So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good. How gross to see this thru the lens of a Trump win or a Dem win.

I don't care how he plays it. States sued and Judge sided with states. If it gives the Mad king a chance to save face and release the funds as he always should have, I'll take it.

[Anonymous]

I am pro SNAP and funding SNAP through the shutdown. But I feel like the media, even “mainstream” media portrays the recipients in such an unflattering light or the stories don’t even make sense. I’m honestly surprised a lot of these people agree to be interviewed.

“ Buck, in Mississippi, is pregnant and expecting her ninth child in February. She and her husband both work — Buck is part-time at McDonald’s — and rely on SNAP funds to feed their kids.”

“Corbett was driven out of the workforce by debilitating back and joint pain, likely exacerbated by his job as a forklift driver. His 5-year-old son has nonverbal autism and requires constant care. His wife, Emily, recently lost her part-time job at a gas station, he said, leaving the family without their only source of income.”

https://apple.news/AXKSGDMnVQsG6wmlXz-VF5Q

[Anonymous]

Just tell the poor people we are building data centers and they can use AI to apply for future benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

What are the "natural disasters and similar events" that could befall SNAP? I have a hard time imaging what could impede SNAP payments besides a government shutdown.

[Anonymous]

The narcissism of this man is something to behold. But if it means he’ll release the funds so hungry kids can eat, fine. We all know what really went down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

GMAFB. This administration only follows the laws it wants to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

What are the "natural disasters and similar events" that could befall SNAP? I have a hard time imaging what could impede SNAP payments besides a government shutdown.

+1. It’s like when my husband asked me if he should wear a suit to his grandmother’s funeral. If this situation is not what it’s for, I’m not sure what is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From ages 8- 15 or so, my daughter and I did volunteer service feeding others. One place we worked at, the person in charge said something I will never forget: if you judge a person as you hand them food, you are doing it wrong. When we feed others, we don't concern ourselves with anything except handing them the food. (Of course if they are a criminal on a nearby wanted poster we'd call 911, but you know what he meant! Saying this because I know how this forum works.)

A few years later, I found myself suddenly a broke single mother. My daughter and I went to the food bank for a few years. Later, after she left home, she and her husband, a kind man that experienced homelessness as a child, held several events to feed the hungry in their city.

If a system needs fixing, work on it, but judging everyone that is in it while you sit in your warm home with health insurance, a car and good food is not helping anyone, nor is cutting off food to folks while shaking a finger instead of tackling the true problems of this country. Punching down is incredibly easy as opposed to reaching out with compassion.

And yeh, I know how it feels to work 4 or 5 jobs and cook and clean and try and survive. It's been over a decade and my body is damaged from it, permanently.

So you agree the Democrats should stop this nonsense and vote to get the government back to work, right?

House passed CR funds the government only thru November 21. Then we’re right back in another shutdown. Speaker Johnson has kept the house shut so there is zero negotiating happening to figure out a longer term plan.

Well, then maybe Democrats should pass the CR and get to work. 21 days of funding is better than no funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

What are the "natural disasters and similar events" that could befall SNAP? I have a hard time imaging what could impede SNAP payments besides a government shutdown.

+1. It’s like when my husband asked me if he should wear a suit to his grandmother’s funeral. If this situation is not what it’s for, I’m not sure what is.

Oh, the courts said so? Funny, you guys weren’t hesitant to say “let’s defy the court” when the Supreme Court banned race-based affirmative action in colleges & when they sent the abortion issue back to the states.

But now, some low-level punks in RI & MA say something & it’s like “The courts said so!!! The courts said so!!! Na na na-na na!!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

But Trump had no problem re-appropriating DOD money to pay troops, or re-appropriating program funding for farmers. Why does he suddenly have a problem re-appropriating SNAP money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

What are the "natural disasters and similar events" that could befall SNAP? I have a hard time imaging what could impede SNAP payments besides a government shutdown.

+1. It’s like when my husband asked me if he should wear a suit to his grandmother’s funeral. If this situation is not what it’s for, I’m not sure what is.

Oh, the courts said so? Funny, you guys weren’t hesitant to say “let’s defy the court” when the Supreme Court banned race-based affirmative action in colleges & when they sent the abortion issue back to the states.

But now, some low-level punks in RI & MA say something & it’s like “The courts said so!!! The courts said so!!! Na na na-na na!!”

Gonna need the receipts please. No one here is advocating for defying the judiciary, except you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

But Trump had no problem re-appropriating DOD money to pay troops, or re-appropriating program funding for farmers. Why does he suddenly have a problem re-appropriating SNAP money?

Because he believed it would hurt Dems politically. He’s wrong. Everyone knows what he’s up to and he finally figured out how bad it would look not to use the emergency funds for SNAP. The old man has lost a step or ten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh. A number of courts told him he had to.

Exactly! Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts ordered that he release the emergency funds dedicated to SNAP funding bun event of government shutdown and he is complying because his lawyers have explained to him he won’t win an appeal.

So he’s doubt what New England judges demanded he do, but trying to pass it off like he’s solving a problem of his own volition. And the stupid MAGA sheeple will believe him.

The decisions in Mass and RI can’t possibly stand. This has nothing to do with MAGA or whatever other emotionally laden narratives abound. Government officials cannot violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. Virtually every government official responsible for appropriations law knows this very well. There is a SNAP contingency fund for natural disasters and similar events. It won’t find but half of November. It is questionable whether under any circumstances it is lawful to re-allocate those funds to ordinary payment obligations without Congressional approval. Mind you the Anti-Defiency Act is a criminal statute. Moreover, the notion of a judge mandating appropriations is highly questionable - speaks to imperial behavior.

Don’t get me wrong - feeding hungry people is a very high priority. But there’s no avoiding that Congress, and not judges, must fund that effort.

What are the "natural disasters and similar events" that could befall SNAP? I have a hard time imaging what could impede SNAP payments besides a government shutdown.

+1. It’s like when my husband asked me if he should wear a suit to his grandmother’s funeral. If this situation is not what it’s for, I’m not sure what is.

Oh, the courts said so? Funny, you guys weren’t hesitant to say “let’s defy the court” when the Supreme Court banned race-based affirmative action in colleges & when they sent the abortion issue back to the states.

But now, some low-level punks in RI & MA say something & it’s like “The courts said so!!! The courts said so!!! Na na na-na na!!”

Are you truly unable to discern right and wrong, independent of the legal system? Sometimes the system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong.