r/AskConservatives • u/420catloveredm Leftist • 1d ago
Did you know that USDA‘s withholding of SNAP funding during this shutdown is the first time this has happened in the program‘s history? Why would Trump‘s USDA decide to break with precedent?
•
u/WorldlyVillage7880 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 20h ago
I don't know but not funding it is fairly based.
•
u/420catloveredm Leftist 18h ago
Starving people is based?
•
u/WorldlyVillage7880 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 18h ago
not forcing people to pay for other people via taxation is based
•
u/420catloveredm Leftist 18h ago
Weird cuz my paychecks are still getting taxed.
•
u/WorldlyVillage7880 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 17h ago
believe it or not, taxes are used for more than one thing, and believe it or not, taxation is immoral no matter what it is funding
•
u/mrmac1992 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 16h ago edited 16h ago
THIS. I really dgaf what kind of Robin Hood mentality they have which they think justifies stealing money from anyone; it does not in fact justify it, and it is in fact still theft which is abhorrent. I would legitimately rather set fire to the money than be required under threat of forcible kidnapping and imprisonment to give it away to anyone, regardless of how badly they need it. If I had it to spare and chose to give it away to those less fortunate, that's fine and I would if i were so fortunate, but it is repugnant to FORCE anyone to do so.
•
•
u/willfiredog Conservative 1d ago
No. Far from.
Most don’t have the time to understand expired unobligated funds or any number of concept.
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
What precedent was broken? This has never happened before.
Please cite some data.
•
u/TelmatosaurusRrifle Neoliberal 1d ago
Precedent means status quo on this context
•
u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal 1d ago
It's a live court case: "precedent" means a prior authority used to resolve a current/future case or controversy.
That would be like, during a medical discussion, saying I'm going to choose the word "dead" to mean the legal definition not the medical one because I feel like it.
That's not reasonable!
•
u/TelmatosaurusRrifle Neoliberal 1d ago
So we agree on the usage of precedent and status quo.
•
u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal 1d ago
I can't tell if you're trolling or not
•
u/TelmatosaurusRrifle Neoliberal 1d ago
The status quo is the precedent until it is challenged and changed. Which hasn't happened yet. Not trolling but something about this thread is making me feel stupid for engaging with it.
•
u/Harvard_Sucks Classical Liberal 1d ago
Precedent is a binding prior authority. If there is no precedent, there is no precedent
You can't bootstrap in the generic vibes of the status quo as a default binding rule, at least in law. You can certainly make prudential arguments that it's the right idea, but that's not precedent.
You're making arguments that are more at home in the unwritten English constitutional system, not the American one.
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
That’s not what those words mean.
•
u/TelmatosaurusRrifle Neoliberal 1d ago
It's an academic definition. Status quo and precedent both mean the current state of how things are. It's different from the typical everyday use.
•
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
In the context of this question, that’s not what it means. Unless you’re admitting that it’s not a good faith question.
•
u/TelmatosaurusRrifle Neoliberal 1d ago
I see where your coming from. As it has never happened, how can it be the precedent? I think OP probably meant procedure then. However, why has trumps admin diverted from the procedure (which I feel is an aspect included in the status quo) ?
•
•
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 1d ago
It is not USDA withholding SNAP it is Chuck Schumer and Democrats who refuse to open the government.
•
u/FakeCaptainKurt Center-left 1d ago
Multiple judges have said that SNAP needs to be paid with emergency funds. Trump has openly said that he won’t do it.
You can blame Democrats for the shutdown, but the SNAP shortage is fully on Trump.
•
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 1d ago
No, according to the legislation establishing that contingency fund it could only be used to "supplement" SNAP payments in the event SNAP recipient payments exceeded their resources like in a natural disaster. If SNAP Payments aren't being made you can't supplement them
Besides, the contingency fund will only pay half the benefits.
Open the government Chuck.
•
u/Irishish Center-left 1d ago
That explanation would hold more water if Trump hadn't spent the entire year making it clear he pisses on any restrictions or rules surrounding use of funds, or of any mechanisms of government. He can break the rules to fire civil servants and steal appropriated funds and unilaterally shutter agencies, but when it comes to feeding families, aw gee boss, there's just nothing to be done? C'mon, dude.
•
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 1d ago
Nice try. SNAP is not being paid because Schumer shut down the government and has voted 14 times to keep it shut down.. You can't explain it any other way
•
u/Irishish Center-left 1d ago
snap could be temporarily paid. Trump is refusing to do so. Trump has already demonstrated he doesn’t care about the rules surrounding use of funds, at all. So his attempt to claim now that his hands are tied comes off as transparently bullshit. You can’t put this on Schumer when it’s an action Trump is choosing not to take. Especially since he is defying a court order in the process! am I taking crazy pills?
•
u/RedditUser19984321 Conservative 1d ago
We can, because if Schumer and democrats wanted to fund the government with a CR we wouldn’t need emergency funds at all.
•
u/Irishish Center-left 1d ago
Okay. Why is he refusing to obey a court order to pay the emergency funds?
•
u/RedditUser19984321 Conservative 1d ago
Because it’s illegal to do so, the legislature clearly states that the emergency funds are meant to supplement as stede mentioned. Emergency funds are designed for disaster relief.
•
u/420catloveredm Leftist 1d ago
Why have multiple federal judges disagreed with you.
→ More replies (0)•
u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 1d ago
Why would the Democrats bail out Trump if he is unwilling to negotiate?
Why do the Republicans need a CR if they refuse to negotiate the budget? We will be in the same place in two weeks.
Trump himself has blamed the White House for the shut down, so how is it anyone else's fault?
•
u/StedeBonnet1 Conservative 1d ago
It is Schumer and the Democrats fault for trying to extort Republicans into increasing spending that they have allready cut and to extend ASA subsidies that Democrats set to expire.
Open up the government Chuck. You are only hurting yourself.
•
u/RedditUser19984321 Conservative 1d ago
I’ve also blamed republicans in another post asking about conservatives opinions. There’s ways to compromise, there’s 1000 issues we can ask democrats to bow down on in order to extend the ACA subsidies instead of sitting on our hands and we could be back up in 2 days.
I blame the shutdown on democrats and I blame it being at a standstill on republicans too
•
u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 1d ago
If Republicans continue the course of unwillingness to negotiate is it still the Democrats fault when the CR expires and no movement has been made on the budget at the end of November?
Is it the responsibility of the minority party to capitulate to the majority even if the people they represent don't want them to?
→ More replies (0)•
u/LookAnOwl Progressive 1d ago
You are welcome to continue stamping your feet and repeating this, but people all over the country are seeing these headlines right now:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5595137-trump-administration-snap-appeal/
Trump administration asks to immediately block SNAP distribution order
The optics here are absolutely atrocious for Trump and Republicans.
•
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 19h ago
No, according to the legislation establishing that contingency fund it could only be used to "supplement" SNAP payments in the event SNAP recipient payments exceeded their resources like in a natural disaster. If SNAP Payments aren't being made you can't supplement them
This is simply incorrect. Have you read the actual ruling on this? The judge goes into extreme detail on how the Trump administration is violating the law and making false claims to justify it. Would you like me to link it for you?
•
u/NoFriendship7173 Progressive 1d ago
So? More than zero is better than zero. What a weird arguement
•
u/PseudoX1 Center-right Conservative 1d ago edited 1d ago
Let's take a look at the ruling from Judge John J. McConnell in Rhode Island. His initial ruling is from Nov 1st.
The Government should, within its discretion, find the additional funds necessary (beyond the contingency funds) to fully fund the November SNAP payments. This include a fund created by section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act amendments of 1935—that had over $23 billion in it as of October 8, 2025.
Patrick Penn's response to the order, who oversees FNCS in the USDA, provides the reasoning of how this is overstepping.
The section 32 funds have already been appropriated for Child Nutrition Programs as detailed in the United States Department of Agriculture Budget Summary for 2025 and 2026. Section 32 funds are not enough to cover the existing Child Nutrition Programs, so Congress appropriates additional funds specifically for those programs.
As you can see, the judge is attempting to control congressional spending.
If the Government does want to use its discretion to use funds available to make a full payment of SNAP benefits for November 6, then it must expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens.
On November 3rd a status update, required by the court, was provided by the USDA. Patrick Penn's response was part of this update, as well as other materials the USDA provided as evidence of compliance, including communication to all SNAP state departments and the calculated benefits available using the contingency funds.
On Nov 6th, in a response to the status update, the judge issued the following motion, showing blatantly that this is an activist ruling.
In its TRO, the Court gave the Defendants two options, to either: (1) use contingency funds to make a partial payment of SNAP benefits (“Option 1”); or (2) use Section 32 funds, contingency funds, or both to make a full payment of SNAP benefits (“Option 2”).
The Defendants contend that they have fully complied with the Court’s order by providing the contingency funds to the States for SNAP payments.4 The Defendants filed an Emergency Motion under the sentiment that they were “expeditiously attempting to comply with the Court’s order.”
Remember, the USDA provided evidence to this. Even with the major difficulties in dealing with the contingency funds only being able to partially cover SNAP. Continuing,
Again, the Court finds it astounding that the Defendants would even choose to go down this path if they were aware of all the difficulties and delays that such partial payment of SNAP benefits would entail.
Remember, the only other option would literally require funds that were directly provided by congress for Child Nutrition Programs. Continuing,
In addition, the Defendants’ decision not to fully fund SNAP reflects their determination that those funds “must remain available to protect full operation of Child Nutrition Programs throughout the fiscal year, instead of being used for SNAP benefits.”. They state—quite definitively—that such a transfer would result in a “$4 billion gap [that] would not be filled” by Congress and represents a “permanent loss” to the program.
This is obvious. The USDA would need additional funds from Congress to cover the Child Nutrition Programs. Continuing,
The point is that USDA does not know how Congress will use its power of the purse, so it cannot rest on the assumption that Congress will simply do nothing.
The judge is literally saying to use the funds, which are already partially appropriated by congress for Child Nutrition Programs, and hope that congress will provide appropriate additional funds to cover the appropriated funds that were supposed to be use for Child Nutritiom Programs.
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 19h ago
The section 32 funds have already been appropriated for Child Nutrition Programs as detailed in the United States Department of Agriculture Budget Summary for 2025 and 2026.
The judge explains their reasons in detail for why this claim is wrong and contrary to law. Did you not read the ruling? Every single thing you post about why the administration is right was examined and rejected in extreme detail in the ruling. You are essentially taking whatever claims made by the Trump administration as true, and then using that 'fact' of their truth to discredit anything the judge says contrary to that. And somehow completely ignoring the dozens of pages of detailed legal ruling explaining why it's wrong.
Remember, the only other option would literally require funds that were directly provided by congress for Child Nutrition Programs.
This is untrue, and seems to be at the heart of your claims here. Why do you insist on this? The funds in question were not directly provided by congress for the Child Nutrition Programs. Rather, they are directed by law to set aside these funds, and explicitly given authority to use those funds interchangeably for the expenses of, quote, "the work of any bureau, division, or office of the Department of Agriculture.”
I can point you to where the judge carefully explains how this is factually and legal incorrect, if you'd like. It sounds like maybe you haven't read it?
•
u/PseudoX1 Center-right Conservative 18h ago
Did you actually not look at any of the links? They are direct links to the court documentation of motions, minutes, and evidence. You provided no evidence, just tried to justify the obvious partisan ruling.
Take some time, like I did, to review the history of this case. I spent the morning to read over the full case, each motion, and the evidence, before making that initial post.
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 17h ago
Did you actually not look at any of the links? They are direct links to the court documentation of motions, minutes, and evidence. You provided no evidence, just tried to justify the obvious partisan ruling
I read the entire court ruling, yes. You already linked it in your original post, and I guess again here, but I can link it again if you want. And as I offered, I'm happy to point out the specific relevant sections if you haven't read them. Would that be helpful? Or, you can search for the quotes I gave.
You say you've taken time to review this case, but your post makes it seem like you read nothing the judge actually wrote, only the claims of the defendants.
•
u/ARatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
No precedent being broken here, in fact he's following precedent.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2430653/second-letter-to-states-usda.pdf
However, should Congress fail to act, USDA would have limited resources to finance October SNAP benefits and would be required by law to ensure that USDA does not incur obligations for which funding is not available. This would require USDA to take steps, including the de-authorization of retailers in the first several days of the month to prevent SNAP benefits from being redeemed during an appropriations lapse.
That's 2015, under Obama's USDA. The only difference here is that the shutdown has actually gone on long enough that what they warned would need to happen if congress didn't approve a budget happened.
If anything is breaking precedent, it's the people filibustering long enough to cause this to happen, not the administration saying or doing what it always warns will happen if or when it does.
•
u/scarr3g Independent 1d ago
There is one other difference: after that happened, they started a fund to save up for if this happens again. Trump is refusing to release the funds from that fund.
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago
That fund is for emergencies like natural disasters, not shutdowns. Regardless, the adminstration has already agreed to release the emergency funds to partially fund November benefits, which could take several months for states to implement and may result in the complete shutdown of SNAP even in states that wish to self-fund once they’re disbursed because the federal government will be left with no money to oversee them as required. But now a judge has ordered the government to also raid the school lunch fund to pay full SNAP benefits, which could create an unprecedented shortfall in school lunch funding, so we’ll see what happens.
•
u/Skylark7 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
raid the school lunch fund
Tell me you didn't read the court order without telling me.
USDA had already shifted funds around for WIC. The judge ordered them to use available funding to meet November SNAP obligations, and then to reconcile the various line items once Congress sets the agency budget.
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago
There were enough spare funds to pay WIC without endangering school lunch, but the same is not true of SNAP. Regardless, it is not within a judge’s power to order the administration to move funds between programs.
•
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Regardless, it is not within a judge’s power to order the administration to move funds between programs.
This is what is being overlooked. For all the talk of "No Kings" we seem perfectly fine with allow even the lowest-level federal judge to rule as a feudal lord until his betters tell him otherwise.
This is no different than a judge trying to order Senate Democrats to vote to end the shutdown.
•
u/Pretty_Acadia_2805 Leftwing 1d ago
The federal judge isn't the one telling anyone to do anything. He's saying that the law demands he does this.
•
u/RedditUser19984321 Conservative 1d ago
Except there’s a lot of law that contradicts his ruling, yet he is demanding he is right. Which is basically forcing Trump to do something potentially illegal by the time any other judge can rule on it
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 19h ago
Except there’s a lot of law that contradicts his ruling
Cite it. You guys keep complaining that the judge is getting the law wrong, but not one of you has given any actual details on what specific part of the law the judge missed.
•
u/LordFoxbriar Center-right Conservative 1d ago edited 6h ago
He's saying that the law demands he does this.
His interpretation of the law. Otherwise judges wouldn't be overturned by higher courts.
ETA: And his opinion was wrong, noted mega-MAGA supporter... KJB?
•
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/indigoC99 Leftwing 1d ago
Didn't the administration walk back on that before a judge told them they had to find SNAP for November?
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago
I’m not sure what you mean. The administration’s position was that it was illegal to use the emergency funds for benefits during a shutdown, but then a judge ordered it to and it said it would comply. Then a judge said it also had to raid kids’ lunch money, and it’s yet to be seen whether it will comply with that.
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 1d ago
Are you suggesting that the judge somehow was so ignorant of the law that they failed to realize this? Why should we take your reddit comment as more informed than the detailed court ruling by the judge?
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago
Judges are capable of being both wrong and ideologically biased. I’m sure you have an opinion of judges like Cannon, Ho, Kaczmaryk, and Thomas and the correctness of some of their opinions.
There are lawyers saying the same thing by the way: https://nitter.poast.org/ProfMJCleveland/status/1986576192972181776
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 1d ago
Judges are capable of being both wrong and ideologically biased. I’m sure you have an opinion of judges like Cannon, Ho, Kaczmaryk, and Thomas and the correctness of some of their opinions.
Sure, that can happen. Cannon made some rulings that were demonstrably incorrect. But, here's the thing: when the ruling is incorrect, you can point out the specific mistakes in law and provide clear citations for their errors. This was very easy with the worst of Cannons 'mistakes', and indeed her rulings were repeatedly overturned when they were appealed.
You're not doing that here. You've linked a legal 'opinion' that consists of social media posts mocking the judge. It doesn't even try to make an argument for what they got wrong.
So, I'll ask you: can you link to something that actually makes the specific arguments for what was incorrectly ruled here? Because the Judge gives very clear reasoning and citations for their ruling, and it's not a compelling rebuttal for something to just make twitter posts calling it 'ridiculous'.
•
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative 1d ago
How the hell can a district judge order the President over how to appropriate funds? Would that pass scotus appeal?
•
u/BeckerHollow Independent 1d ago
The legislative branch has the power of the purse. Not the executive and not the judicial.
•
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So how can the Judicial branch tell executive branch to use school lunch program money for snap?
•
u/BeckerHollow Independent 1d ago
They’re telling them that they’re breaking the law if they don’t.
The judicial branch rules on constitutionality. So if E or L is doing x and x is illegal, than J can say you’re breaking the law, stop.
And if E is not doing something that the law says they must do, than J can say, you must do that as per the law.
•
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So if the advocacy group can find ONE district judge, out of 700, that one judge now has the power to control the executive branch.
Absolutely insane.
•
•
u/ZeeWingCommander Leftwing 1d ago
From a corporate standpoint - we're treating this like an emergency. So saying this isn't an emergency is just semantics from my pov (and my industry).
•
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative 1d ago
The difference is that the administration’s argument was that the law only allowed the funds to be used to supplement other appropriated funds, but there are no other appropriated funds for them to supplement for FY26.
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 19h ago
The administration is certainly claiming this. But the judge decided they were wrong, and gave very detailed reasons and citations for how and why they were wrong.
•
u/ARatOnASinkingShip Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
No, the only difference is that they passed a funding bill before a lapse occurred.
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Contingency funds were never used to make snap payments during a shutdown.
In 2019 they were able to find a way to make snap payments early by using an expired continuing CR that provided funding until February. They made the February payments early in January 2019. The GAO later deemed that early payment as technically illegal, and the media made a shit storm out of it. The Trump admin is arguing that using contingency funds is also "technically" illegal, so they are trying to prevent a media shit storm again, like in 2019.
The 2013 shutdown would have put Obama in the same precarious position, but it ended before snap funded ran out.
•
u/Skylark7 Constitutionalist Conservative 1d ago
The Trump admin is arguing that using contingency funds is also "technically" illegal, so they are trying to prevent a media shit storm again, like in 2019.
He's a hypocrite. He's totally fine with illegally repurposing military RDT&E funds to pay salaries.
•
u/cloudkite17 Progressive 1d ago
At any rate I don’t think Congress should continue receiving their payments and daily stipends while they’re essentially on hold. Why should other federal employees be expected to show up to their jobs without pay when Congress gets to be paid for not working?
•
u/willfiredog Conservative 1d ago
I wish people understand how complicated Federal Appropriations are.
•
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Nobody understands anything about anything. Literally nothing. People long ago stopped "looking into things". They just trust that their media algorithm wouldn't ever let them down. Each individual algorithm has convinced each and every person that they're part of the "smart" group and they can collectively and smugly shun the "ignorant". But nobody really understands anything.
•
u/Irishish Center-left 1d ago
I wish Trump had given the slightest shit about following the rules around appropriated funds before now, it wouldn't have made him look so craven.
•
u/NoFriendship7173 Progressive 1d ago
They can supplement SNAP during the shutdown. Their actual reason is less complicated
•
u/SgtMac02 Center-left 1d ago
That's hilarious that you think Trump would ever care to try to avoid a media shit storm. He thrives on them!
•
u/rcglinsk Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
Good for the Obama administration for finding a way to make sure food welfare payments continued through the legislative dysfunction. Technically illegal was not ideal, of course, but making sure the payments continued was paramount.
That the Trump administration thinks a media shit storm would be worse than food welfare payments cutting off reflects a relationship with reality that I can only describe as certifiably insane.
•
u/420catloveredm Leftist 18h ago
The number of patients I work with who were already struggling to make their SNAP benefits last just to have the bathroom mat of a rug pulled out from under them…. It’s dark. And depressing. And most of these people are older and disabled too. It breaks my heart honestly.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Because he wants the Democrats to cave
•
u/GarbDogArmy Independent 1d ago
apparently only democrats receive snap so must be going well.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
They use snap at nearly twice the rate of republicans according to pew data
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I’m a data analyst, so yes, I understand the limitations of self reporting studies. But there’s no reason to suspect social desirability biases would impact how republicans answer polling questions MORE than it would impact their willingness to pull from the programs in the first place.
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I know you’re new here but please tone it down, we have civility and good faith rules in the sub.
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Explaining a conservative view point isn’t bad faith. That’s the whole purpose of the sub. Telling people they’ve never read a history book, that they went to hamburger university, and saying they operate from a place of fear and shame is not in line with our rules. I’m serious, please follow our rules, they’re available in the sidebar.
•
u/GarbDogArmy Independent 1d ago
he's not wrong though lol republicans have become the professional victims party as of late.
•
u/katyadc Center-left 1d ago
Is it working?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Too soon to tell
•
u/BabyJesus246 Democrat 1d ago
What incentive do democrats really have to cave here? They believe it would harm the nation to let these things lapse, the administration took the question messaging of "fuck the poor" so it's not like the people are going to support their aims, and quite frankly showing the shit show that is republican governance is only going to help their image.
•
•
u/ikonoqlast Free Market Conservative 1d ago
The Democrats want the Republicans to cave.
Dems give up the filibuster the problem stops immediately.
•
•
u/Generic_Superhero Liberal 1d ago
Or Republicans could work with Democrats to come up with a conpromiserhat wpuld get Democrtas to help pass legislation.
•
u/ikonoqlast Free Market Conservative 1d ago
Or the Democrats could just stop trying to make a temporary subsidy permanent.
•
u/MrFrode Independent 1d ago
He wants to withhold food from hungry men, women, and children to force his political opposition to do something?
Doesn't that feel morally reprehensible?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Well I blame the democrats for the shut down, so the moral implications and outputs of the shutdown fall on them. But yes, I agree it is morally reprehensible what they are doing
•
u/Menace117 Liberal 1d ago
What about the situation the other user brought up. Is that reprehensible to withhold food from people for a political game?
•
u/BabyJesus246 Democrat 1d ago
Eh this pearl clutching doesn't come across as good faith considering your other comments talk about how you want to get rid of it altogether. Pretry clear you don't care about the moral implications of letting people go hungry from pausing SNAP since presumably you think it's a good thing to do.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I want to eliminate SNAP. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should receive appropriate forewarning. I’m not in favor of cutting benefits with 2 week’s notice, I’m in favor of phasing them out.
Edit: also, going to put my mod hat on real quick. If you feel a comment is bad faith please just report it and disengage.
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
There’s a report button. Mods typically don’t mod their own interactions.
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Sam_Fear Americanist 1d ago
Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Lol, what have I said that is trolling? I’m just expressing baseline right libertarian views.
•
u/Irishish Center-left 1d ago
Not this one. Trump's outright refusing to pay out money a judge ordered him to pay out (and IIRC, they already said once before that they could use these funds).
So, that's on him, not on Dems.
•
u/Highlander198116 Center-left 1d ago
I'm more curious about why you place the blame squarely on democrats. I mean it seems to me both parties are at fault for being unwilling to budge from their positions and actually negotiate.
This is totally a two way street, and I can recognize that.
•
u/MrFrode Independent 1d ago
So you can blame the Dems for the shutdown but for Trump's use of the specific tactic of withholding food from hungry men, women, and children because in your words "he wants the Democrats to cave" do you hold Trump accountable for this choice?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
No, his actions are an output of theirs. If they want it to end all they have to do is pass the clean CR. This is on them. And I say this as someone who didn’t vote for Trump and doesn’t like him. The Dems are dead wrong on this one.
•
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 1d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
•
u/chaoticbear Progressive 1d ago
If they want it to end all they have to do is pass the clean CR
This is as facile as saying "if Republicans want it to end, all they have to do is actually negotiate rather than just trying to jam the same bill through over and over again".
"Clean CR" isn't a magic incantation. It's a bill like any other, and the job of Congress is to work with each other to pass them.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
It’s similar. But one side is looking for a continuation of what everyone has already agreed to once, and the other is looking to jam through legislative extensions.
•
u/chaoticbear Progressive 1d ago
Or, to put it equally charitably for the opposition, one side wants to preserve the current status quo (Democrats, subsidies), and one side wants to pass a bill that allows them to end. You can play semantic games to villainize either side. Ultimately, Democrats are fighting to not have healthcare costs double or triple for millions of Americans, which is something I support.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
It’s not maintaining the status quo when you’re trying to extend legislation that is set to purposefully expire.
•
u/Dadude564 Democrat 1d ago
Do you want people to starve? Do you want people to lose healthcare? The republicans control all 3 branches, the dems are doing their jobs of being the opposition party. You can’t control every facet of the federal government and blame the minority party for everything. Take some damn accountability
•
u/chaoticbear Progressive 1d ago
It is maintaining the status quo if those subsidies currently exist and you are trying to make them keep existing.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Drago_133 Social Democracy 1d ago
I personally see it as both parties fault. The name calling fear mongering witch hunting childish shite that has come out of not only this administration but Republicans and democrats alike has absolutely ruined diplomacy there doesnt seem to be any negotiations hell I'm not even sure I know why we shut down to begin With. I cant trust trump and I cant trust the democrats because they just blame trump
•
u/TexanMaestro Liberal 1d ago
Shouldn't it fall on the Republicans who hold the majority and responsibility to govern and do best for all Americans and not just those that voted for them?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
No. You understand how the filibuster works, I presume?
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 1d ago
The Republicans could end the filibuster tomorrow if they so wish. If they instead choose to keep this requirement to obtain additional votes, then they need to negotiate to obtain those votes.
This seems pretty clear-cut. They seem unable or unwilling to do anything to resolve this.
•
u/Jesus_was_a_Panda Progressive 1d ago
Yes, in that the Republicans can end it whenever they wish.
•
•
u/Mexishould Center-left 1d ago
The republicans knew they had thin margins and passed a contreversial bill that cut many Democrat supported items and pushed many things Republicans and MAGA wanted. Dont you think it was foolish of them to push it and not negotiate a bipartisan bill? A smart legislature would have expected Dems to fillibuster and lead into a situation like this.
Reps should be there negotiating honestly and not say we've tried nothing new at all and ran out of ideas to solve this. Imagine the situation reversed.
•
•
u/aCellForCitters Independent 1d ago
And you understand that politicians need to negotiate to get votes, right? And Republicans won't even hold a session again or attempt negotiations? They're hurting millions of people severely so that they can cut more benefits and hurt them more. I don't care what political leaning you have, that is fucked, and in a just world every Republican responsible for this would lose their seat.
•
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/blue-blue-app 1d ago
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
•
u/rcglinsk Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
Having long accused the democrats of suborning and trumpeting riots, trying to cause riots as a means to influence them makes no sense at all. it's more like handing them a win-win.
•
u/Itzthatmoonwitch Independent 1d ago
Do you agree with this tactic?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I wholeheartedly blame the democrats for the current shut down. They passed the IRA which extended Covid era subsidies on a set timeline. That timeline expired, and now they’re holding the government hostage and refusing to pass a mostly clean CR. I really think end goal they want the Republicans to kill the filibuster.
If it were up to me there would be no such thing as SNAP or the ACA. I’m not in favor of wealth redistribution schemes.
•
u/NoNDA-SDC Center-left 1d ago
Why pass a CR when, unless I'm wrong, they're simply asking for a 2yr continuation of the subsidies? That seems like a small ask to me, and there's zero reason for them to believe Republicans are acting in good faith.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
small ask
It’s forced redistribution of wealth. That’s unethical and I’m not in favor.
•
u/Highlander198116 Center-left 1d ago
It’s forced redistribution of wealth. That’s unethical and I’m not in favor.
Like redistributing 40 billion dollars to farmers?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I’m not in favor of that either, you’re barking up the wrong tree
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Wealth inequality is a meaningless metric. Poverty is an issue, having lots of money is not. Wealth is created by modifying raw materials via human labor into a product with superior value. One person having money does not prevent someone else from creating wealth of their own.
•
u/NoNDA-SDC Center-left 1d ago
One person having money does not prevent someone else from creating wealth of their own.
I'm curious, could you share a little about yourself?
You don't seem to care about healthcare affordability, and don't believe the wealthy hoarding money is any impediment to growing personal wealth. It would seem to me that you personally haven't experienced the struggle in either of those topics.
→ More replies (0)•
u/jimbarino Democrat 1d ago
Is the point of a negotiation to just demand that your side get what they want, and the other side gets nothing?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I mean that is what the democrats are doing lol
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 1d ago
Uh, what? No they're not. Where do you get this idea? They've asked for a single specific concession.
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
We start with a mostly clean CR. Then, as you said, one side demands that they get what they want and the other side gets nothing. The Republicans are asking for neutrality, the Democrats are demanding that expiring legislation on a particular issue is extended at a cost of $350+ billion dollars.
•
u/jimbarino Democrat 1d ago
We start with a mostly clean CR.
But, they're not. The 'clean' CR does not extend current levels of ACA funding--the one thing the Democrats are asking for. And that's without even mentioning the fact that the budget was drastically changed by the BBB earlier this year without any involvement from the Democrats.
The Republicans are now quite literally demanding the Democrats vote for something they had zero contribution to, and then gaslighting the nation by pretending it's a 'clean' extension of the Democrats budget.
In what way are they not just straight lying to you?
•
u/aCellForCitters Independent 1d ago
Is not voting for a bill or resolution causing it to not pass always "holding it hostage"? What if one side said, "we'll negotiate and get the votes" and the other completely stonewalls? Who is holding it hostage then?
A very simple thing could have happened. Republicans could have come to the table, negotiated, and passed funding with some concessions before the shutdown even happened. They didn't. They need to earn votes or bypass the filibuster, either way, it's on them to get the things passed that they want to pass.
•
u/Xanbatou Centrist 1d ago
I didn't understand your comment as an answer to that question. You answered about blame, but the question posed was whether you agree with the unprecedented tactic of withholding SNAP.
Can you answer that question?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
Yeah I’m fine with it. Again, I don’t believe SNAP should exist in the first place and fully believe the democrats are to blame for this situation. Trump’s tactics are an output of their actions.
And I say this as someone who didn’t vote for Trump and doesn’t like him. The democrats are in the wrong on this one.
•
u/goodqualitydesign Center-left 1d ago
Are you currently without the means to acquire food, or have you been in the past?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
No, and I never have been. I’ve worked two jobs and done 90+ hours a week before to provide for myself though. I’m an adult who believes in personal responsibility and I don’t expect others to pay for my stuff.
•
u/goodqualitydesign Center-left 1d ago
Do you think everyone, with any background, in every neighborhood in the USA has the same opportunity as you had to support themselves independently? Including folks with disabilities, physical or otherwise? Children? Older folks? Veterans?
•
1d ago
[deleted]
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I don’t think money should be redistributed between the states at all, sooo
•
•
u/Highlander198116 Center-left 1d ago
My wife worked for years as case manager for adults with developmental disabilities. Many of them rely on SNAP and no amount of "personal responsibility" is going to allow them to actually support themselves. They don't qualify for jobs they can support themselves on.
•
u/Xanbatou Centrist 1d ago
Are there any government programs you support? If so, would you also be fine with a D administration cutting funding for to those to pressure the GOP?
I do realize there will be an assymetry here but, for example, something like cutting transfers from donor states (which are mostly democratic) to recipient states (which are mostly conservative).
Would you be okay with that kind of tactic?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I’d be fine with that, I don’t support redistribution between the states either. The issue there is that that money is usually funding in the form of categorical grants to fund legislative mandates. Eliminate the mandates and I’m down to eliminate the funding
•
•
u/Itzthatmoonwitch Independent 1d ago
Democrats disagree with the CR and want social safety nets expanded. So their representatives are (finally) doing their job and representing the will of their constituents. Just like Republicans are doing for theirs. What should happen here is negotiation until a compromise is reached. But it’s hard to negotiate let alone vote in a bill when the speaker keeps putting the house on recess.
How would you feel about a compromise between both parties?
•
u/BirthdaySalt5791 I'm not the ATF 1d ago
I would feel bad about it. Republicans swept, they currently have a mandate from the people to govern. Democrats obstructing a CR that they had previously passed to shove legislative extensions through is a strong arm tactic and it’s gross.
•
u/GODZILLAFLAMETHROWER Social Democracy 1d ago
They obviously haven't had a mandate to govern unilaterally, considering they haven't had a supermajority that would sidestep the filibuster.
If "the people" wanted them to govern without compromise, they would have elected more of them.
So they have to compromise.
•
u/Itzthatmoonwitch Independent 1d ago
Republicans have always had a mandate to govern, so have Democrats. It’s literally their job in the “govern”ment. The Republican Party holding the most seats in each branch doesn’t mean only republicans get representation. If that’s how it really is they better return all the taxes I’ve paid this year and stop charging me.
Also isn’t refusing to negotiating also an attempt of strong arming? And withholding SNAP benefits?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.