• MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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

  • aramis87@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      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 "

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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.

          • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

  • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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?”

      • AscendantSquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Because that question has 4 numbers in it, which is too confusing for the average viewer. But yes, the $40 billion dollars Trump g®ifted to Argentina would have kept SNAP completely funded for 5 months.