By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During his address, President Trump highlighted a strong economy, citing record-high stock markets, global investment commitments, and increased domestic oil production. He specifically pointed to a significant reduction in Americans receiving food assistance, attributing it to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which enacted substantial cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This legislation also introduced stricter work requirements for a broader range of recipients and extended tax cuts, sparking criticism from groups like the AFL-CIO who argue these policies primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations.
Read the original article here
It’s striking how often a single word can completely alter the meaning of a statement, and in this case, the word “lifted” used to describe millions of Americans no longer receiving SNAP benefits is a prime example. When former President Trump declared that 2.4 million Americans were “lifted” off of food assistance programs following his tax-cut law, the sentiment expressed by many was one of disbelief and outright rejection of this framing. It’s not about lifting people up to a point where they no longer need assistance due to newfound economic stability; rather, the narrative suggests a stark reality of these individuals being actively removed from a crucial safety net.
The core of the issue seems to lie in the perception that these “lifted” individuals were not necessarily elevated to a better financial standing. Instead, the implication is that funding for SNAP was significantly reduced by the tax-cut law, and coupled with tightened work requirements, millions were effectively pushed off the program. This leaves a rather bleak picture: a celebration of people no longer having access to food assistance, without any indication that they are now financially secure. The phrase “lifted” in this context feels disingenuous when the reality for many has been a sharp decline in their ability to afford basic necessities.
One can imagine the disconnect when hearing such a declaration. It’s easy to see why this would be considered a “crazy statement” by many. The expectation when someone is “lifted” from a benefit program is that they have achieved a level of self-sufficiency. However, the context provided suggests that this was not the case for these 2.4 million Americans. Instead, the narrative points to a situation where people who previously couldn’t afford food, can now, by virtue of being denied access to the program, no longer get it. This isn’t a cause for celebration; it’s a cause for concern, as it suggests a widespread increase in food insecurity, not a widespread economic improvement.
The impact of these policy changes is felt deeply by individuals and families. For an 84-year-old woman receiving a mere $28 a month, any reduction in SNAP benefits can be devastating. This isn’t about people choosing not to work; it’s about the erosion of a program that was intended to provide a buffer against hardship. The idea that these individuals have been “lifted” is particularly ironic when considering the struggles many face to simply put food on the table, a struggle exacerbated by the very policies that led to their removal from SNAP.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of the purpose of social safety nets. The aim of programs like SNAP is to provide temporary support, helping individuals get back on their feet and become productive members of society. When these programs are weakened or dismantled, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a more robust economy or a more self-reliant population. Instead, it can create a cycle of desperation, where individuals are forced to resort to extreme measures just to survive. This, in turn, can have broader societal costs, impacting public health, crime rates, and overall community well-being.
The personal stories emerging from these cuts paint a starkly different picture than the one being celebrated. Families losing hundreds of dollars a month in SNAP benefits, with no corresponding increase in wages or income, are forced to make difficult choices. These cuts can dramatically alter the fabric of everyday life, impacting everything from holiday celebrations to the ability to meet basic nutritional needs. It’s a scenario where the “clapping” of billionaires, who may not be directly impacted by these cuts, contrasts sharply with the hardships faced by vulnerable populations.
The notion that millions of Americans, including many children, have been “lifted” off food stamps is particularly troubling. The term “lifted” is consistently contrasted with more accurate descriptors like “kicked off” or “thrown off.” These are not subtle linguistic nuances; they represent a fundamental difference in outcome. It suggests a lack of empathy and a prioritization of policy goals over the immediate needs of those most affected. The consequence is a population with even fewer resources, struggling to cope with the rising cost of living and diminished support systems.
The visible result of such policy decisions is often seen in the increased demand at food pantries and other charitable organizations. When official support systems are scaled back, people who were previously able to manage with assistance are now in dire straits, turning to community resources that are often stretched thin. This highlights a potential systemic failure, where the celebration of reduced SNAP rolls masks a growing crisis of food insecurity.
The political rhetoric surrounding these cuts often falls into a pattern that many find alarming. The idea of celebrating the removal of people from a program designed to feed the hungry, particularly when coupled with policies that may increase food prices and reduce overall economic opportunity for lower-income individuals, can feel like a moral failing. It raises questions about the values and priorities of those in power, and whether the well-being of all citizens is truly being considered.
The disconnect between the administration’s claims and the lived experiences of those affected is profound. When a leader declares a victory in reducing the number of people on SNAP, but the underlying mechanisms involve funding cuts and stricter eligibility, it suggests a narrative that prioritizes fiscal austerity or ideological goals over human needs. This can lead to a sense of cynicism and despair among those who rely on these programs, and among those who believe in a more compassionate approach to social welfare. The repeated use of “lifted” when the reality appears to be “dropped” or “thrown” underscores a deep chasm between perception and reality, and a significant concern for the well-being of millions of Americans.