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.

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?

The military always makes it a point to pay its troops on time so that they can have their mind on the job ahead and not feeding their kids at home. They even do the same in wartime. Not paying your troops historically has, uh "problems".

Congress needs to get off its tuckus and start funding bills early, but thats just too hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good job on buffing up that spelling, champ. Now work on the understanding part.

What are you even arguing against? Do yoj really think those numbers are wrong. If so, why don't you check them yourself and prove that I'm wrong. It should be pretty easy since I told you the source.

If you think I'm bluffing then call it. Go all in. Let's see if you're the least bit trustworthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

This shutdown is about the ACA subsidies. I get that you in your secure fed med plan dgaf about the under insured. Thankfully, other feds care and the Democrats care.

This admin could find money to pay the Snap benefits if they wanted to. They've been very creative using their powers when they care. A Dem president would find the funds, shutdown or not.

The “subsidies” were only ever intended to be temporary to get through COVID. That’s why the DEMCRATS capped the subsidies at 5 years. ACA was never intended to be Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. It was never intended to be another entitlement program. The country is $38 trillion in debt because of these programs.

No the country is $38 trillion in debt because republicans repeatedly cut taxes but don’t cut spending by an equivalent amount to match the lost revenues.

The Republicans are trying to cut spending. But since they don’t have 60 votes in the Senate they cannot pass individual appropriations bills so we’re stuck with the FY24 Biden budget. Which, ironically, the Senate Democrats have now voted 14 times against.

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.

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?

The military always makes it a point to pay its troops on time so that they can have their mind on the job ahead and not feeding their kids at home. They even do the same in wartime. Not paying your troops historically has, uh "problems".

Congress needs to get off its tuckus and start funding bills early, but thats just too hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

This shutdown is about the ACA subsidies. I get that you in your secure fed med plan dgaf about the under insured. Thankfully, other feds care and the Democrats care.

This admin could find money to pay the Snap benefits if they wanted to. They've been very creative using their powers when they care. A Dem president would find the funds, shutdown or not.

Dems: We'll vote for a budget if you let sick people go to the doctor.

Republicans: Let us take doctors away from sick people or we're gonna take food away from poor families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

This shutdown is about the ACA subsidies. I get that you in your secure fed med plan dgaf about the under insured. Thankfully, other feds care and the Democrats care.

This admin could find money to pay the Snap benefits if they wanted to. They've been very creative using their powers when they care. A Dem president would find the funds, shutdown or not.

The “subsidies” were only ever intended to be temporary to get through COVID. That’s why the DEMCRATS capped the subsidies at 5 years. ACA was never intended to be Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. It was never intended to be another entitlement program. The country is $38 trillion in debt because of these programs.

No the country is $38 trillion in debt because republicans repeatedly cut taxes but don’t cut spending by an equivalent amount to match the lost revenues.

The Republicans are trying to cut spending. But since they don’t have 60 votes in the Senate they cannot pass individual appropriations bills so we’re stuck with the FY24 Biden budget. Which, ironically, the Senate Democrats have now voted 14 times against.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

This shutdown is about the ACA subsidies. I get that you in your secure fed med plan dgaf about the under insured. Thankfully, other feds care and the Democrats care.

This admin could find money to pay the Snap benefits if they wanted to. They've been very creative using their powers when they care. A Dem president would find the funds, shutdown or not.

The “subsidies” were only ever intended to be temporary to get through COVID. That’s why the DEMCRATS capped the subsidies at 5 years. ACA was never intended to be Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. It was never intended to be another entitlement program. The country is $38 trillion in debt because of these programs.

No the country is $38 trillion in debt because republicans repeatedly cut taxes but don’t cut spending by an equivalent amount to match the lost revenues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

This shutdown is about the ACA subsidies. I get that you in your secure fed med plan dgaf about the under insured. Thankfully, other feds care and the Democrats care.

This admin could find money to pay the Snap benefits if they wanted to. They've been very creative using their powers when they care. A Dem president would find the funds, shutdown or not.

The “subsidies” were only ever intended to be temporary to get through COVID. That’s why the DEMCRATS capped the subsidies at 5 years. ACA was never intended to be Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. It was never intended to be another entitlement program. The country is $38 trillion in debt because of these programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

This shutdown is about the ACA subsidies. I get that you in your secure fed med plan dgaf about the under insured. Thankfully, other feds care and the Democrats care.

This admin could find money to pay the Snap benefits if they wanted to. They've been very creative using their powers when they care. A Dem president would find the funds, shutdown or not.

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!!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Narrators voice: “Leader Thune has brought a clean CR to the floor 14 times for a vote.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.

So dense

Never a look at Thune?

I guess you are right. They don't think about you at all

Anonymous wrote:We just need six Democrat senators to do the right thing so I can get my paycheck. Looking at you Mr. Van Hollen.