3 ms·
> they should either offer a temporary blanket waiver or suggest some better way to mitigate the impact on SNAP recipients Without something like this, why sho
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> they should either offer a temporary blanket waiver or suggest some better way to mitigate the impact on SNAP recipients
Without something like this, why should one assume good faith behind the change? The people chanting "the cruelty is the point" seem to be vindicated rather clearly.
- altairprime 1y agoWell, they are slightly off course: both the starvation and general cruelty are the methods, in service of a much uglier point.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> a much uglier point If not cruelty, what? Power? To do what, if not "be cruel in service to oneself without repercussion"?
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoI'm not even sure "good faith" is the right word. Trump stated explicitly today that he does not want SNAP benefits to be paid until he wins the shutdown fight. But a lot of people have this idea that being politically earnest is cringe, so it's not an option to simply say it's bad he won't explore other options to pay the benefits. You have to make up some clever reason why the issue is more complicated than it sounds, and maybe Trump had no choice, no matter how much that requires you to ignore context and court orders and the stated positions of the politicians involved.
- tpmoney 1y agoWhat change? Regardless of why the USDA decided to remind people of this, these rules on SNAP benefits and equal treatment have been part of the law since before Trump took office.
- fzeroracer 1y agoFunding SNAP during shutdowns with money that is directly set aside for such cases is also part of the law, which Trump is conveniently saying they will not follow. Trying to argue that rules are reasonable doesn't matter when you're trying to make a case while the admin is admitting to starving people for political gain.
- anthem2025 1y ago[dead]