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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USDA has billions in contingency funds. It has been used to cover SNAP during previous shutdowns. But the Republicans chose to weaponize it instead.

A judge ordered them to pay up from the contingency fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/31/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251031&instance_id=165552&nl=breaking-news®i_id=72743657&segment_id=209721&user_id=26869c7395f1f5cdbf02703f998a7bbe

And based on reporting, the administration’s attorneys do not believe that the government can tap into those contingency funds. Trump has been very clear that he will distribute the funds so long as he legally can, and is requesting additional guidance from the courts on how to legally distribute the funds.

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually considers the legality of his actions, unlike Biden who kept trying to forgive student loans for the wealthy elite, and a president who is fighting so hard to get food stamps to those in need despite the democrats’ treasonous actions leading to the prolonged closure of the government.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/snap-hearing-massachusetts-state-lawsuit-trump

You know we have a whole coequal branch of government, composed of presidentially appointed individuals who have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding orders right???

Which is why Trump is asking said branch how to distribute the funds legally.

We are in a situation where a liberal activist judge ordered Trump to do something his attorneys believe is explicitly illegal, and Trump needs to know how they are supposed to do so.

It’s like if you went to court because your neighbor’s fence crosses your property line, and the judge tells you that you can just murder your neighbor.

Did you not watch the schoolhouse rock video in grade school? Trump's attorneys are not the ones who determine legality, the judiciary is.

Which is why he is going to the courts and asking for their guidance. Again, Trump is fighting like hell, in a reality where getting that answer will likely require the government to spend millions on consultation going all the way up to the Supreme Court due to the clearly biased and compromised lower courts, to get deserving Americans their food stamps. Meanwhile, the democrats are sitting there and have voted 19 times specifically to starve our wonderful American patriots.

Why was this not a "battle against the gods" when emergency SNAP-allocated funds were released during previous interruptions in SNAP provision?

WHy can't Trump figure this out, when other presidents could? What is he missing?

You can’t use contingency funds unless the underlying program is running genius. Democrats voting no ended the SNAP, until Dems vote yes nothing with contingency can be done because SNAP isn’t functioning right now. They could also pass a single bill for SNAP but Democrats refused to do so in September. So Dems have F’ed you. Go call them.

This. It’s a terrible predicament but our leaders are failing us. I spent the day calling every Democrat Senator telling them to vote yes.

[Anonymous]

Updates??? Have they been issued their benefits today or not? Does anyone know? I know the judge ruled they needed to issue the benefits but any news on whether it has actually been done???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USDA has billions in contingency funds. It has been used to cover SNAP during previous shutdowns. But the Republicans chose to weaponize it instead.

A judge ordered them to pay up from the contingency fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/31/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251031&instance_id=165552&nl=breaking-news®i_id=72743657&segment_id=209721&user_id=26869c7395f1f5cdbf02703f998a7bbe

And based on reporting, the administration’s attorneys do not believe that the government can tap into those contingency funds. Trump has been very clear that he will distribute the funds so long as he legally can, and is requesting additional guidance from the courts on how to legally distribute the funds.

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually considers the legality of his actions, unlike Biden who kept trying to forgive student loans for the wealthy elite, and a president who is fighting so hard to get food stamps to those in need despite the democrats’ treasonous actions leading to the prolonged closure of the government.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/snap-hearing-massachusetts-state-lawsuit-trump

You know we have a whole coequal branch of government, composed of presidentially appointed individuals who have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding orders right???

Which is why Trump is asking said branch how to distribute the funds legally.

We are in a situation where a liberal activist judge ordered Trump to do something his attorneys believe is explicitly illegal, and Trump needs to know how they are supposed to do so.

It’s like if you went to court because your neighbor’s fence crosses your property line, and the judge tells you that you can just murder your neighbor.

Did you not watch the schoolhouse rock video in grade school? Trump's attorneys are not the ones who determine legality, the judiciary is.

Which is why he is going to the courts and asking for their guidance. Again, Trump is fighting like hell, in a reality where getting that answer will likely require the government to spend millions on consultation going all the way up to the Supreme Court due to the clearly biased and compromised lower courts, to get deserving Americans their food stamps. Meanwhile, the democrats are sitting there and have voted 19 times specifically to starve our wonderful American patriots.

Why was this not a "battle against the gods" when emergency SNAP-allocated funds were released during previous interruptions in SNAP provision?

WHy can't Trump figure this out, when other presidents could? What is he missing?

You can’t use contingency funds unless the underlying program is running genius. Democrats voting no ended the SNAP, until Dems vote yes nothing with contingency can be done because SNAP isn’t functioning right now. They could also pass a single bill for SNAP but Democrats refused to do so in September. So Dems have F’ed you. Go call them.

This. It’s a terrible predicament but our leaders are failing us. I spent the day calling every Democrat Senator telling them to vote yes.

If the mega-donors want the government to remain shut down for whatever reasons, our corrupt Congress will make sure it remains shut down. This is an ugly truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USDA has billions in contingency funds. It has been used to cover SNAP during previous shutdowns. But the Republicans chose to weaponize it instead.

A judge ordered them to pay up from the contingency fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/31/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251031&instance_id=165552&nl=breaking-news®i_id=72743657&segment_id=209721&user_id=26869c7395f1f5cdbf02703f998a7bbe

And based on reporting, the administration’s attorneys do not believe that the government can tap into those contingency funds. Trump has been very clear that he will distribute the funds so long as he legally can, and is requesting additional guidance from the courts on how to legally distribute the funds.

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually considers the legality of his actions, unlike Biden who kept trying to forgive student loans for the wealthy elite, and a president who is fighting so hard to get food stamps to those in need despite the democrats’ treasonous actions leading to the prolonged closure of the government.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/snap-hearing-massachusetts-state-lawsuit-trump

You know we have a whole coequal branch of government, composed of presidentially appointed individuals who have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding orders right???

Which is why Trump is asking said branch how to distribute the funds legally.

We are in a situation where a liberal activist judge ordered Trump to do something his attorneys believe is explicitly illegal, and Trump needs to know how they are supposed to do so.

It’s like if you went to court because your neighbor’s fence crosses your property line, and the judge tells you that you can just murder your neighbor.

Did you not watch the schoolhouse rock video in grade school? Trump's attorneys are not the ones who determine legality, the judiciary is.

Which is why he is going to the courts and asking for their guidance. Again, Trump is fighting like hell, in a reality where getting that answer will likely require the government to spend millions on consultation going all the way up to the Supreme Court due to the clearly biased and compromised lower courts, to get deserving Americans their food stamps. Meanwhile, the democrats are sitting there and have voted 19 times specifically to starve our wonderful American patriots.

Why was this not a "battle against the gods" when emergency SNAP-allocated funds were released during previous interruptions in SNAP provision?

WHy can't Trump figure this out, when other presidents could? What is he missing?

You can’t use contingency funds unless the underlying program is running genius. Democrats voting no ended the SNAP, until Dems vote yes nothing with contingency can be done because SNAP isn’t functioning right now. They could also pass a single bill for SNAP but Democrats refused to do so in September. So Dems have F’ed you. Go call them.

This. It’s a terrible predicament but our leaders are failing us. I spent the day calling every Democrat Senator telling them to vote yes.

Again, nope. The contingency funds already went through both the allocation process and appropriation.

Again, they are ALREADY APPROPRIATED. They do not need to be appropriated through CR. This part is all completely on Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USDA has billions in contingency funds. It has been used to cover SNAP during previous shutdowns. But the Republicans chose to weaponize it instead.

A judge ordered them to pay up from the contingency fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/31/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251031&instance_id=165552&nl=breaking-news®i_id=72743657&segment_id=209721&user_id=26869c7395f1f5cdbf02703f998a7bbe

And based on reporting, the administration’s attorneys do not believe that the government can tap into those contingency funds. Trump has been very clear that he will distribute the funds so long as he legally can, and is requesting additional guidance from the courts on how to legally distribute the funds.

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually considers the legality of his actions, unlike Biden who kept trying to forgive student loans for the wealthy elite, and a president who is fighting so hard to get food stamps to those in need despite the democrats’ treasonous actions leading to the prolonged closure of the government.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/snap-hearing-massachusetts-state-lawsuit-trump

You know we have a whole coequal branch of government, composed of presidentially appointed individuals who have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding orders right???

Which is why Trump is asking said branch how to distribute the funds legally.

We are in a situation where a liberal activist judge ordered Trump to do something his attorneys believe is explicitly illegal, and Trump needs to know how they are supposed to do so.

It’s like if you went to court because your neighbor’s fence crosses your property line, and the judge tells you that you can just murder your neighbor.

Did you not watch the schoolhouse rock video in grade school? Trump's attorneys are not the ones who determine legality, the judiciary is.

Which is why he is going to the courts and asking for their guidance. Again, Trump is fighting like hell, in a reality where getting that answer will likely require the government to spend millions on consultation going all the way up to the Supreme Court due to the clearly biased and compromised lower courts, to get deserving Americans their food stamps. Meanwhile, the democrats are sitting there and have voted 19 times specifically to starve our wonderful American patriots.

Why was this not a "battle against the gods" when emergency SNAP-allocated funds were released during previous interruptions in SNAP provision?

WHy can't Trump figure this out, when other presidents could? What is he missing?

You can’t use contingency funds unless the underlying program is running genius. Democrats voting no ended the SNAP, until Dems vote yes nothing with contingency can be done because SNAP isn’t functioning right now. They could also pass a single bill for SNAP but Democrats refused to do so in September. So Dems have F’ed you. Go call them.

This. It’s a terrible predicament but our leaders are failing us. I spent the day calling every Democrat Senator telling them to vote yes.

Again, nope. The contingency funds already went through both the allocation process and appropriation.

Again, they are ALREADY APPROPRIATED. They do not need to be appropriated through CR. This part is all completely on Trump.

The funds aren't going through because Republicans don't want them to go through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You know what makes for fewer children who can't be cared for? Easy, cheap access to birth control. You know what's been cut, dismantled, and reduced through recent GOP policies? You got it.

Yeah. That’s why she’s having a 9th kid. Because she can’t find out how to get free birth control or doesn’t know how babies are made.

If you want to have a real, marked effect on the problem, you provide the answer that actually works overall.

I don't believe you really care about this at all. You just enjoy punching down.

You honestly think she’d had a 9th if she couldn’t feed the previous 8? We pay her to feed them all, and we’ll pay to feed this one too. We make it easy. Why is it all of a sudden a crisis how to feed her kids? Oh because we’ve been doing it for her since they were born.

If you provide cheap and easy access to reliable birth control, the number of children born goes down. That was true in Colorado during the early studies, and it is true thereafter.

And yet this Republican administration has been making moves that close free health clinics, close rural hospitals, and limit or end access to Planned Parenthood. Why is that?

Maybe because people can avoid pregnancy if they want to by buying their own birth control or by exercising some self-restraint, instead of expecting the government to moderate their procreative urges for them or by only using free or low-cost birth control instead of making it their own personal priority even if it costs a little more?

This requires education.

Which party doesn’t want sex education in schools?

Which party PREFERS and uneducated populace?

What it actually required long ago was president LBJ sending the signal to men to walk out on their partner and the state will take over and provide. Another one of LBJ's hairbrained "successes" as part of the Democrat's "Great Society". This crap has been building for decades. Now the budgets are breaking. Does anyone know the figures for children raised by one parent vs. children raised by two in the U.S.? Take a guess.

If you want fewer children to be born, then you provide cheap and easy access to birth control. That has been the only thing proven in research to work, and it works very well.

Starving people doesn't work, and neither does starving their children. Not nearly as well as birth control.

We have cheap and easy birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNAP isn't Obamacare. One is food, the other is health care.

There are emergency funds already allocated AND appropriated to be used if SNAP funding was interrupted -- so why isn't Trump releasing the SNAP (that's food, son) funds, as ordered by a federal judge?

And both are covered under the CR. Dems don't want to agree to it, so suffer.

No, the GOP unilaterally cut SNAP benefits and are letting ACA funding expire. The Dems do not agree to that which is why they don't agree with the CR. And, with recissions, the Executive branch is ignoring the laws already in place and the Dems don't agree with that, either.

Yet democrats agreed with every CR previously. Now they don't.

I personally think it's a great way to kill Obamacare and I'm enthusiastic about that!

and replace it with what? What would be the new health insurance regime?

The private insurance system we had, which was cheaper, more effective, and led to better outcomes.

At this point, it’s very clear Obamacare has failed. We can look at options for healthcare reform, but if we do it’s important we focus that on the private sector, and listen to the experts on insurance, rather then relying on communism like Obamacare did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

You know what makes for fewer children who can't be cared for? Easy, cheap access to birth control. You know what's been cut, dismantled, and reduced through recent GOP policies? You got it.

Yeah. That’s why she’s having a 9th kid. Because she can’t find out how to get free birth control or doesn’t know how babies are made.

If you want to have a real, marked effect on the problem, you provide the answer that actually works overall.

I don't believe you really care about this at all. You just enjoy punching down.

You honestly think she’d had a 9th if she couldn’t feed the previous 8? We pay her to feed them all, and we’ll pay to feed this one too. We make it easy. Why is it all of a sudden a crisis how to feed her kids? Oh because we’ve been doing it for her since they were born.

If you provide cheap and easy access to reliable birth control, the number of children born goes down. That was true in Colorado during the early studies, and it is true thereafter.

And yet this Republican administration has been making moves that close free health clinics, close rural hospitals, and limit or end access to Planned Parenthood. Why is that?

Maybe because people can avoid pregnancy if they want to by buying their own birth control or by exercising some self-restraint, instead of expecting the government to moderate their procreative urges for them or by only using free or low-cost birth control instead of making it their own personal priority even if it costs a little more?

This requires education.

Which party doesn’t want sex education in schools?

Which party PREFERS and uneducated populace?

What it actually required long ago was president LBJ sending the signal to men to walk out on their partner and the state will take over and provide. Another one of LBJ's hairbrained "successes" as part of the Democrat's "Great Society". This crap has been building for decades. Now the budgets are breaking. Does anyone know the figures for children raised by one parent vs. children raised by two in the U.S.? Take a guess.

If you want fewer children to be born, then you provide cheap and easy access to birth control. That has been the only thing proven in research to work, and it works very well.

Starving people doesn't work, and neither does starving their children. Not nearly as well as birth control.

We have cheap and easy birth control.

Well, we did. But the Republican right fixed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNAP isn't Obamacare. One is food, the other is health care.

There are emergency funds already allocated AND appropriated to be used if SNAP funding was interrupted -- so why isn't Trump releasing the SNAP (that's food, son) funds, as ordered by a federal judge?

And both are covered under the CR. Dems don't want to agree to it, so suffer.

No, the GOP unilaterally cut SNAP benefits and are letting ACA funding expire. The Dems do not agree to that which is why they don't agree with the CR. And, with recissions, the Executive branch is ignoring the laws already in place and the Dems don't agree with that, either.

Yet democrats agreed with every CR previously. Now they don't.

I personally think it's a great way to kill Obamacare and I'm enthusiastic about that!

and replace it with what? What would be the new health insurance regime?

The private insurance system we had, which was cheaper, more effective, and led to better outcomes.

At this point, it’s very clear Obamacare has failed. We can look at options for healthcare reform, but if we do it’s important we focus that on the private sector, and listen to the experts on insurance, rather then relying on communism like Obamacare did.

That was before Citizens United. The ACA and Citizens United happened within two months of each other.

Now there is only one thing stopping the private insurance industry from spending billions on lobbying and pennies on health care. And that's the ACA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USDA has billions in contingency funds. It has been used to cover SNAP during previous shutdowns. But the Republicans chose to weaponize it instead.

A judge ordered them to pay up from the contingency fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/31/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251031&instance_id=165552&nl=breaking-news®i_id=72743657&segment_id=209721&user_id=26869c7395f1f5cdbf02703f998a7bbe

And based on reporting, the administration’s attorneys do not believe that the government can tap into those contingency funds. Trump has been very clear that he will distribute the funds so long as he legally can, and is requesting additional guidance from the courts on how to legally distribute the funds.

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually considers the legality of his actions, unlike Biden who kept trying to forgive student loans for the wealthy elite, and a president who is fighting so hard to get food stamps to those in need despite the democrats’ treasonous actions leading to the prolonged closure of the government.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/snap-hearing-massachusetts-state-lawsuit-trump

You know we have a whole coequal branch of government, composed of presidentially appointed individuals who have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding orders right???

Which is why Trump is asking said branch how to distribute the funds legally.

We are in a situation where a liberal activist judge ordered Trump to do something his attorneys believe is explicitly illegal, and Trump needs to know how they are supposed to do so.

It’s like if you went to court because your neighbor’s fence crosses your property line, and the judge tells you that you can just murder your neighbor.

Did you not watch the schoolhouse rock video in grade school? Trump's attorneys are not the ones who determine legality, the judiciary is.

Which is why he is going to the courts and asking for their guidance. Again, Trump is fighting like hell, in a reality where getting that answer will likely require the government to spend millions on consultation going all the way up to the Supreme Court due to the clearly biased and compromised lower courts, to get deserving Americans their food stamps. Meanwhile, the democrats are sitting there and have voted 19 times specifically to starve our wonderful American patriots.

Why was this not a "battle against the gods" when emergency SNAP-allocated funds were released during previous interruptions in SNAP provision?

WHy can't Trump figure this out, when other presidents could? What is he missing?

Other presidents don't figure it out. They just go with flow and pass the problem down the line.

Some things need to change, because financially, things are becoming mathematically uncertain. He's trying to course correct before we tip over.

Having to pay more in interest on the debt than the entire DoD budget should be a clue. In fact, it should have been a clue decades ago. But problems compound (pun intended).

This is the funniest thing I’ve read in perhaps forever. Where the hell have you been?

His tax bill is adding $4 trillion to the debt.

We just passed$38 trillion. We were at $37 trillion in August and he added another $1 trillion faster than at anytime IN HISTORY outside of the pandemic

He was responsible for adding thru legislation or executive action more than $8 trillion his first term (double Joe Biden btw).

His tax bill creates new expensive giveaways that will be hard to curb. Especially the new senior deduction.

His tax bill makes the social security trust fund insolvent a year earlier.

DOGE was a joke that is costing our government more money.

The one thing he is doing on the other side of the ledger is he created a new national tax that we are all paying (tariffs). It does not come close to offsetting the balance sheet of his tax bill for billionaires.

Hilarious that you think cutting food assistance off from poor people is about getting our $38 trillion and quickly counting debt under control.

You should consider standup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USDA has billions in contingency funds. It has been used to cover SNAP during previous shutdowns. But the Republicans chose to weaponize it instead.

A judge ordered them to pay up from the contingency fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/31/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251031&instance_id=165552&nl=breaking-news®i_id=72743657&segment_id=209721&user_id=26869c7395f1f5cdbf02703f998a7bbe

And based on reporting, the administration’s attorneys do not believe that the government can tap into those contingency funds. Trump has been very clear that he will distribute the funds so long as he legally can, and is requesting additional guidance from the courts on how to legally distribute the funds.

It’s a breath of fresh air to have a president who actually considers the legality of his actions, unlike Biden who kept trying to forgive student loans for the wealthy elite, and a president who is fighting so hard to get food stamps to those in need despite the democrats’ treasonous actions leading to the prolonged closure of the government.

https://www.axios.com/2025/10/31/snap-hearing-massachusetts-state-lawsuit-trump

You know we have a whole coequal branch of government, composed of presidentially appointed individuals who have the authority to interpret the law and issue binding orders right???

Which is why Trump is asking said branch how to distribute the funds legally.

We are in a situation where a liberal activist judge ordered Trump to do something his attorneys believe is explicitly illegal, and Trump needs to know how they are supposed to do so.

It’s like if you went to court because your neighbor’s fence crosses your property line, and the judge tells you that you can just murder your neighbor.

Did you not watch the schoolhouse rock video in grade school? Trump's attorneys are not the ones who determine legality, the judiciary is.

Which is why he is going to the courts and asking for their guidance. Again, Trump is fighting like hell, in a reality where getting that answer will likely require the government to spend millions on consultation going all the way up to the Supreme Court due to the clearly biased and compromised lower courts, to get deserving Americans their food stamps. Meanwhile, the democrats are sitting there and have voted 19 times specifically to starve our wonderful American patriots.

Why was this not a "battle against the gods" when emergency SNAP-allocated funds were released during previous interruptions in SNAP provision?

WHy can't Trump figure this out, when other presidents could? What is he missing?

You can’t use contingency funds unless the underlying program is running genius. Democrats voting no ended the SNAP, until Dems vote yes nothing with contingency can be done because SNAP isn’t functioning right now. They could also pass a single bill for SNAP but Democrats refused to do so in September. So Dems have F’ed you. Go call them.

It’s so cute you believe that completely false talking point about the contingency fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNAP isn't Obamacare. One is food, the other is health care.

There are emergency funds already allocated AND appropriated to be used if SNAP funding was interrupted -- so why isn't Trump releasing the SNAP (that's food, son) funds, as ordered by a federal judge?

And both are covered under the CR. Dems don't want to agree to it, so suffer.

No, the GOP unilaterally cut SNAP benefits and are letting ACA funding expire. The Dems do not agree to that which is why they don't agree with the CR. And, with recissions, the Executive branch is ignoring the laws already in place and the Dems don't agree with that, either.

The dems want 1.5T ADDITIONAL spending on Obamacare to keep it going. You aren't getting it in a CR.

But you are ok with

1) people not having health coverage
2) 40B to argentina
3) 20+ billion to farmers
4) increased prices because of tariffs
5) less federal income because of unfunded tax cuts
6) further consolidation of wealth and control to an oligarch class

You are getting mad at the little people, more than half of whom are Trump voters, instead of the people in control, who are raping our treasury for everything it is worth.

+1

The general sentiment among smart people is Trump and 95% of our Congress members need to be tossed out on their sorry, corrupt arses.

The general consensus on DCUM is half the country should work to pay for the other half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNAP isn't Obamacare. One is food, the other is health care.

There are emergency funds already allocated AND appropriated to be used if SNAP funding was interrupted -- so why isn't Trump releasing the SNAP (that's food, son) funds, as ordered by a federal judge?

And both are covered under the CR. Dems don't want to agree to it, so suffer.

Nope. ACA subsidies are not covered under the CR. They expire in current law. The CR does not touch them. Dems want Rs to add them to the CR.

On the other hand, Congress appropriated $3 bn each for a contingency fund for SNAP in 2024 and again in 2025. That’s why the admin has nearly $6 bn legally available right now for SNAP (a small portion has been used for something else.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNAP isn't Obamacare. One is food, the other is health care.

There are emergency funds already allocated AND appropriated to be used if SNAP funding was interrupted -- so why isn't Trump releasing the SNAP (that's food, son) funds, as ordered by a federal judge?

And both are covered under the CR. Dems don't want to agree to it, so suffer.

No, the GOP unilaterally cut SNAP benefits and are letting ACA funding expire. The Dems do not agree to that which is why they don't agree with the CR. And, with recissions, the Executive branch is ignoring the laws already in place and the Dems don't agree with that, either.

The dems want 1.5T ADDITIONAL spending on Obamacare to keep it going. You aren't getting it in a CR.

It's not "additional" - it's a continuation of existing. And, it's not $1.5. You've been propagandized with disinfo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNAP isn't Obamacare. One is food, the other is health care.

There are emergency funds already allocated AND appropriated to be used if SNAP funding was interrupted -- so why isn't Trump releasing the SNAP (that's food, son) funds, as ordered by a federal judge?

And both are covered under the CR. Dems don't want to agree to it, so suffer.

Nope. ACA subsidies are not covered under the CR. They expire in current law. The CR does not touch them. Dems want Rs to add them to the CR.

On the other hand, Congress appropriated $3 bn each for a contingency fund for SNAP in 2024 and again in 2025. That’s why the admin has nearly $6 bn legally available right now for SNAP (a small portion has been used for something else.).

Republicans are lying when they claim SNAP was "stopped by Democrats" and when they claim the contingency fund can't be used for SNAP. SNAP was not stopped during the prior shutdowns and they were able to draw down from the contingency fund when needed, including during the shutdown in Trump's first term.