Millions Could Lose Food Assistance If Government Shutdown Continues

Three days without food and Trump will defiantly have his National Emergency mandate to do as he wants. There will be major civil unrest all over the place.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This is all Trumps fault.

Lets get right back to the basics. He promised a wall would be built and Mexico would pay for it. Now there isn't actually going to be a wall and he wants the taxpayer to spend $5 Billion for a metaphorical wall so he can rally his base of support.

So because he's not getting that he is basically holding the country ransom, its quite obviously wrong but his supporters seem to be the only ones who don't quite see it that way. So no more food stamps, as Trump says he is willing to let this shutdown go on for months if not years as people struggle to eat so he can win some political points.

Nope, it's the Democrat's fault. They know what it will take to get the President's signature. The amount of money he is asking for is a rounding error of the annual budget. Heck, they could reassign the money from the amount that was going to be sent to Central America to 'prevent border crossing' or whatever that B.S. was.

The Democrats control the purse strings. This is all on them. They are being stubborn for purely political and partisan reasons.

See how easy that is? Blame is an easy thing to do.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You seem to have put a lot of thought into Trump's motivations.

What about the "other side of the coin"?

What are Nancy's motivations?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

As I have said before this isn't about the money its about the political optics of the situation.

originally posted by: eXia7
I might hold a strong conservative view on a lot of issues, but I have always felt that Food assistance should be a right for all US citizens. That is really where tax money should go. Give everybody a minimum amount to feed themselves to supplement their pay. This would be the best type of UBI system to use.

Except that's not the system we have and you know it. If you and I are self-supporting and run into some kind of financial emergency that wipes us out on a temp basis leaving us short for a week or two, the government won't be there for us. It's an all or nothing system. There is no temporary help because we're "rich". We can't go in and tell them that our car suddenly died and we had to sink everything into an emergency replacement, for example, so it will take a few weeks to get back on track.

So in those instances, we have to prepare and be ready to go it on our own.

Too lazy to work but not too lazy to protest. We'll see. Lots of stealing food at the store coming.

originally posted by: Aallanon

What are Nancy's motivations?

To stop president Bush, er, Donald W Trump by any means necessary.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This is all Trumps fault.

Lets get right back to the basics. He promised a wall would be built and Mexico would pay for it. Now there isn't actually going to be a wall and he wants the taxpayer to spend $5 Billion for a metaphorical wall so he can rally his base of support.

So because he's not getting that he is basically holding the country ransom, its quite obviously wrong but his supporters seem to be the only ones who don't quite see it that way. So no more food stamps, as Trump says he is willing to let this shutdown go on for months if not years as people struggle to eat so he can win some political points.

How is this Trump's fault when the dems have just been obstructionists from day 1?

Because he is doing it quite literally to break a campaign promise so that his supporters will somehow think that him breaking said promise is winning. This is all about him scoring political points and nothing else, he might tell you its about boarder security but its not. Boarder security to him is just a euphemism for "keep my supporters voting for me".

He promised Mexico would pay for all of this, they're not and now he expects taxpayers to pay for it just so he can score political points.

It is wrong that as a result of this people are going to be losing food stamps.

This issue also belongs to the democrats, if they hadn't been obstructionists, and would actually compromise on border security instead of trying to hold the US citizens hostage for votes.

The democrats have acted like 5 year olds throwing a temper tantrum since Trump threw his hat in the ring, at this point I'm getting tired of it, and I'm sure a silent majority are getting tired of it. I feel a lot of people at this point have a nihilistic urge to watch it burn.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Teikiatsu

As I have said before this isn't about the money its about the political optics of the situation.

Of course, it is and right now, they'll pull out everything to make people afraid that we can't live without our government there to take care of us because wonder of wonders ... it has been about 3 weeks and no one has missed it.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

A brief lesson in Governance.

The president can only sign what is put in front of him by congress and the senate.

So it's Nancys fault

Documents have been prepared and approved by both the House and Senate, but Mitch McConnell won't take it to trump because he says "he won't take anything he knows he won't sign". Pelosi has asked repeatedly for him to take it, and if he vetoes it, then so be it. Refusing is Mitch's way of protecting trump from.. what? I don't know. Himself, maybe?

Those on assistance should have plenty of canned food in the cupboards. If they don't, it means the system was broken to begin with and it can now be worked on in the future..after we get our damn wall.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You seem to have put a lot of thought into Trump's motivations.

What about the "other side of the coin"?

What are Nancy's motivations?

I think Nancy see's her motivation as damage limitation.

Trumps wall isn't really about boarder security is about pushing forward his nationalist and isolationist ideology, its about rallying his base because for Trump, "Boarder Security" is actually just a euphemism for "vote for me". He knows he won because of a strong anti-immigration stance and this boarder wall is the absolute corner stone of that.

Nancy is playing damage limitation.

Or at least I think thats probably how she might see it.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Too lazy to work but not too lazy to protest. We'll see. Lots of stealing food at the store coming.

Many grocers are already worried about lost income.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: eXia7
I might hold a strong conservative view on a lot of issues, but I have always felt that Food assistance should be a right for all US citizens. That is really where tax money should go. Give everybody a minimum amount to feed themselves to supplement their pay. This would be the best type of UBI system to use.

Except that's not the system we have and you know it. If you and I are self-supporting and run into some kind of financial emergency that wipes us out on a temp basis leaving us short for a week or two, the government won't be there for us. It's an all or nothing system. There is no temporary help because we're "rich". We can't go in and tell them that our car suddenly died and we had to sink everything into an emergency replacement, for example, so it will take a few weeks to get back on track.

So in those instances, we have to prepare and be ready to go it on our own.

Yeah, there is always something standing in the way of progress.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

A brief lesson in Governance.

The president can only sign what is put in front of him by congress and the senate.

So it's Nancys fault

Documents have been prepared and approved by both the House and Senate, but Mitch McConnell won't take it to trump because he says "he won't take anything he knows he won't sign". Pelosi has asked repeatedly for him to take it, and if he vetoes it, then so be it. Refusing is Mitch's way of protecting trump from.. what? I don't know. Himself, maybe?

Oh, is that how it works?

Then it was actually Obama who was being obstructionist all those years and *not* Republicans when it came to the budget? Funny, because it was the inverse then. You guys told us it was Republicans being obstructionist because the president gets what he wants and they have to send him something he can sign ...

a reply to: eXia7

It's not about progress. It's about getting you on a system designed to keep you dependent so they can pull crap like this on you.

The government giving you what you need can also take it away.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trump sees it as he is trying to protect the nation.

Nancy sees it as stopping a win for Trump.

It's easy to state your agenda I was hoping for a little intellectual honesty.

You failed.

a reply to: angeldoll

I do feel bad for those who have resorted to becoming dependant on the government, but then again lessons such as these are crucial. The government is not always going to be there for you.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Probably shouldn't have had those welfare babies, in retrospect.

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So you tell me how Nancy may see it and how you think Trump sees it.

Please answer both questions consistently without your political bias, if you can.

I have done. I am answering your questions.

I have told you that I think Trump is rallying his supporters with this wall after a broken promise and I have told you that I think Nancy is just playing a game of damage limitation.

Wrote a thread on it that further expands on my thoughts on the issue if your interested.

We all have our political biases they are probably all skewed differently I am quite open about mine I would expect you're just as open about your's.