FYI...UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE...

homeagain wrote: I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE HUMAN BEINGS AND THE BLATANT TRUTH IS THIS....WE R BECOMING A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY....NO LAWS,JUST AN OLIGARCH RUNNING THE COUNTRY ,AND ENRICHING HIMSELF AND FAMILY FROM TAXATION OF IT'S CITIZENS. ......WHEN U ARRIVE AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY.....A REVOLUTION IS ALMOST CERTAIN.....WAIT AND WATCH....
BECAUSE AMERICA IS IN A VERY PRECARIOUS POSITION....AND IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY.

Osama Bin Laden was also a human being. Didn't matter to President Obama, he terminated him with extreme malice, despite him being retired and in hiding.

President Biden and HA thought this was a bad decision, maybe even criminal, but Barack was never prosecuted for not capturing the man and giving him an international trial for his crimes. Is President Obama a war criminal?

homeagain wrote: www.cato.org/commentary/about-1-5-kids-a...-failing-low-income#

ONE IN FIVE CHILDREN IS THE RATIO.....U R INCORRECT PS.

The current shutdown should serve as a catalyst for Congress to reassess the federal role in welfare. Children shouldn’t go hungry because Congress can’t govern—nor should they be dependent on the D.C. bureaucracy for their food. SNAP’s centralization and reliance on federal dollars have caused it to fail at meeting the nutritional needs of children, and now, millions of families face the prospect of sudden benefit disruptions.

Congress should stop treating Americans as collateral damage in their fight over extending Obamacare subsidies and end the shutdown immediately

That's laugh out loud funny HA . . . their losing their benefits, temporarily, had not a thing to do with funding for SNAPS overall, and everything to do with Democrats shutting down the government for a month to extend Covid engorged (un)Affordable Care Act subsidies indefinitely instead of allowing them to expire according to the original law, passed entirely by Democrats without even a single Republican vote.

Did you actually read the citation you provided? Did you miss this part?

The ongoing deadlock highlights SNAP’s fragility due to its near-total reliance on federal funding. More importantly, its chronic dependency on Washington’s one-size-fits-all solutions has left it failing the very children it’s supposed to help. The best way to ensure healthy outcomes for kids and protect them from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to break the federal grip on nutrition programs.

The only people losing access to SNAPS are single, able-bodied adults who refuse to find a job or volunteer their time to better their community and the illegal aliens who are, at least in theory, excluded from the program entirely but are the head of the household which is receiving benefits, which means that despite the Democratic lies, illegal aliens are beneficiaries of the program.

I am not familiar with the sinking of the Bismarck however is much easier to repair a ship than to lay a new keel.

PrintSmith wrote:

homeagain wrote: www.cato.org/commentary/about-1-5-kids-a...-failing-low-income#

ONE IN FIVE CHILDREN IS THE RATIO.....U R INCORRECT PS.

The current shutdown should serve as a catalyst for Congress to reassess the federal role in welfare. Children shouldn’t go hungry because Congress can’t govern—nor should they be dependent on the D.C. bureaucracy for their food. SNAP’s centralization and reliance on federal dollars have caused it to fail at meeting the nutritional needs of children, and now, millions of families face the prospect of sudden benefit disruptions.

Congress should stop treating Americans as collateral damage in their fight over extending Obamacare subsidies and end the shutdown immediately

That's laugh out loud funny HA . . . their losing their benefits, temporarily, had not a thing to do with funding for SNAPS overall, and everything to do with Democrats shutting down the government for a month to extend Covid engorged (un)Affordable Care Act subsidies indefinitely instead of allowing them to expire according to the original law, passed entirely by Democrats without even a single Republican vote.

Did you actually read the citation you provided? Did you miss this part?

The ongoing deadlock highlights SNAP’s fragility due to its near-total reliance on federal funding. More importantly, its chronic dependency on Washington’s one-size-fits-all solutions has left it failing the very children it’s supposed to help. The best way to ensure healthy outcomes for kids and protect them from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to break the federal grip on nutrition programs.

The only people losing access to SNAPS are single, able-bodied adults who refuse to find a job or volunteer their time to better their community and the illegal aliens who are, at least in theory, excluded from the program entirely but are the head of the household which is receiving benefits, which means that despite the Democratic lies, illegal aliens are beneficiaries of the program.

www.npr.org/2025/12/01/nx-s1-5608225/sna...changes-usda-rollins

The USDA has not presented data that backs up these statistics, which makes it hard to evaluate their significance.

For example, some deceased individuals will inevitably be enrolled in the program because state officials have to verify the death and provide time for the household to respond before SNAP benefits are reduced or terminated. Households that erroneously receive payments when someone is deceased must pay that money back.

As for people receiving two benefit payments, the specifics of the cases Rollins cited are still unknown, but in court filings a California state official listed a number of legitimate explanations for why that can occur — including when a SNAP household is owed a supplemental payment to correct an error.

It is also unclear what Rollins means when she says SNAP benefits increased 40% under the Biden administration. USDA did not respond to a question seeking clarification.

The department announced that SNAP payments would expand 40% due to the pandemic in April 2020 — during President Trump's first term.

Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and the associate director of The Hamilton Project, analyzed USDA data but was unable to find evidence of a 40% increase under Biden. Instead, she found that during Trump's presidency benefit costs increased by more than 30%, while during Biden's term they decreased by almost 17%.

"The dynamics of benefit increases and decreases is not really about presidencies. It's about the business cycle and where we are in terms of a recession and in terms of the climb out of it," Bauer said.

On Monday morning, Rollins posted to X, "At @POTUS' direction we will be reviewing ALL @USDA PROGRAMS to ensure only legal citizens are receiving benefits. Earlier this year, USDA put states on notice reminding them illegal immigrants and certain non-citizens CAN NOT receive SNAP benefits."

It is not clear what Rollins meant by "legal citizens." The post goes on to mention that 22 states have refused to turn over data and USDA's efforts to use "every tool to compel their compliance."

WHILE I BELIEVE IT IS AN IMPORTANT REVISION OF THE REGS...THE BULLSHIT BEING SPEWED OUT IS SO DAMN PARTISAN (LIKE THE DEATH RECIPIENTS) IT IS NAUSEATING TO SEE THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.....WITHHOLDING BENEFITS TO ALL CITIZENS,WHEN THERE REALLY IS NO CONCRETE PLAN IN PLACE TO ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD IN A PROFICIENT WAY IS UNCONSCIONABLE. THIS IS POLITICS,AT IT'S MOST EGREGIOUS STATUS.

DOUBLE PAYMENTS....YES, BECAUSE THEY WERE OWED THE BACK PAY,...NOT ONE R REALLY LOOKS AT THE ENTIRE PICTURE AND UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM.....IT'S TRUMP'S BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL AND THAT'S THE WHOLE BALLGAME....GET BACK AT BIDEN.

Long story short, the last of Bismarck's guns fell silent an hour before the final torpedo to sink her was fired. Once the Bismarck was hors de combat, the British didn't board the ship, take prisoners and scuttle the hull, they continued to shell and torpedo the battleship for another hour, determined to sink her, partially in retribution for the Bismarck's sinking of the Hood.

How many hundreds of lives were lost as a result of that decision? The point of the whole exercise was to drive home the concept that only "manifestly unlawful" orders must be refused by members of the armed services, and the sinking of foreign terrorist drug laden shipping boats is a far, far, far cry from "manifestly unlawful".

The Bismarck's demise was conducted under the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions, which itself excludes terrorists from being protected by those rules of warfare, and the "expert" in HA's citation was premising their argument upon the Articles in the Geneva Convention.