Democrats have won..

[Muhammed]

Except most people on SNAP are republicans.

That's a dirty lie. More Democrats are SNAP recipients than either Republicans or Independents.

Why do you base all of your political opinions on the stupid lies you keep telling yourself? Nobody here ever believes your stupid lies, so why do you even tell them here?

 

[Muhammed]

You don't understand what's happening with the SNAP funds.
SNAP is funded with both a regular fund, plus a contingency fund (rainy day). That's there to cover unexpected circumstances, like the last time there was a government shutdown for 35 days under Trump 45.

And they already made plans to use the contingency fund again. They are just waiting for the Democrats to approve it.

 

[Muhammed]

They are making the point that the Republican party is unwilling to compromise

That's not true. The Democrats are filibustering the bill that funds SNAP.

 

[meaner gene]

That's a dirty lie. More Democrats are SNAP recipients than either Republicans or Independents.

Why do you base all of your political opinions on the stupid lies you keep telling yourself? Nobody here ever believes your stupid lies, so why do you even tell them here?

Fact checking a viral chart on US food stamps recipients’ race, ethnicity

US Department of Agriculture data reveals most recipients are white, US-born citizens, followed by minorities.

www.aljazeera.com

US Department of Agriculture data reveals most recipients are white, US-born citizens, followed by minorities.

According to the most recent USDA data available, from 2023, white people are the largest racial group receiving SNAP benefits, at 35.4 percent. African Americans are next, making up 25.7 percent of recipients, then Hispanic people at 15.6 percent, Asian people at 3.9 percent, Native Americans at 1.3 percent and multiracial people at 1 percent.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It doesnt mean they are right, it means that they have proven they are willing to sacrifice Americans getting snap benefits because they are unwilling to allow a CR that funds the government at current levels because they HAVE to have Healthcare for illegals in any bill, even a bill that just says "hey, let's keep things going for now while we argue about the main bill"



I cant verify the reports of looting he claims but he makes some very salient points.

42 million Americans are about to lose access to food. What do you think that will cause? There WILL be looting, civil unrest on a mass scale, and when people are in this situation, they wont look at democrats, they will look at trump.

Among these 42 million Americans are those who really need assistance as well as those who are gaming the system, but in all of that are children who need food.

Democrats have proven they are willing to put Healthcare for illegals ahead of keeping the government open. They call them "lawfully present'" those who are here illegally but claiming asylum or refugee status, which anyone crossing the border can claim that, and dems fight to keep them here, so now they are trying to get Healthcare benefits for them in the new bill. This is why they are unwilling to sign any bill that doesnt include concessions for the Healthcare subsidies and benefits for those "lawfully present".

Democrats know this will ultimately come back on republicans because they can get out the messaging with all the attention they are getring through these protests. Which is bullshit, because I dare say, none of these dems actually care about the issues, its just a way to act out their anger against trump and take any advantage they can to make the right look bad.

For this reason, to avert people losing access to food, we must sign concessions but make damn sure the people know why all of this happened and what the dems did here.

I know many will push back on me, and thats fine, but as the guy in the video said, there are larger concerns here that need to be addressed, which is the potential for mass civil unrest/violence, looting which will lead to bare shelves, and a hit on local economies.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but im now going to don my flame retardant suit as I expected to get hit from both sides on this one! So...let me have it!

The problem with your way of dealing with this hostage situation is that the Democrats are not offering to release the hostages in exchange for their demands. They are merely saying they will not kill them this time. Democrats did not take these hostages when the fight over the competing CR's started. They have been taking these people hostage gradually over time since Roosevelt.

The competing CR's are very temporary; the one demanded by the Democrats ends at midnight tonight (Oct 31). What will Democrats demand in exchange for the next one, if the GOP gives in and pays the ransom?

I haven't read any of your previous posts that I remember, but I hope you are kidding.

 

[meaner gene]

And they already made plans to use the contingency fund again. They are just waiting for the Democrats to approve it.

They don't need democratic approval. They need the house to get back in session and complete the 12 spending bills.
Meanwhile the agencies can use the contingency fund specifically set up for them. That they used during the last government shutdown under Trump 45.

During the previous government shutdown under President Trump, SNAP was able to continue functioning because the funding bill included a 30-day grace period, allowing agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make payments for a short time after the funding expired. Additionally, the USDA used carry-over funds and tapped into contingency reserves to keep benefits flowing throughout the duration of the shutdown, according to a CBS News report from January 2019.

 

[meaner gene]

That's not true. The Democrats are filibustering the bill that funds SNAP.

There is no bill to fund SNAP.
All the republicans have is a CR, and not an actual appropriations bill.

With the house out of session. They can't write or amend a bill to fund SNAP.

Only the house can write a spending bill.

 

[Muhammed]

They don't need democratic approval. They need the house to get back in session and complete the 12 spending bills.
Meanwhile the agencies can use the contingency fund specifically set up for them. That they used during the last government shutdown under Trump 45.

During the previous government shutdown under President Trump, SNAP was able to continue functioning because the funding bill included a 30-day grace period, allowing agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make payments for a short time after the funding expired. Additionally, the USDA used carry-over funds and tapped into contingency reserves to keep benefits flowing throughout the duration of the shutdown, according to a CBS News report from January 2019.

That's irrelevant. That was then, this is now.

 

[Muhammed]

There is no bill to fund SNAP.
All the republicans have is a CR, and not an actual appropriations bill.

With the house out of session. They can't write or amend a bill to fund SNAP.

Only the house can write a spending bill.

The House already approved the appropriation of funding for SNAP. Democrats are blocking it in the Senate.

They say they won't fund SNAP unless the Republicans agree to fund Obamacare bonuses for rich insurance executives.

That's where we are now.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is no bill to fund SNAP.
All the republicans have is a CR, and not an actual appropriations bill.

With the house out of session. They can't write or amend a bill to fund SNAP.

Only the house can write a spending bill.

The CR that already passed the house funds SNAP fully. In fact, it funds everything fully, at the same numbers as the last CR which Schumer angered AOC by passing.

 

[meaner gene]

That's irrelevant. That was then, this is now.

The 2019 government shutdown was a partial shutdown that lasted 35 days, from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. It was triggered by a budget dispute over funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and ended when President Trump agreed to a temporary spending bill without funding for the wall. The shutdown had negative economic effects, cost the government an estimated $3 billion in lost GDP, and disrupted various public services, including national parks, and caused significant delays at airports due to staffing shortages.

 

[Dragonlady]

Liar

No proof, no link, just false accusations and insults.

I can back up my posts. You can’t even write a response you lying piece of shit.

Children in Trump‑voting states hit hardest by SNAP food aid halt

EXCLUSIVE: About 39 percent of all American children live in households that use food stamps, maps and data show

www.themirror.com

 

[JusticeHammer]

No proof, no link, just false accusations and insults.

I can back up my posts. You can’t even write a response you lying piece of shit.

Children in Trump‑voting states hit hardest by SNAP food aid halt

EXCLUSIVE: About 39 percent of all American children live in households that use food stamps, maps and data show

www.themirror.com

You're sources are suspect at best. You haven't proven anything.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They are making the point that the Republican party is unwilling to compromise and they do not care about the average American. Especially don't care about the working poor. Willing to let them go hungry and without health care. Yes they said they would negotiate after the Democrats signed on but why take that chance. They've lied before and they seem to believe if they are in the majority they don't have to compromise at all.

Democrats are unwilling to reopen the government on a clean CR that they previously agreed to.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The problem with your way of dealing with this hostage situation is that the Democrats are not offering to release the hostages in exchange for their demands. They are merely saying they will not kill them this time. Democrats did not take these hostages when the fight over the competing CR's started. They have been taking these people hostage gradually over time since Roosevelt.

The competing CR's are very temporary; the one demanded by the Democrats ends at midnight tonight (Oct 31). What will Democrats demand in exchange for the next one, if the GOP gives in and pays the ransom?

I haven't read any of your previous posts that I remember, but I hope you are kidding.

Im not kidding. I dont think children should have to go hungry. We have a way to prevent it, let's do that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Im not kidding. I dont think children should have to go hungry. We have a way to prevent it, let's do that.

The Democratic version (dirty CR) expired yesterday. So your total surrender option isn't even on the table anymore. At this point, the Democrats want nothing from the shutdown, other than the shutdown itself as part of "The Resistance."

But suppose Democrats offer to allow children to be fed in exchange for a similar CR with the same spending that lasts until the end of November. If the GOP takes your advice and goes along with it, what will Dems demand to feed kids in December?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Democratic version (dirty CR) expired yesterday. So your total surrender option isn't even on the table anymore. At this point, the Democrats want nothing from the shutdown, other than the shutdown itself as part of "The Resistance."

But suppose Democrats offer to allow children to be fed in exchange for a similar CR with the same spending that lasts until the end of November. If the GOP takes your advice and goes along with it, what will Dems demand to feed kids in December?

Well, if both parties will put their big boy pants on, maybe they can work on a deal before the CR expires.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well, if both parties will put their big boy pants on, maybe they can work on a deal before the CR expires.

This is why Americans (in general) are poor at negotiating. Saying "no" is an important part of negotiations. So is being patient while the other side feels the effects of your "no." Americans don't want to go to the hardware store and talk the owner down from thirty-five dollars to twenty-eight dollars on a set of socket wrenches. We are too impatient. We need the wrenches and probably would pay if the owner suddenly raised the prise as we were walking to the cashier.

If this is a negotation, the Repubs are playing it just right at the moment. They are criticising Dems without insulting them personally, and they are pretending to refuse to negotiate, so that the Dems could claim a victory if the GOP agrees to talk to them.

That's how a negotiation works when people know what they are doing.

This case is different, though. Because the purpose of the shutdown is the shutdown. Chuck "Schutdown" Schumer doesn't care if the nation is funded or not, or if food stamps are cut in half, doubled, or given to every Chinese living in China. Not as much as he cares about not being primaried by a young socialist at a time when young socialists are all the rage in New York (meaning very popular).

Until AOC pinky promises the Old Man that she won't run against him, he will not budge. She was actually right. If the GOP wants to negotiate, it is she that they will need to talk to. Right now, though, it is pointless to talk to any Dem. AOC would need to send the GOP a signal that she will let Chuck off the hook if he agrees to a realistic CR.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This is why Americans (in general) are poor at negotiating. Saying "no" is an important part of negotiations. So is being patient while the other side feels the effects of your "no." Americans don't want to go to the hardware store and talk the owner down from thirty-five dollars to twenty-eight dollars on a set of socket wrenches. We are too impatient. We need the wrenches and probably would pay if the owner suddenly raised the prise as we were walking to the cashier.

If this is a negotation, the Repubs are playing it just right at the moment. They are criticising Dems without insulting them personally, and they are pretending to refuse to negotiate, so that the Dems could claim a victory if the GOP agrees to talk to them.

That's how a negotiation works when people know what they are doing.

This case is different, though. Because the purpose of the shutdown is the shutdown. Chuck "Schutdown" Schumer doesn't care if the nation is funded or not, or if food stamps are cut in half, doubled, or given to every Chinese living in China. Not as much as he cares about not being primaried by a young socialist at a time when young socialists are all the rage in New York (meaning very popular).

Until AOC pinky promises the Old Man that she won't run against him, he will not budge. She was actually right. If the GOP wants to negotiate, it is she that they will need to talk to. Right now, though, it is pointless to talk to any Dem. AOC would need to send the GOP a signal that she will let Chuck off the hook if he agrees to a realistic CR.

Im not disagreeing that negotiations need to be made, but we cant use hungry poor people as the leverage. While our government is sitting around with their thumb up their ass, kids are not getting the food they need.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Im not disagreeing that negotiations need to be made, but we cant use hungry poor people as the leverage. While our government is sitting around with their thumb up their ass, kids are not getting the food they need.

You're not responding to my question.

If the GOP gives the Dems every thing that they asked for in their absurd version of the CR, what will prevent the Dems from asking for more in less than three weeks when their absurd CR runs out (but the COVID ACA Supplements are still permanent)?

On the other hand, the GOP's CR runs out on November 21, so the Democrats can sign it, losing nothing, and all EBT and WIC cards would be re-funded. Then negotiations can continue, with Dems having just as much leverage as they did on October 1, except for the starving children.

Are the democrats willing to give up having starving children as leverage is then the only question.