Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 22, 2026

Dozens of states are going to have to start forking over more money to fund SNAP (or end up cutting food assistance) if they don't get their error rates in check.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It's been a year since Donald Trump slashed SNAP funding in his "Big Beautiful Bill." Here's how many people have lost food assistance so far.

[image or embed]

-- Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) 4:51 PM · Jul 20, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Loser ---- Turds salivating about poor white women with children losing food money to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

Must be a day that ends in 'y'.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2026-07-22 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I see the geriatric house bitch has an attitude today.

#2 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-22 04:22 PM | Reply

I see the geriatric house bitch has an attitude today.

#2 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Pedo apparently has a new favorite insult he uses on every thread: geriatric house bitch

Yawn. Still a Pedo.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2026-07-22 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2

I see the site's main Pedo Protector for Paxton AND Trump, has no argument at all as per usual.

"Demographic data shows that about 62% to 67% of SNAP participants live in families with children.

Of adult recipients under 60, nearly 63% are women, and a significant portion of these are single mothers.

A breakdown of who benefits from SNAP highlights the following:Age:

Children make up the largest age group, accounting for about 38% to 39% of all participants. Non-elderly adults (18-59) make up around 42%, and adults over 60 account for about 19%"

www.google.com

Reagan popularized black 'Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs', when as it turned out, most were white women with children.

You must be so proud.

Billionaires thank you for your... oh, wait, they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. And they need to take a piss.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-07-22 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Mid-term elections marks the beginning of the dismantling next year.

Social Security and Medicare are going to be siphoned away.

Empty Bank Day looms closer.

#5 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2026-07-22 05:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-07-22 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is your hair on fire?

They're giving the states with the worst waste until 2030 to get it together.

#6 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-22 06:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I wonder where they'll be lost. Perhaps out at sea

#7 | Posted by THEBULL at 2026-07-22 06:34 PM | Reply

I wonder where they'll be lost.

Into his Qatar bank account.

Along with the billions stolen from American taxpayers.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-22 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The closer we get to elections.

The more desperate Trump will become.

November is 3 months away, which is an eternity, and more than enough time for Trump and republicans to finalize their plans to steal the election.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-22 06:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Pres Trump proves once again that he does not care about the Americans who have cope with his economic disasters as they try to put food on the table for their children.

The Trump admin seems to be concerned about the low birth-rates here in the US. But what is he doing to raise those birth rates? Nothing, apparently.

Indeed, he seems to be making it more difficult for parents to feed children on their low working wages.

That he cares about reducing taxes for the wealthy seems to him to be more important than feeding hungry children.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-22 06:49 PM | Reply

Loser ---- Turds salivating about poor white women with children losing food money to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

Is a fascinating statement of ignorance; it completely ignores the fraud rates and assumes that the "poor" people are receiving benefits.

I see no reason American taxpayers should pay for high rates of fraud. I recall when I arrived here, politicians held the taxpayer in high regard.

Today, not so much; it just seems it's just someone to mooch off of. The more the government can take and give to fraudulent people, the better.

What I find incredible is that if fraud were diminished us Liberals could get what we want. America is, by socialist definitions, a socialist state; 61% of federal tax dollars are allocated for BOOMERS to receive. Yet people here would have you believe the US is a capitalist hell hole.

idk seems like socialists are getting what they want, but they also want to kill the golden goose as well.

#11 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-22 06:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Pres Trump proves once again that he does not care about the Americans who have cope with his economic disasters as they try to put food on the table for their children.

I believe the people who allow and are committing the fraud are the ones who don't care about the Americans.

Its noble to want to give to people to put food on the table, BUT that's not where the money is going.

Why do you Lumpers avoid that fact completely.

Can't we agree fraud is bad?
Can't we agree lots of fraud is worse?
How do you propose to stop it without incentives?

I expect crickets from the so-called posters that want to actually discuss issues.

#12 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-22 07:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

it completely ignores the fraud rates

What are the fraud rates?

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-22 07:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#4 ... Of adult recipients under 60, nearly 63% are women, and a significant portion of these are single mothers. ...

So, MAGA's ~women should be pregnant and not working~ mantra seems to be working, but Pres trump doesn't want to feed the results of that ~policy?~

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-22 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What are the fraud rates?

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-22 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

So far, it hasn't been called "fraud". It's simply being treated as mismanagement of funds - a lot of funds. And the states with the highest amount of it are being given until 2030 to get it reeled in to 6%. Or they can opt to pay for it themselves.

#15 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-07-22 07:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"They're giving the states with the worst waste until 2030 to get it together."

If the criteria is such that 41 of 50 states currently fail, the actual purpose and effect of the legislation will be to reduce even the proper and justified SNAP payments.

This is much like the Republicans purging voter rolls based on first name, last name, and date of birth. And ignoring any evidence that multiple individuals might all share the same names and birthdays. It's designed to get the outcome it wants, which is fewer people allowed to vote.

Surely you understand all of that, and you're just playing dumb about the real intent of Republicans, which is to cripple the social safety net.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-07-22 07:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So far, it hasn't been called "fraud"

^
The fraud is the Republican plan itself.

"In the 2024 calendar year, Texas issued $6.97 billion in total SNAP payments to Texas families participating in the program. These SNAP payments generated an estimated $10.73 billion in economic activity for the state " a 54% return on investment." www.feedingtexas.org

Republicans would rather not get that 54% Return on Investment.
Why is that, LftHndThrds?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-07-22 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"it completely ignores the fraud rates"

I noticed an interesting stat at the cms.gov website:
The Medicaid estimated improper payment rate (comprised of the past three cycles of approximately 17 state per cycle from reviews in 2023, 2024, and 2025) was 6.12%, or $37.39 billion, compared to the FY 2024 reported rate of 5.09%, or $31.10 billion. Of the FY 2025 Medicaid improper payments, 77.17% were the result of insufficient documentation, which is generally not indicative of fraud or abuse.
www.cms.gov

Did you catch that? Over 77% are simply missing full documentation, so they're classified as "improper payments", where the payment could be correct, save for one missing form. That 6.12% rate could be as low as 1.41%, plus avoidable mistakes.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-07-22 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For instance, this is related.

I am all for helping the homeless... but this is where the money is going, and this is just one such case.

Over 3 years, homeless nonprofit paid more than $1.7 million to companies owned by its chief executive
www.latimes.com

Its not helping the homeless, and its no different than cutting funding really.

Republicans would rather not get that 54% Return on Investment.

Why would anyone? Why don't you just put buckets out in the street where the poor people live, that would be 100% ROI.

#19 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-22 07:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

buckets of cash, for the illiterates.

#20 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-22 07:34 PM | Reply

If the criteria is such that 41 of 50 states currently fail, the actual purpose and effect of the legislation will be to reduce even the proper and justified SNAP payments.

The criteria isn't that difficult. The fraud is actually the reduction, not the cutting back by the legislation.

#21 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-22 07:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"insufficient documentation"

Your Papers, Please.
--Republican Motto since Trump took over the Republican Party.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-07-22 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This is much like the Republicans purging voter rolls based on first name, last name, and date of birth."

I was listening to a podcast a few years back (Stuff You Should Know?? and heard from statisticians who had investigated Trump's claim of 3,000,000 illegal voters in California, starting from where Trump got the claim.

A lot of large numbers got cut quickly, accounting for what most folks do: move without telling their local Board of Elections. Other chucks were cut off for deaths (hard to "un-register yourself at that point) and other common occurrences.

Ultimately, the guys got down to 20,000 folks with the same first name, same last name, and same birthday. AND THEYD VOTED MULTIPLE TIMES! Surely these were the fraudsters, right?

Wrong.

It turned out these were folks with birthdays and names that led to similar naming. The most common? Hispanic women born on March 19th. (FTW: that's the feast day of St. Joseph, the most sacred day in the Hispanic community) The name? Josephina Hernandez

2nd most common was a male born on March 17th. The common last name was Kelly; I'd bet you can guess the common first name.

Another aspect they found: seasonal first names matched often, like April, June, Autumn, Holly, and Noel.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-07-22 07:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Italics off

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-07-22 07:44 PM | Reply

Or so i thought!

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-07-22 07:45 PM | Reply

@#18 ... 77.17% were the result of insufficient documentation, which is generally not indicative of fraud or abuse. ...

Of that initial 77.17%, how many then provided sufficient documentation?

Is that figure tracked?

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-22 07:49 PM | Reply

@#26 italics off


(oops)

:)


#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-22 07:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#26 ... Of that initial 77.17%, how many then provided sufficient documentation? ...

Case in point...

Back in the day, when I applied for my passport for business travel I was initially told that my documentation was not sufficient. That I needed to come back with other specific documents. I have to dig but I eventually found those docs. I received, and still have, the passport.

So, would I be included in the group of folk who try to apply for a passport but are unqualified?


#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-22 07:54 PM | Reply

#13

0%

NOBODY is going to go through the pain in the rear to get the pittance that is food stamps if they have any choice. It's not worth it.

So the fraud rate is 0%.

And every penny of that chunk of money is used to buy food for somebody who needs it.

Now, if I was in charge I'd eliminate food stamps entirely - and replace them with a much larger no questions asked cash benefit. And institute a wealth tax to pay for it.

#29 | Posted by DarkVader at 2026-07-22 08:02 PM | Reply

- the fraud rates

5 or 6 percent?

I didn't think it was possible, but you really are as stupid as you look.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2026-07-22 10:47 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort