Um, guys?

[Anonymous]

If food stamps are actually used to buy soda then that needs to be banned right now. Outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Sure looks like it to me that Dems are at fault.

No one wins with shutdowns. No one should hold Feds hostage. No one should hold SNAP recipients hostage.

Find a moral way to fight.

What's immoral about refusing to supply votes for a bill your voters don't want?

The part where people don't get their food stamps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One good thing that came out of this was increased visibility of the SNAP program.

Not many people were aware that over 40 million people were on it or that soft drinks was the number one item purchased.

Soft drinks are primarily high-fructose corn syrup and water.

Corn syrup supports our corn farmers; why shouldn’t most of the SNAP money ultimately end up going to American corn farmers?

Because, the N in SNAP stands for nutrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One good thing that came out of this was increased visibility of the SNAP program.

Not many people were aware that over 40 million people were on it or that soft drinks was the number one item purchased.

Soft drinks are primarily high-fructose corn syrup and water.

Corn syrup supports our corn farmers; why shouldn’t most of the SNAP money ultimately end up going to American corn farmers?

Corn farmers don't deserve another cent. It's their lobby that made possible the overproduction of corn in the first place through subsidies.

https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/

Corn was the most-subsidized crop in 2024; corn farms received $3.2 billion, or 30.5% of all federal farm subsidies. Corn makes up 95% of all US-produced feed grains (a category that also includes oats, barley, and sorghum). It’s used for livestock feed, ethanol production, and food in products like sweeteners, corn oil, beverages, starch, and alcohol.

What is the cash crop of iowa again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Sure looks like it to me that Dems are at fault.

No one wins with shutdowns. No one should hold Feds hostage. No one should hold SNAP recipients hostage.

Find a moral way to fight.

DP.
I'm going to repeat what was written by the PP just prior to your post, because it is the correct answer: "...the responsibility to negotiate and to broker a deal to prevent or end the shutdown belonged to the majority party, the Republicans. The fact that they chose not to negotiate whatsoever was a bullying tactic."

Why does the majority party have to negotiate?

Did the majority party negotiate when trump asked for a wall along the southern border?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One good thing that came out of this was increased visibility of the SNAP program.

Not many people were aware that over 40 million people were on it or that soft drinks was the number one item purchased.

Soft drinks are primarily high-fructose corn syrup and water.

Corn syrup supports our corn farmers; why shouldn’t most of the SNAP money ultimately end up going to American corn farmers?

Really? This is really your response??

Maybe they should be buying other products produced by farmers like ACTUAL corn and other vegetables.

Maybe our farmers should produce less corn (most of it is animal feed corn and corn for high fructose corn syrup) and more actual food if they want subsidies, which SNAP is.

No one complains about farmers having their hands out, but you begrudge the working poor a soda? Why? And don't give me crap about caring about their health. We waste money on tons of things in this country. Feeding the poor is not one of them.

Yes, I totally begrudge the working poor a soda. They can have juice, milk, water, or they can pay for it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If food stamps are actually used to buy soda then that needs to be banned right now. Outrageous.

it has been banned my entire life. Trump gave states waivers so that you can buy candy and soda with food stamps if your state allows

[Anonymous]

Both parties could end it. Nobody thought otherwise.

That doesn't mean that because one could, the other couldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One good thing that came out of this was increased visibility of the SNAP program.

Not many people were aware that over 40 million people were on it or that soft drinks was the number one item purchased.

Soft drinks are primarily high-fructose corn syrup and water.

Corn syrup supports our corn farmers; why shouldn’t most of the SNAP money ultimately end up going to American corn farmers?

Really? This is really your response??

Maybe they should be buying other products produced by farmers like ACTUAL corn and other vegetables.

Maybe our farmers should produce less corn (most of it is animal feed corn and corn for high fructose corn syrup) and more actual food if they want subsidies, which SNAP is.

No one complains about farmers having their hands out, but you begrudge the working poor a soda? Why? And don't give me crap about caring about their health. We waste money on tons of things in this country. Feeding the poor is not one of them.

Yes, I totally begrudge the working poor a soda. They can have juice, milk, water, or they can pay for it themselves.

Who do you think you are? not a good look pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Sure looks like it to me that Dems are at fault.

No one wins with shutdowns. No one should hold Feds hostage. No one should hold SNAP recipients hostage.

Find a moral way to fight.

+100000

No matter how wrong Reps are for what they did or did not do, and they are wrong - the Dems aren't better.

The whole BS excuse that the Dems had no choice is lame. Be an adult. Be responsible and be smart. This whole fiasco was a joke. That's a Dem choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know we have (mostly) all been true to the narrative that the repugs control both houses and the WH so this whole shutdown is 100% their fault; they are the ones who are solely responsible for all the suffering.

But the complaining that “we caved,” and that we were the ones with the power to end this all along,

- doesn’t that directly counter our original narrative that we were powerless to stop this repug shutdown?

I had the same thought but not shared it.

Yes and I said the exact same thing to my husband.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One good thing that came out of this was increased visibility of the SNAP program.

Not many people were aware that over 40 million people were on it or that soft drinks was the number one item purchased.

Soft drinks are primarily high-fructose corn syrup and water.

Corn syrup supports our corn farmers; why shouldn’t most of the SNAP money ultimately end up going to American corn farmers?

Really? This is really your response??

Maybe they should be buying other products produced by farmers like ACTUAL corn and other vegetables.

Maybe our farmers should produce less corn (most of it is animal feed corn and corn for high fructose corn syrup) and more actual food if they want subsidies, which SNAP is.

No one complains about farmers having their hands out, but you begrudge the working poor a soda? Why? And don't give me crap about caring about their health. We waste money on tons of things in this country. Feeding the poor is not one of them.

Yes, I totally begrudge the working poor a soda. They can have juice, milk, water, or they can pay for it themselves.

Soda is nearly identical to juice, nutritionally.
Sofa has more nutrition than water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Both parties could end it. Nobody thought otherwise.

That doesn't mean that because one could, the other couldn't.

Yes, but basic arithmetic and logic is above the ken of many commenters, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law

Murc’s Law is a term that describes a tendency in political journalism to attribute responsibility or agency only to Democratic Party actors, while treating Republican actions as inevitable or structurally determined.[1] The term originated in the left-wing blogosphere and has since gained traction in commentary about press bias and political framing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know we have (mostly) all been true to the narrative that the repugs control both houses and the WH so this whole shutdown is 100% their fault; they are the ones who are solely responsible for all the suffering.

But the complaining that “we caved,” and that we were the ones with the power to end this all along,

- doesn’t that directly counter our original narrative that we were powerless to stop this repug shutdown?

Un, guys, did the US needlessly prolong WWII by attacking the Nazi and Imperial Japanese armies?