this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
87 points (96.8% liked)

News

37508 readers
1254 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins this week attributed a multimillion-person drop in the number of participants receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to the tamping down of fraud and an improved economy. But experts discount those factors, saying the primary driver of the decrease was more likely new legislation that changed how the program runs. Here's a closer look at the facts. ROLLINS: “As of just a couple of days ago, we now have moved 4.3 million Americans off of the food stamp program. A lot of that is fraud. A lot of it is people taking the program that shouldn’t have been. And a lot of it is just a better economy. We’ve had wage growth that has outpaced inflation for the first time since early 2021. This is a really big day. So people don’t need food stamps.” THE FACTS: SNAP beneficiaries decreased by nearly 4.3 million from January 2025 to January 2026, according to preliminary government data released by the Agriculture Department. However, experts say new requirements mandated by a massive tax and spending cut bill Republicans pushed through Congress last summer are the primary reasons. The bill is projected to cut $186 billion in federal spending — 20% — from SNAP over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When I was on snap I got a whopping $17/month because my ssdi income was just barely low enough for me to qualify for snap. It's insane that people think folks are committing fraud for tiny amounts of food

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To these rich people it probably does look like fraud.

[–] comrade_twisty@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago

If poor people get money from the government becaus they can't afford to rent and feed themselves while working 3 jobs - it's fraud.

If rich people don't pay taxes and get government subsidies - it's smart accounting.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

He can afford candy? Absurd!

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

TF can you even buy for 17 dollars to feed you for a month? A sack of rice?

[–] FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 5 points 1 week ago

Ramen was about 20¢/packet back then. Worked out to about 2 packets a day plus just enough for eggs. Was not the healthiest time of my life lol

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Soon there will be a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

Can't wait for footage of a cop putting their knee on the neck of a mother stealing food to feed to her children happens. Lots of people will sympathize

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

How did that saying go again? Any civilization is three meals away from violent revolution.

[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Yeah it’s not gonna be pleasant for anybody

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

hey its me. If it was a 10 hour a week requirement it would be doable to consistently meet but 20 is just perfect to not get consistantly.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Been a while since I was a part timer but 20 hrs was kind of the average. Some weeks would be 28 and some would be 16, but either way it was totally out of my control.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 6 days ago

it depends on what gig you got. substitute teaching it would take 3 days a week and that almost never happens but you might be able to get 2 days often enough.