficiaries of food benefits. A stable and liquid market for their product doesn't just happen.
Yet they voted for Trump and elected Republicans as the majority in the House and Senate. Stop voting for Republicans if you are against cutting the social safety net.
When a parent at a supermarket in a safe red district includes a kids birthday cake in their cart and uses SNAP for part of their payment it angers the loyal Republican primary voter behind them in line.
That’s the actual f****** reason
It's amazing what shitty/unpopular things you can do/support because a large chunk of population will keep voting for you as long as you say you're against abortions.
Comments
/s
I'm actually really curious what other changes you'd make to support managing that scale...
Stronger committee work, less full-body BS and theater. Remote virtual meetings and voting.
If there's not enough media to cover each of them now, how unhinged could they be if there were more of them?
How many more Santoses?
jesus christ
For the US I believe that c. 160m rather than 340m?
Would still be a BIG Parliament certainly.
And population includes even undocumented immigrants.
1 rep per 100k voter eligible pop would give you c. 1600 members of Congress.
The EU have 720 MEPs on a voter pop of 357m, c. 1 per 500k. It's a secondary Parliament for EU citizens, so smaller than it would be as a federal house.
this bad attitude impoverishes you.
https://bsky.app/profile/redloribrighteyes.bsky.social/post/3lpmfuoowik2f
So I assume they must also be the States with the lowest average IQs.
Representatives for the GOP don’t actually know who they are supposed to work for.
That’s the actual f****** reason
vote in folks responsive to We The People asap
Dems have been fighting in Congress
GOP would love folks to fight Dems instead
we can all agree
those with too much should help
and those with less can be helped