Arizona recorded the largest drop in enrollment after the bill became law. The legislation tightened eligibility rules for food assistance and increased state screening requirements. State data through May shows that more than 450,000 Arizonans have come off Snap, cutting overall participation within the state in half.

According to the CBPP analysis, children make up a significant portion of those losing benefits, with more than 1 million children across the 19 states studied no longer receiving Snap assistance.

In Louisiana, nearly one in four children receiving Snap benefits lost assistance. Massachusetts and Texas each saw close to one-fifth of children enrolled in the program removed from Snap.

And further below, the cause for the suffering of children:

The report says the steep decline in participation is likely tied in large part to the 2025 Republican reconciliation law, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which shifted a substantial share of Snap benefit costs to states based on their payment error rates.

    • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s absurd. Who is paying for all this free stuff? Who is making it? If you want to move state, do you get a free house there as well?

      • mildseason@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        If you work a 40 hour week you should recieve food, shelter, medicine and entertainment.

        I believe this is achievable thanks to the incredible innovation over the past 2 centuries.

        What’s absurd is the current system. Where billionaires can extract from nations without giving anything back. It’s absurd that food for children is being cut to bomb children on the other side of the world.

        What I believe may sound absurd to you. But look at our reality. It’s fucking crazy!!

        • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Didn’t answer my question. Who is paying for it all? Who is making it? If you move do you get another free house?

          • mildseason@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The collective pays for it through tax collection. The people who already make it will still make it. If you wanted to move you would give up your current house and trade it for a different one.

            Why can you not imagine a better, fairer society?

            • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Do you even understand the scale of the extra taxation that would be needed to provide everyone with free food, clothing, and housing?

              You’d be taxing everyone 95% of their income lol You’d also have to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of empty housing vacancies in every single city at all times to accommodate people moving.

              • mildseason@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yes! It would be extremely difficult but that’s the dream!

                There’s already millions of empty homes due to capitilism. 100% tax on any income above $100,000,000 would be a start lol

                • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  21 hours ago

                  That would be a communism level nightmare that would do nothing but end up how communism always does - extreme poverty for all but the ruling elites, millions of deaths.

                  Also virtually no one has an income per year of over $100 mil, by design.

                  When you incentivise people not to work, unsurprisingly a massive percentage of the population will happily not work. This means income tax dries up, jobs disappear, productivity plummets, and the rich people whose companies produce everything just say fuck it because the government is trying to confiscate all their money, close their businesses, and move to an island. Then virtually all produce and products are gone, there’s no work, and as such there’s no tax revenue at all, and the entire population is dependent on the government getting that tax revenue.

                  So you see the issue?

                  • mildseason@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

                    Those things are happening right now under capitalism. No system is immune from corruption. That’s why it’s so important to stamp it out when you see it.

                    No one should earn over $100mil full stop. The design is flawed.

                    I don’t really see the issue. With all our technological advancements, people shouldn’t have to work as much as they do. I would love to see people have more time off. Yes some would sit around and do nothing, maybe they need the rest, but I think the majority would get bored and do something they actually wanted to do. In would be a net positive for society. Parents could spend more time with their kids.

                    I do understand how hard it would be to achieve. But I believe it’s possible.