264
2.5 Million Poor Americans Have Lost Food Aid Since Trump Signed GOP’s Big Ugly Bill Into Law
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
264 points (99.6% liked)
politics
29341 readers
871 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Exactly, the American pursuit of freedom instead of humanitarian values, has actually given them less freedom instead of more.
I think taking the American pursuit of freedom as a given is an incorrect assumption. Freedom is used here not as an idea that must be analyzed and fought for, but as an identity marker that's trotted out to defend oneself both from others disapproval or disallowal of one's actions and as a cudgel against those whose actions one disapproves of.
The easiest place to see this is in the concept of religious freedom. The same people who harp on religious freedom often want to declare America a Christian nation. They'll whine and sue that their religious freedom is being attacked when they're expected to treat a gay couple as married, but they'll stand firm when other religions demanded the right to marry gay people, or when people wanted the religious right to psychedelic use (including indigenous use of peyote).
I've been reading The Dawn of Everything and it brings up indigenous critiques of European settlers, especially those attributed to Kondiaronk, and some of these groups have a much more complete and realistic understanding of freedom than even the better end of the average American today. And yeah the book goes into how their perception of freedom includes duties to enable others to actually engage in it. The freedom to move far away requires the duty to show hospitality.
When many Americans talk about freedom these days it's just a virtue signal, regardless of if the virtue is actually possessed. We still do have those who genuinely believe in freedom, the ACLU remains as such, but they were considered radical from the start.
I don't understand how you can claim that American pursuit of freedom is an incorrect assumption, and then in the very next sentence, you also claim it's an identity marker.
Freedom is an indoctrinated core value for many Americans, but only as a mantra they don't really understand the meaning of.
I agree that Americans in general have no real understanding of what freedom really is, and are confused on the issue to a degree that they actually undermine their own freedom.
Good example, and yes the double standard is maddening, and Americans fail to understand that the right to oppress others is not freedom for the people, but will always end as only freedom for the most powerful to oppress the people.
That sounds very interesting, kind of like the tolerance of intolerance paradox, that teach we shouldn't allow intolerance, we also need to enable the freedom of others, to have real freedom in society.
I think there is much truth in that, but it is more than just virtue signalling, because it seems also like a religious mantra, so it is the strongest possible kind of virtue signalling.
And when something becomes religious, rationality about the issue goes out the Window.