Share.

    7 Kommentare

    1. Really shows how poor parts of Washington DC is.

      Virgin Islands and Guam are relatively poorer territories, and New Mexico has a lot of poverty mostly with the concentration of Indian Reservations.

      For the US Capital to be on the same level, while also having so much wealth in NW is pretty astonishing.

    2. Dry_Championship222 on

      SNAP befits are managed by the state governments my guess is places like say South Dakota don’t really have less need for benefits rather they have less access.

    3. Double whammy for states that produce food. I hope that they learn something.

    4. Gamer_Grease on

      My politics are that when I go to a gas station and get my purchase rung up by the cashier, I want to know that cashier has something to eat, somewhere to live, and the ability to have their illnesses and injuries treated by a doctor. I don’t care much about how we get there, and I care even less about political talking points designed to distract me from this basic ideal.

      I think conservatives should be concerned about what tens of millions of people having their food cut off is actually going to look like. The people in the media are certain that they’re essentially faking their poverty, and able to feed themselves without assistance. But I think if they’re wrong–and I do not believe for a second that the urban millionaire socialites on TV know the first thing about this issue–this policy is going to look repulsive to even a lot of stalwart Trump backers. Americans, broadly speaking, are not accustomed to food insecurity. Even our poor, speaking in relative terms to the rest of the world, have decent access to calories. If we revoke the long-standing practice of making food widely available, I think Americans are in for a rude awakening.

    Leave A Reply