this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
119 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30370 readers
2071 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The ++budget++ package that US President ++Donald Trump++ and congressional ++Republicans++rammed through last summer has already spurred large-scale loss of nutrition assistance among low-income ++children++, with an analysis released Wednesday estimating that more than 700,000 kids across a dozen states have lost federal food aid since the ++GOP++ law took effect.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank, ++found++ that the “sharp participation declines” among children likely stem from provisions of the Republican law that—for the first time in the program’s history—shift large Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (++SNAP++) benefit costs onto states. The law also expands punitive SNAP work requirements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This problem could have been solved decades ago if Democrats focused on ensuring people have livable wages instead of them needing to rely on government assistance. Livable wages would have placed them outside of government actions that led to their hunger

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Corporations in general are out of control.