←back to thread

USDA Threatens Stores Giving Discounts to People on Food Stamps

(newrepublic.com)
64 points mrtesthah | 7 comments | 04 Nov 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.241s | source | bottom
Show context
chasd00 ◴[04 Nov 25 17:22 UTC] No.45813489[source]▶
Read the article and then you'll put away your pitchforks. A basic rule is snap recipients can't be treated differently than non-program members which seems reasonable.

"At issue is SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which bars stores from either discriminating against people in the program or offering them favorable treatment. "

replies(7): >>45813511 #>>45813542 #>>45813597 #>>45813721 #>>45813753 #>>45814104 #>>45815963 #
1. SpicyLemonZest ◴[04 Nov 25 17:46 UTC] No.45813753[source]▶
I've still got my pitchfork out. As the reminder says, discounts are allowed with a USDA waiver, so they should either offer a temporary blanket waiver or suggest some better way to mitigate the impact on SNAP recipients.
replies(1): >>45814064 #
2. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[04 Nov 25 18:11 UTC] No.45814064[source]▶
> they should either offer a temporary blanket waiver or suggest some better way to mitigate the impact on SNAP recipients

Without something like this, why should one assume good faith behind the change? The people chanting "the cruelty is the point" seem to be vindicated rather clearly.

replies(3): >>45814201 #>>45814247 #>>45817279 #
3. altairprime ◴[04 Nov 25 18:23 UTC] No.45814201[source]▶
Well, they are slightly off course: both the starvation and general cruelty are the methods, in service of a much uglier point.
replies(1): >>45814918 #
4. SpicyLemonZest ◴[04 Nov 25 18:27 UTC] No.45814247[source]▶
I'm not even sure "good faith" is the right word. Trump stated explicitly today that he does not want SNAP benefits to be paid until he wins the shutdown fight. But a lot of people have this idea that being politically earnest is cringe, so it's not an option to simply say it's bad he won't explore other options to pay the benefits. You have to make up some clever reason why the issue is more complicated than it sounds, and maybe Trump had no choice, no matter how much that requires you to ignore context and court orders and the stated positions of the politicians involved.
5. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[04 Nov 25 19:26 UTC] No.45814918{3}[source]▶
> a much uglier point

If not cruelty, what?

Power? To do what, if not "be cruel in service to oneself without repercussion"?

6. tpmoney ◴[04 Nov 25 23:49 UTC] No.45817279[source]▶
What change? Regardless of why the USDA decided to remind people of this, these rules on SNAP benefits and equal treatment have been part of the law since before Trump took office.
replies(1): >>45817547 #
7. fzeroracer ◴[05 Nov 25 00:20 UTC] No.45817547{3}[source]▶
Funding SNAP during shutdowns with money that is directly set aside for such cases is also part of the law, which Trump is conveniently saying they will not follow. Trying to argue that rules are reasonable doesn't matter when you're trying to make a case while the admin is admitting to starving people for political gain.