5 ms·

One factor that is invisible to most posters here is that SNAP (food stamps) are adjusted for inflation each year in October. This year, using official governme

One factor that is invisible to most posters here is that SNAP (food stamps) are adjusted for inflation each year in October. This year, using official government figures, SNAP benefits were increased by a maximum of one dollar per person. They might as well have left them the same as last year but instead went with the insultingly low one dollar increase. SNAP recipients, who are traditionally much more likely to vote for Democrats, saw that as a middle finger to them and their food security needs. It's like leaving a dime as a tip instead of leaving nothing. To them, it was a sign of contempt. Most of Hacker News doesn't run in social circles where people are clipping coupons and going to several different stores to shop the best deals just so they can afford to eat that month, but for nearly forty million Americans who receive SNAP benefits (read that number again and let it really sink in), that's their reality. The administration looked either out of touch or even spiteful by doing a one dollar benefits increase to account for the past twelve months of inflation. I'm sure there are plenty of other similar things that are hurting the working poor that are invisible to those spewing scorn at voters who weren't concerned more about wars around the world and luxury beliefs. No one I've pointed this out to has been able to empathize with these people yet, most coming up with glib replies about how everything for those voters will be even worse now that the other candidate won. Until they can understand the plight of the people who received that one dollar increase and why it was so psychologically devastating to them the month before the election, they'll never understand why their candidate lost. Instead they'll keep pointing to GDP, the low employment numbers made possible by people working multiple jobs to survive, and how great things are for the wealthy instead of trying to actually get in touch with the daily lives of those they rarely interact with. Maybe insulting these people and calling them stupid and evil a few more times will be what finally makes them forget about their food insecurity.

brianwawok 2y ago
Did they pick $1? Isn’t it a math formula based on various consumer goods, which may it may not be right.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Someone decided that going through with an obviously insultingly low $1 increase was a good idea.
  - martin_ 2y ago
    to play devils advocate, if that person had decided to go with $0 instead that there would be equally bad headlines/interpretations of "Instead of allocating the formulaic $1 we are entitled to inline with all other changes over X years, they squandered it on Y"?
    - tdeck 2y ago
      I think many people would see no increase and assume there was some special mechanism needed to enact increases which hadn't happened in that particular year. Whereas a $1 increase clearly says "someone evaluated this and adjusted it up only $1". The analogy of a 10 cent tip vs. not tipping is a good one; the person who doesn't tip for a full meal is being a cheap asshole, but the person who leaves 10 cents is being a mean-spirited cheap asshole.
  - refurb 2y ago
    As someone who has worked with the US government I doubt that person had a choice. The calculation of benefits is required by law/regulation. The government can’t just say “yeah this is small, let’s skip it this year”.
tw04 2y ago
>No one I've pointed this out to has been able to empathize with these people yet, most coming up with glib replies about how everything for those voters will be even worse now that the other candidate won. Right, because how do you empathize with someone who gets $1, and their response is: Oh yeah? Well fine then I'm going to vote for the person who wants to take away literally EVERYTHING to show you! It is the definition of cutting off your head to spite your body. I completely understand and empathize with someone on SNAP not getting what they need to cover the insane pricing increases we saw greedy corporations force upon all of us and wanting that rectified. But if your solution to that is to either not vote at all, or intentionally vote for the guy who has literally told you his plan is to gut all social services... I'm not sure what to tell you beyond whatever empathy I DID have for you is gone and enjoy sleeping in the bed you just made for yourself. I, and most of the folks on HN are going to be perfectly fine. Those folks that were on SNAP? Good luck...
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Yeah, what exactly are we supposed to do or feel about people who absolutely refuse to vote or act in their own best self-interest, and instead do the opposite, acting self-destructively? The best thing to do with them is to get away from them, because their self-destructive actions could easily affect you too.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    You care harder, because thats the only way to ever win them back. It rarely works, but the hate route never does. If people never have a shot at redemption, why would they ever try to redeem themselves?
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The entire point of empathy is making a genuine effort to understand and connect, even across differences. I don't think it is what you seem to think it is, reserved only for people you already relate to/understand.
    - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hirako2000 2y ago
Nearly 40M ? It was 41.8 million as of 2022.
computerthings 2y ago
> glib replies about how everything for those voters will be even worse now that the other candidate won Here is something I saw on Bluesky, where all the good people are: "To all the misgueded twits who ignored every red flag, caved to your worst selves, and bought into all of the most obvious of Trump's insane lies: Everything that happens from here on out. The family members you lose, the suffering, the confiscation of your freedoms of at the whim of your dictator. It's all on you. You can no longer falsely blame dems, antifa, lgbtq, or immigrants for everything you set into motion with your prejudice and cowardice" It goes on like that, and ends with "Hope it was all worth it, you hateful fuckwits. Enjoy the ride" That's just the most widely shared and liked on I happened to be shown by Bluesky, I've seen this repeated in individual comments in many variations. Basically, "at least we'll burn together and it'll be your fault." > they'll never understand why their candidate lost. Instead they'll keep pointing to GDP, the low employment numbers made possible by people working multiple jobs to survive, and how great things are for the wealthy instead of trying to actually get in touch with the daily lives of those they rarely interact with. as Cenk Uygur said here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7m0tbZJgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7m0tbZJgE So she put out some good things in the beginning, and we were excited about it. She had some economic populist policies about housing and price gouging etc. [..] She then turns around and sends Mark Cuban all over CNBC to go, remember, I love business interests. [..] She's never going to do the price gouging plan. They swear up and down on CNBC and all over cable news. Well, then she lost her lead. Why do you think you're getting the lead, why do you think you lost the lead? No, they'll never figure it out.
- wyclif 2y ago
  While I agree with your overall comment, in that clip Cenk says that picking Tim Walz as VP was the obviously right thing to do. I don't think that's as obvious as Cenk seems to believe it is.
somecontext 2y ago
In case anyone is curious, the $1 is the increase in the maximum SNAP benefit per month for an individual, from $291/month to $292/month. (The increases for larger households are similarly small.) This is not the actual increase of the benefit amount. In particular, it appears the cost of living adjustment this year is 2.5%. I have been unable to find statistics on how many people/households actually receive the maximum amount, but I don't have a particular reason to believe it is large. (The average benefit amounts are significantly below the maxima.) Tldr: the average SNAP benefit amount received by people has increased and will increase by significantly more than $1/month.
jll29 2y ago
As a non-US citizen, I find it shocking that such a high number of US citizens need to live on food stamps, so I checked the numbers. Indeed, it's 41.2 million out of a total of 334.9 million U.S.-Americans, or 12.3 % or more than one in ten folks - that this is more than one in hundred suprised me because the US are by some counts the "richest" country on the planet. It's merely the country with the richest few, perhaps this calculation is just a way to show statistically what many believed all along, namely that the so-called "American dream" is a pipe dream for most, in the sense that the majority of people simply fund a tiny fews success in the way lottery ticket buyers fund a few select millionaires that don't deserve it.
- inthewoods 2y ago
  Many corporations pay so low that people have to be on assistance even though they are gainfully employed. Thus, corporations off-load their costs onto the American taxpayer. This is also true for some people in the US military.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  https://www.fns.usda.gov/yearly-trends https://www.fns.usda.gov/yearly-trends https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-4fymonthly-10.pdf https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-f... Here are the yearly trends showing food stamps from 1985 to 2020, I don't know why 21, 22 and 23 data is not shown. Since the 1985 until 2008, the number of people on benefits stayed roughly around 25 million. In the same time period, US population grew from 220M to 300M, roughly 1% every year. From 2008 to 2013, the number of people on SNAP roughly doubled to peak at 47.54M people. Population growth was 300M to 315M. 2019 was the lowest point in recent history of only 35.29M people on SNAP, with population growth from 315M to 330M. I averaged the monthly data from 2021 onward and got 2021: 41.6M, 2022: 41.2M, 2023: 42.1 and 2024 through July: 41.6M For a long time, poverty in the US was shrinking as a percent of the population. 2008 reversed that trend with things starting to get better after 2013 and really accelerating up until 2019. It's been flat since the post Covid growth. So everyone saying; "economy is back to normal, we have recovered." there have been 5M people who don't feel it.
ineedasername 2y ago
A change to SNAP benefits beyond the statutory amount referenced in the TFP would require legislative action. Both increases in existing benefits and an extension of the temporary benefits that had been in place were champion by many Democrats, but ultimately died through lack of bipartisan support as such I don’t think we can lay the blame for this particular government failure at the feet of the outgoing administration. It was this fight and others like it that the GOP saw as strategically important to regaining executive power.
- xp84 2y ago
  I get how obviously the GOP was incentivized to block that, but be all that as it may, if the Democrats can't get it done with the power they already have, including the power of the bully pulpit and all legislative horse trading they could have engaged in, they should be completely unsurprised if the people who got burned as a result are loath to give them any additional power. Honestly even though I disagree with the TrumpGOP 70% of the time, I'm actually kind of happy to see them control the whole thing, at least we can now put a bunch of right-wing ideas to the test rather than just have a big political wrestling match that usually ends in a draw, like we have for most of the past 3 presidencies. The thing is, without the government trying to destroy itself with infighting, right-wing ideas at least have some upsides, such as lower taxes. We have mostly seen the worst of both sides' ideas with few of the gains due to sabotage being so common.
  - unbalancedevh 2y ago
    Republicans had exactly this chance in 2016, and showed that their policies are just a bunch of hot air. The border? chaos. Repealing Obamacare? They were caught completely flat-footed and had nothing to offer. Cutting government costs? the debt and deficit grew each year of Trump's first presidency. Shrinking government? Yes, some departments were crippled, and regulations intended to protect consumers and the environment were weakened or reversed; but new regulations were also passed, many of them that benefit business at the expense of employees, consumers, and/or the general public. Republicans have shown they can't govern. The House has been in complete disarray for the last 4 years, with constant in-fighting among the GOP and just trying to keep the government funded and running. Republicans are constantly flipping on criticizing Trump and fawning over him, depending on which way the wind blows. It's shocking that so many people prefer a bully-rapist-fraud-felon with "a concept of a plan" who has openly talked multiple times about suspending the Constitution and rights of Americans, over almost any other alternative.

brianwawok 2y ago

Did they pick $1? Isn’t it a math formula based on various consumer goods, which may it may not be right.

Aeolun 2y ago
Someone decided that going through with an obviously insultingly low $1 increase was a good idea.
- martin_ 2y ago
  to play devils advocate, if that person had decided to go with $0 instead that there would be equally bad headlines/interpretations of "Instead of allocating the formulaic $1 we are entitled to inline with all other changes over X years, they squandered it on Y"?
  - tdeck 2y ago
    I think many people would see no increase and assume there was some special mechanism needed to enact increases which hadn't happened in that particular year. Whereas a $1 increase clearly says "someone evaluated this and adjusted it up only $1". The analogy of a 10 cent tip vs. not tipping is a good one; the person who doesn't tip for a full meal is being a cheap asshole, but the person who leaves 10 cents is being a mean-spirited cheap asshole.
- refurb 2y ago
  As someone who has worked with the US government I doubt that person had a choice. The calculation of benefits is required by law/regulation. The government can’t just say “yeah this is small, let’s skip it this year”.

tw04 2y ago

>No one I've pointed this out to has been able to empathize with these people yet, most coming up with glib replies about how everything for those voters will be even worse now that the other candidate won. Right, because how do you empathize with someone who gets $1, and their response is: Oh yeah? Well fine then I'm going to vote for the person who wants to take away literally EVERYTHING to show you! It is the definition of cutting off your head to spite your body. I completely understand and empathize with someone on SNAP not getting what they need to cover the insane pricing increases we saw greedy corporations force upon all of us and wanting that rectified. But if your solution to that is to either not vote at all, or intentionally vote for the guy who has literally told you his plan is to gut all social services... I'm not sure what to tell you beyond whatever empathy I DID have for you is gone and enjoy sleeping in the bed you just made for yourself. I, and most of the folks on HN are going to be perfectly fine. Those folks that were on SNAP? Good luck...

shiroiushi 2y ago
Yeah, what exactly are we supposed to do or feel about people who absolutely refuse to vote or act in their own best self-interest, and instead do the opposite, acting self-destructively? The best thing to do with them is to get away from them, because their self-destructive actions could easily affect you too.
- drawkward 2y ago
  You care harder, because thats the only way to ever win them back. It rarely works, but the hate route never does. If people never have a shot at redemption, why would they ever try to redeem themselves?
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The entire point of empathy is making a genuine effort to understand and connect, even across differences. I don't think it is what you seem to think it is, reserved only for people you already relate to/understand.
  - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hirako2000 2y ago

Nearly 40M ? It was 41.8 million as of 2022.

computerthings 2y ago

> glib replies about how everything for those voters will be even worse now that the other candidate won Here is something I saw on Bluesky, where all the good people are: "To all the misgueded twits who ignored every red flag, caved to your worst selves, and bought into all of the most obvious of Trump's insane lies: Everything that happens from here on out. The family members you lose, the suffering, the confiscation of your freedoms of at the whim of your dictator. It's all on you. You can no longer falsely blame dems, antifa, lgbtq, or immigrants for everything you set into motion with your prejudice and cowardice" It goes on like that, and ends with "Hope it was all worth it, you hateful fuckwits. Enjoy the ride" That's just the most widely shared and liked on I happened to be shown by Bluesky, I've seen this repeated in individual comments in many variations. Basically, "at least we'll burn together and it'll be your fault." > they'll never understand why their candidate lost. Instead they'll keep pointing to GDP, the low employment numbers made possible by people working multiple jobs to survive, and how great things are for the wealthy instead of trying to actually get in touch with the daily lives of those they rarely interact with. as Cenk Uygur said here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7m0tbZJgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7m0tbZJgE So she put out some good things in the beginning, and we were excited about it. She had some economic populist policies about housing and price gouging etc. [..] She then turns around and sends Mark Cuban all over CNBC to go, remember, I love business interests. [..] She's never going to do the price gouging plan. They swear up and down on CNBC and all over cable news. Well, then she lost her lead. Why do you think you're getting the lead, why do you think you lost the lead? No, they'll never figure it out.

wyclif 2y ago
While I agree with your overall comment, in that clip Cenk says that picking Tim Walz as VP was the obviously right thing to do. I don't think that's as obvious as Cenk seems to believe it is.

somecontext 2y ago

In case anyone is curious, the $1 is the increase in the maximum SNAP benefit per month for an individual, from $291/month to $292/month. (The increases for larger households are similarly small.) This is not the actual increase of the benefit amount. In particular, it appears the cost of living adjustment this year is 2.5%. I have been unable to find statistics on how many people/households actually receive the maximum amount, but I don't have a particular reason to believe it is large. (The average benefit amounts are significantly below the maxima.) Tldr: the average SNAP benefit amount received by people has increased and will increase by significantly more than $1/month.

jll29 2y ago

As a non-US citizen, I find it shocking that such a high number of US citizens need to live on food stamps, so I checked the numbers. Indeed, it's 41.2 million out of a total of 334.9 million U.S.-Americans, or 12.3 % or more than one in ten folks - that this is more than one in hundred suprised me because the US are by some counts the "richest" country on the planet. It's merely the country with the richest few, perhaps this calculation is just a way to show statistically what many believed all along, namely that the so-called "American dream" is a pipe dream for most, in the sense that the majority of people simply fund a tiny fews success in the way lottery ticket buyers fund a few select millionaires that don't deserve it.

inthewoods 2y ago
Many corporations pay so low that people have to be on assistance even though they are gainfully employed. Thus, corporations off-load their costs onto the American taxpayer. This is also true for some people in the US military.
themaninthedark 2y ago
https://www.fns.usda.gov/yearly-trends https://www.fns.usda.gov/yearly-trends https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-4fymonthly-10.pdf https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-f... Here are the yearly trends showing food stamps from 1985 to 2020, I don't know why 21, 22 and 23 data is not shown. Since the 1985 until 2008, the number of people on benefits stayed roughly around 25 million. In the same time period, US population grew from 220M to 300M, roughly 1% every year. From 2008 to 2013, the number of people on SNAP roughly doubled to peak at 47.54M people. Population growth was 300M to 315M. 2019 was the lowest point in recent history of only 35.29M people on SNAP, with population growth from 315M to 330M. I averaged the monthly data from 2021 onward and got 2021: 41.6M, 2022: 41.2M, 2023: 42.1 and 2024 through July: 41.6M For a long time, poverty in the US was shrinking as a percent of the population. 2008 reversed that trend with things starting to get better after 2013 and really accelerating up until 2019. It's been flat since the post Covid growth. So everyone saying; "economy is back to normal, we have recovered." there have been 5M people who don't feel it.

ineedasername 2y ago

A change to SNAP benefits beyond the statutory amount referenced in the TFP would require legislative action. Both increases in existing benefits and an extension of the temporary benefits that had been in place were champion by many Democrats, but ultimately died through lack of bipartisan support as such I don’t think we can lay the blame for this particular government failure at the feet of the outgoing administration. It was this fight and others like it that the GOP saw as strategically important to regaining executive power.

xp84 2y ago
I get how obviously the GOP was incentivized to block that, but be all that as it may, if the Democrats can't get it done with the power they already have, including the power of the bully pulpit and all legislative horse trading they could have engaged in, they should be completely unsurprised if the people who got burned as a result are loath to give them any additional power. Honestly even though I disagree with the TrumpGOP 70% of the time, I'm actually kind of happy to see them control the whole thing, at least we can now put a bunch of right-wing ideas to the test rather than just have a big political wrestling match that usually ends in a draw, like we have for most of the past 3 presidencies. The thing is, without the government trying to destroy itself with infighting, right-wing ideas at least have some upsides, such as lower taxes. We have mostly seen the worst of both sides' ideas with few of the gains due to sabotage being so common.
- unbalancedevh 2y ago
  Republicans had exactly this chance in 2016, and showed that their policies are just a bunch of hot air. The border? chaos. Repealing Obamacare? They were caught completely flat-footed and had nothing to offer. Cutting government costs? the debt and deficit grew each year of Trump's first presidency. Shrinking government? Yes, some departments were crippled, and regulations intended to protect consumers and the environment were weakened or reversed; but new regulations were also passed, many of them that benefit business at the expense of employees, consumers, and/or the general public. Republicans have shown they can't govern. The House has been in complete disarray for the last 4 years, with constant in-fighting among the GOP and just trying to keep the government funded and running. Republicans are constantly flipping on criticizing Trump and fawning over him, depending on which way the wind blows. It's shocking that so many people prefer a bully-rapist-fraud-felon with "a concept of a plan" who has openly talked multiple times about suspending the Constitution and rights of Americans, over almost any other alternative.