Trump’s administration is demanding states “undo” full SNAP benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed those rulings, marking the latest swing in a seesawing legal battle over the anti-hunger program used by 42 million Americans.

The demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture came as more than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they authorized before the Supreme Court’s stay.

  • Invertedouroboros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I legitimately can’t tell anymore what even they think their trying to do.

    Like… yall are monsters who think government shouldn’t help people, yeah, I get that. But… like… if you want to speed-run violence in the streets, artificially fucking with the food’s a great way to do it.

    And… again… I’m just perplexed. Do you want the violence? If you wanted to invoke the riot act or whatever there’s easier ways to do that that don’t involve blowing up half the economy along with it. Is this a “principled” stance? Do you believe government shouldn’t help people so much that your willing to stand ten toes on causing hunger riots? Or is this desperation? Do you want to loot that discretionary fund so bad that your willing to risk sparking a revolution to do so? Is the money even still there? Or are you fighting this hard against SNAP because it was stolen long ago?

    On top of all of the rest of the anger and outrage, it’s frustrating that there’s likely no answer to these questions. Or as many answers as there are right wing chuds with their boots on the nation’s throats. At least in movies the villian have a devious master plan. Here in reality it feels like we’re speed running accelerationism and it’s hardly even intentional. Just equal parts malice and stupidity.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      There is also the possibility that it’s a principled stance towards executive authority. Like they don’t want the precedent of the courts and the system in general successfully protecting people from them.