In the short term this is disastrous. In my view in the long term the states ought to look towards funding it themselves.
After all many of their wealthier people benefited from reduced federal taxes, so they can afford to pay more state taxes.
 
A few Republicans want a stand alone bill to fund SNAP during the shutdown


Republican leaders appear to be against it as it would relieve pressure on Democrats.


“The pain register is about to hit level 10,” Johnson said, adding that “sadly” 42 million Americans will be hit this weekend when Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits run out of money. “We deeply regret it on our side,” he added, lambasting Democrats for their tactics.

:eek:

Food account balance for November, $0!

Military pay should run out in mid-November.
 

Half of US states sue Trump administration over halting food stamps​

Half of US states have sued the Trump administration over its plans to halt funding for food aid used by more than 40 million low-income Americans.

The states hope to force the administration to use a roughly $6bn (£4.5bn) emergency contingency fund for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), also known as food stamps.

The US Department of Agriculture (Usda), which oversees Snap, has said it would not use it and allow funds to run dry in November, arguing the money may be needed for emergencies, such as natural disasters.

Republicans and Democrats have traded blame for the ongoing federal shutdown and there has not been any meaningful progress toward a deal.

"Bottom line, the well has run dry," the Usda said in an announcement about Snap benefits on its website.

The suit, led by Democratic attorneys generals in 25 states and the District of Columbia, argues the administration not using the contingency funds would be unlawful and deprive millions of Americans from being able to afford groceries.

They note it would mark the first time in the programme's history the funds would not be dolled out.

"Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and well-being," the lawsuit reads.

"The loss of SNAP benefits leads to food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems."

States involved in the lawsuit include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

"While Donald Trump parades around the world trying to repair the economic damage he's done with his incompetence, he's denying food to millions of Americans who will go hungry next month," California Gov Gavin Newsom said.

"It's cruel and speaks to his basic lack of humanity. He doesn't care about the people of this country, only himself."

Responding to the lawsuit, the Usda blamed Democrats for the fund running dry and said they need to decide whether they want to "hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments".

Even if the contingency fund is used to help Snap beneficiaries, it would only cover about 60% of one month of benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a think-tank focused on policies that help low-income families.

Snap works by giving people reloadable debit cards that they can use to buy essential grocery items.

A family of four on average receives $715 (£540) per month, according to CBPP, which breaks down to a little less than $6 (£4.50) per day per person.

The states administer the programmes, with much of the funding coming from the federal government.

Several states have pledged to use their own funds to cover any shortfall, however the federal government has warned that they will not be reimbursed.

Some, including Massachusetts - where one million people are expected to lose benefits - have said they do not have enough money to make up for the lack of funds.

Many states are working with people in Snap to try locate charity food pantries and find alternative sources for meals, and California is deploying its National Guard to help distribute food.

The US government shutdown entered its 28th day on Tuesday, making it the second-longest shutdown in history.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2px0zmz8mo
my question is why compel the release of emergency funds for a program that'd be funded just as easily by telling your representatives in congress to pass a continuing resolution. the latter's refusal does not constitute an "emergency" any more than it does human folly...
 

Half of US states sue Trump administration over halting food stamps​

Half of US states have sued the Trump administration over its plans to halt funding for food aid used by more than 40 million low-income Americans.

The states hope to force the administration to use a roughly $6bn (£4.5bn) emergency contingency fund for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), also known as food stamps.

The US Department of Agriculture (Usda), which oversees Snap, has said it would not use it and allow funds to run dry in November, arguing the money may be needed for emergencies, such as natural disasters.

Republicans and Democrats have traded blame for the ongoing federal shutdown and there has not been any meaningful progress toward a deal.

"Bottom line, the well has run dry," the Usda said in an announcement about Snap benefits on its website.

The suit, led by Democratic attorneys generals in 25 states and the District of Columbia, argues the administration not using the contingency funds would be unlawful and deprive millions of Americans from being able to afford groceries.

They note it would mark the first time in the programme's history the funds would not be dolled out.

"Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and well-being," the lawsuit reads.

"The loss of SNAP benefits leads to food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems."

States involved in the lawsuit include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

"While Donald Trump parades around the world trying to repair the economic damage he's done with his incompetence, he's denying food to millions of Americans who will go hungry next month," California Gov Gavin Newsom said.

"It's cruel and speaks to his basic lack of humanity. He doesn't care about the people of this country, only himself."

Responding to the lawsuit, the Usda blamed Democrats for the fund running dry and said they need to decide whether they want to "hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments".

Even if the contingency fund is used to help Snap beneficiaries, it would only cover about 60% of one month of benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a think-tank focused on policies that help low-income families.

Snap works by giving people reloadable debit cards that they can use to buy essential grocery items.

A family of four on average receives $715 (£540) per month, according to CBPP, which breaks down to a little less than $6 (£4.50) per day per person.

The states administer the programmes, with much of the funding coming from the federal government.

Several states have pledged to use their own funds to cover any shortfall, however the federal government has warned that they will not be reimbursed.

Some, including Massachusetts - where one million people are expected to lose benefits - have said they do not have enough money to make up for the lack of funds.

Many states are working with people in Snap to try locate charity food pantries and find alternative sources for meals, and California is deploying its National Guard to help distribute food.

The US government shutdown entered its 28th day on Tuesday, making it the second-longest shutdown in history.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2px0zmz8mo
States could offer immunity from lawsuits to fast food places, restaurants and grocery stores that give away their expired food and/or items that were going to be thrown away for the night.
 
This seems like taking sides and is grossly inappropriate.

Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Bottom line, the well has run dry.
At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01.

We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.

I don't think USA has ever had food riots before? :hmm:
King Trump will finally get to use the Insurrection Act he seems so eager to deploy.

**Edit**

I wish to apologize for calling the Clinton Foundation corrupt 9 years ago.


Check out this conflict of interest!


In the first half of this year, the Trump Organization’s income soared 17-fold to $864 million from $51 million a year earlier, according to Reuters calculations based on the president’s official disclosures, property records, financial records released in court cases, crypto trade information and other sources. Of the first-half total, $802 million – more than 90% – came from Trump crypto ventures, including sales of World Liberty tokens.

I'm not sure if all the Congressional insider trading put together adds up to that amount.
Neither does Hunter Biden selling $1.5 million in paintings.

Also, the guy who donated $120 million for military pay and the folks who donated $300 million for a White House ballroom will all want something.
 
Last edited:
I still don’t get why the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is expected by some to replace 100% of someone’s food budget.

If they do, they should change its name to Total Reimbursement for Individual Private Eaters. That’s something they can swallow.
 
Buying a war with your people because you are withholding a very cheap(at US scale) food aid program feels very stupid to me.
Could this be lowest for the Hog Emperor of Doom?
 
Last edited:
I don't think Trump can even have a "lowest point" to begin with. He's the kind of person who can dig lower and lower infinitely as long as nobody stops him.
 

US will reduce its troops on Nato's eastern flank, Romania says​

Romania's defence ministry has said the US intends to reduce some of its troops stationed on Nato's eastern flank.

Between 900 and 1,000 American troops will remain in Romania, Bucharest said - down from 1,700.

The ministry said the decision was expected and that the "resizing" of US forces was a result of the new priorities of the Trump presidential administration.

Defence Minister Ionut Mosteanu stated that his US counterpart Pete Hegseth had recently conveyed to the Europeans that they needed to pay more attention to their own defence and that the US was shifting its attention towards the Indo-Pacific region.

One US brigade at the Mihai Kogalniceanu airbase - set to be Nato's largest in Europe - would be rotated out and not replaced, Mosteanu said.

The brigade has "elements" in Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary, Mosteanu said, although it was unclear whether US troops were going to be pulled out of these countries too.

Polish Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said on Wednesday that Warsaw had "no information" about a possible reduction of US troops on its territory.

The BBC has approached the Pentagon for comment.

The presence of US troops at Romania's Deveselu and Campia Turzii bases would remain unchanged, Ionut Mosteanu added.

Since taking office in January US President Donald Trump has made no secret of his wish to shift the focus of US military commitment from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region, and has repeatedly urged European Nato members to take more responsibility for the continent's defence.

But the announcement of the US troop withdrawal from Romania will be concerning for Eastern European countries, many of which feel they have reason to fear a Russian attack in the future.

Shortly after the announcement from Bucharest, a Nato official stressed that Washington's commitment to the Nato alliance remained "clear" and adjustments were "not unusual".

"Even with this adjustment, the US force posture in Europe remains larger than it has been for many years, with many more US forces on the continent than before 2022," the official said in a statement.

The US has more than 100,000 military personnel deployed in Europe, according to figures from late last year.

Last month Nato announced the creation of a mission dubbed Eastern Sentry, which it said would enhance the alliance's vigilance along the entire eastern flank.

The decision came after a dozen Russian drones entered Polish airspace, in the most serious incident of its kind since the war began in February 2022. Days later, Romania reported that a Russian drone had breached its airspace, and Estonia said Russian warplanes had violated its airspace too.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8670d9xq32o
 
I still don’t get why the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is expected by some to replace 100% of someone’s food budget.

If they do, they should change its name to Total Reimbursement for Individual Private Eaters. That’s something they can swallow.
"Don't get" or "don't agree"?

This sounds like another example of what I referenced earlier in a different context (police brutality)... where disapproval/hostility towards the program/goal is couched in criticism of the messaging/methods/slogan/branding. Don't like the who/what, won't like the how, regardless.

I think the way to think about it, is to consider whether changing the name of the food stamp program from "SNAP" to "TRIPE" would increase support for it, or change people's minds who are against it. Otherwise, there is no point, at least no benevolent or productive, well-intentioned, good faith point, in criticizing the name, or calling for it to be changed to make it "more honest" or something like that.

On the other hand, if one just generally hates the concept of food stamps and thinks people who don't or can't come up with enough money/food to survive "on their own/without government help", don't really "deserve" to survive (or for their kids/dependents to survive), or something similar/along those lines... then criticizing the name of the program is just mockery, right?
 
Don't get" or "don't agree"?
A little of both, I suppose. Answering you more directly, I thought coming up with the name TRIPE was funny and my primary motivation.

However, on the more serious side of it I think people should for the most part not expect a program to be in effect a 100% subsidy—if people have nothing invested in something, it leads to waste. Paying even a token amount I think provides enough incentive for most people to economize in a way that is perfectly reasonable. There are cases where people probably do need 100% support, but I don’t think it’s all of them or even many of them.

edit: and my criticism is mainly Old Man Yells at Cloud. (no, not our poster) — I’ve seen complaints that TANF isn’t enough to pay for all of their groceries. Is it supposed to?
 
The way I see it regarding food stamps etc.

If the money has to be raised locally, within the state, then
people can see that it is going to their state's needy locals
and assess whether it has good or bad adverse effects.

The inherent problem, with undertaking this in a big federal (USA
wide) state basis, is that it inevitably destroys local connectivity.
In such circumstances people merely tend to want to pay as little
as possible, but have their states receive as much as possible.

Supposed big state efficiencies undermine effectiveness.

And there is the practical question as to what is the best balance in
helping the disadvantage, the optimum mix of providing housing,
training, job opportunities, healthcare or subsidised food etc.

If the matter is left to individual states, they have the opportunity
to discuss this and make their own decisions. And those states
who get it wrong can learn from those states those who do it better.

But that is impossible, if the rules are made once on a federal basis.
 
However, on the more serious side of it I think people should for the most part not expect a program to be in effect a 100% subsidy—if people have nothing invested in something, it leads to waste. Paying even a token amount I think provides enough incentive for most people to economize in a way that is perfectly reasonable. There are cases where people probably do need 100% support, but I don’t think it’s all of them or even many of them.
If we are going to talk about efficiency, if the goal is to make the country "good" then avoiding childhood hunger is one of the most efficient things we can do. It causes irreversible physical and mental changes, and is not generally in the control of the kid. Giving poor people enough food seems like the most efficient way to do this.
 
Senate rejects Trump tariffs on Brazil (paywalled)

The Senate voted to repeal President Trump's tariffs on Brazil, with five Republicans joining Democrats.

[EDIT] but also: The vote serves as a symbolic rebuke of Trump's trade policies. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not hold a vote on the measure (nor would Trump sign it into law).
 
If we are going to talk about efficiency, if the goal is to make the country "good" then avoiding childhood hunger is one of the most efficient things we can do. It causes irreversible physical and mental changes, and is not generally in the control of the kid. Giving poor people enough food seems like the most efficient way to do this.
I’m headed off to bed in a moment here but as a general principle, I agree, and my concern is avoiding a situation where you have a population that is wholly dependent on government subsidy, irrespective of their ability to pay. Government support needs to have a reasonable limitation, and I think my definition of that is in practice not too far off from most people.
 
I still don’t get why the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is expected by some to replace 100% of someone’s food budget.

If they do, they should change its name to Total Reimbursement for Individual Private Eaters. That’s something they can swallow.

Would have been shorter to just write that you love when children are malnourished
 
Would have been shorter to just write that you love when children are malnourished
I am positively sure @amadeus didn't mean that!
I don't even believe you believe he meant that!
Why this adhominen!?
 
Back
Top Bottom