They’re not aupposed to sell cooked food either, but plenty of places get around that by selling you uncooked food and then cooking it for you free of charge.
Like a pizza at WinCo.
Trump Administration: We intended for these people to suffer and starve and, by God, we will see them suffer and starve!
lol imagine telling a private business what to do! Those fucken libruls!
oh wait…
They are trying to cause riots… because they want to inact martial law… this is the whole plan… best thing to do is keep being peaceful because they don’t understand why people aren’t being violent, because thats exactly what they would be doing…
Matter of fact its what they did on Jan 6…
They are trying to cause riots
This is my exact read on the matter. We can’t be the only ones to see it this way. What surprises me is that more analysts and pundits aren’t talking about the economic violence from this angle. And when the masses finally reach their threshold, the Conservatives will do their “Whaaaat? So much for the tolerant Left.”
“it’s very important that every one quietly starves to death while being beaten by police, or else the government will starve the rest of us and beat them up as well!”
Being quiet, is not the same as protesting… rioting isn’t going to make things better…
Protesting once every three months is going to do anything. And before you spout the 3.4% read what the people said. It is not a rule just an observation and it is becoming less relevant.
best thing to do is keep being peaceful
This is a typical abusee mindset.
“I know they’re abusive but if I don’t do anything to anger them they’ll leave me alone”
They won’t. The problem is them, not you.
Peaceful protest is what is meant, instead of violent protest. Peaceful doesn’t mean doing nothing.
Is it though? So you think that people should start rioting so they will enact martial law…
Vs doing nothing and getting martial law anyway.
Yes being peaceful well fight the “evil” why didn’t we think of that during the world wars.
The cruelty is the point.
Trump is trying to hold the poorest people hostage to get Democrats to cave.
I hope to see video clips of Trump clutching his chest in agonizing pain and collapsing.
I hope it happens on live TV during one of his ramblings, or that he devolves even farther as another stroke hits him before collapsing and hopefully breaking something on the way down.
I don’t like what monsters like him have made me wish for, but that won’t stop me from celebrating when they are gone. I’m tired of “turn the other cheek” and “meet in the middle” complacency and I have been for a while.
hopefully breaking something on the way down.
Ideally he rolls over Jimmy the Loveseat and Stephen Miller like the fucking boulder in Raiders of the Lost Arc
Whilst loudly voiding his bowels.
Into the mouth of Johnson, who chokes to death on it.
Republicans can pass their stupid budget without democrats. All they have to do is give up the rule that allows minority power in the senate. They could even try making schumer actually do a fillibuster where he has to stand up and talk for days on end.
This. If the right think celebrations after Charlie Kirk was murdered was bad, I have an entire celebration lined up for Trump’s death
p is trying to hold the poorest people hostage to get Democrats to cave.
Funny enough, the democrats who are rich enough to be in power don’t care more than it looks like the’re caring.
I think it’s a prelude to Martial Law
I’m willing to bet this is hurting his own voters more than anyone else.
He doesn’t need them anymore. They’ve calculated that they’ve dismanteled enough to either rig the election or just permanently postpone it.
I’m pretty sure that what private businesses want to charge people is totally up to them, unless we’re talking about a protected class. Which food stamp recipients are not.
Afaik, the legal mechanism behind this threat is a pre-existing law that prohibits charging different prices for people paying with SNAP vs other forms of payment. It’s intended to prevent charging them extra, but it’s written in such a way that you can’t give discounts either.
It’s bullshit and shouldn’t exist, but it’s not entirely new.
Yet… if they’re unable to pay with SNAP because the funding is cut off, wouldn’t that law be inapplicable?
I would say so, yes. I’m not sure a judge would say this makes sense (judges could even dismiss this based on the fact there doesn’t appear to be an injured party or they could even force the USDA to pay the difference to grocers).
Realistically grocery stores were expecting to sell a certain amount of goods to SNAP recipients and if they don’t then that food just rots. Might as well sell it at reduced cost.
Oh I know, give them Rebates! Corpo scum loves to push rebates on people because many will forget to use them. So give em a taste of the ole rebate loophole. 10% instant rebate for SNAP card holders.
Free market advocates.
Free market? It’s MINE, MINE, MINE!
So what law are these stores violating? How are they going to detect and enforce that, if there is in fact a law that exists that actually says this (and again, I don’t believe there is)?
Edit: yeah should have read the article, the answer is in there
Did you read the article?
At issue is SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which bars stores from either discriminating against people in the program or offering them favorable treatment.
I dug a little further. The SNAP “Equal Treatment Rule” is not a standalone statute passed by Congress, it’s an agency regulation issued by USDA under its authority to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is codified in federal regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 274). SNAP itself is authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. §§ 2011–2036). That law gives USDA broad authority to regulate how benefits are issued and used.
Oh, the regulatory authority of the agency that has no budget? The one that isn’t supposed to be working because the government is shut down? The one that can’t do its job because the Republicans won’t let it? That’s the one that’s mysteriously somehow going to enforce its regulations the opposite of how they were intended, to harm the public instead of helping it?
Laws don’t instantly become moot just because there isn’t a police officer standing right in front of you with handcuffs ready to go, and it’s not a good idea to normalize having agencies deciding on an ad-hoc basis “we’re just going to let our rules slide this time.” What if the EPA did that for polluters?
I am in no way supporting this, I’m just pointing out that the problem isn’t as easy or obvious to solve as it seems. They need to change the regulations and there’s a process for that. They should have seen something like this coming and had the regulations account for it to begin with, but they didn’t and now we’re here. Oversights like that happen sometimes.
At issue is SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which bars stores from either discriminating against people in the program or offering them favorable treatment.
It’s in the article. I’ll leave the googling of the equal Treatment Rule up to you.
Fair point. I did not read the article before responding, so that is on me.
At the same time, if people are in the program, but are not getting the benefits of the program… are they in the program?
