CNN's Tapper forces Scott Bessent to admit Trump admin is unsure how to fund SNAP benefits
https://www.rawstory.com/snap-2674257567/Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.rawstory.com/snap-2674257567/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
19 replies
They claim they're not sure where the money will come from and they didn't want to break the law by pulling it from an unauthorized fund (despite there being a fund explicitly for this), yet they've had absolutely no problem committing multiple illegal acts every. Single. Day. since taking office.
Yes, it's total bullshit and attempts at obfuscation. They are doing this intentionally, that's the point.
It's a sloppy and weak excuse, because they misplayed the shut down so badly that the Democrats win no matter what happens
The problem is they were trying to use this as a threat, but it was incredibly obvious to everyone that Trump and Co were directly going to fuck over 40 million people
Now it's a weak point. Democrats don't have to even agree to further fund SNAP during the shutdown... This is Trump's famine no matter how it plays out
I mean the money does complicate things because it's like a half a month of funding. Which raises legitimate questions if they are unwilling to pull the other half from somewhere else. Like do the most needy get a full payment, does everybody get half payments, some formula between the two that means tests distribution? The government is shutdown, so who is going to calculate and do any of this?
There are of course solutions and answers to all those questions, but nothing as simple as "release the money "
They set aside $5billion for snap just a few months ago. This is intentional.
And it costs 9 billion a month for SNAP. Or do you mean that they intentionally only funded the emergency fund for a half a month? Because I could believe that.
I meant they have money to fund it today while they figure out where to get the rest. They are intentionally stalling. But I have also been wondering why the emergency fund was so small.
Why the reporter won't say "so you had no problem giving 40 billion to Argentina to bail out out your friend, but you didn't know how to use the 6 billions to not let over 40 million Americans including 16 million children starve?"
You mean the guy who protects kid fuckers is fine with fucking over kids? Nahh
Well, I think the point isn't to discern whether or not he's fine with fucking over kids (obviously he is), it's to make that clear to as many people as possible
Because that question has 4 numbers in it, which is too confusing for the average viewer. But yes, the $40 billion dollars Trump g(r)ifted to Argentina would have kept SNAP completely funded for 5 months.
Just a reminder that literally every dollar the treasury disburses is spent into existence.
It is impossible for the federal government to run out of money, just like it’s impossible for a scorekeeper to run out of points.
So when they say they don’t have the money — an impossible situation — what they mean is they don’t want to have the money.
This is the power of the deficit myth. Money that you don’t want to spend has to “come from somewhere”. Yet all of the money you do want to spend never suffers that problem.
Best way I've ever seen it explained.
Gave $40 billion to Argentina.
Spends $800 billion on defense.
Unable to feed citizens.
I wonder how much it costs to drop a missile on each of those boats in the gulf ..
They claim tomahawks which are 2 million a pop.
I would say just get out of the way and let the bureaucracy handle it but unfortunately they probably fired anyone who knows how anything works and replaced them with drooling magats
...a journalist? working in the media?...
...and where are the Epstein files?..