Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is it ethical for Democrats to keep SNAP recipients in a protest without their consent? [View all]
walkingman
(10,742 posts)19. The "One Big Ugly Bill" cut SNAP benefits and added work requirements. Those recipients that
voted for Trump should realize they voted against their own interests.Those that didn't are victims of a BULLY President and a GOP Congress who could care less about them. SNAP was part of LBJ's Great Society and they hate it with all of their being. This is actually the tip of the iceberg - Medicaid will be cut, ACA subsidies will end, Medicare funding will be cut and that doesn't even start to tell the story of what is going to come.
Unless we stand up to a bully he will never stop. We have 3 years to come and his nastiness has just begun.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is it ethical for Democrats to keep SNAP recipients in a protest without their consent? [View all]
ericjhensal
Nov 2025
OP
Theoretically you can still get health care if you don't have insurance. You can't go without food. n/t
valleyrogue
Nov 2025
#36
is it ethical to let 50,000+ Americans die each year from lack of healthcare without their consent? nt
yaesu
Nov 2025
#2
That's ridiculous. Follow that & everyone would only be allowed to speak for themselves.
bucolic_frolic
Nov 2025
#4
A lot of these apologist articles are popping up, wonder how much putin is paying the influencers/bloggers?
yaesu
Nov 2025
#8
One of them from someone who only has 8 posts since joining in 2020.
MarineCombatEngineer
Nov 2025
#15
The Senate deal fully funds SNAP with an increase in appropriations until the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30, 2026).
lapucelle
Nov 2025
#17
Again, we were on the verge of getting SNAP protected anyway. So I'll put you in the
Scrivener7
Nov 2025
#25
"It was probably going to happen anyway" is such an *interesting* take, especially when the bill passed last night
lapucelle
Nov 2025
#39
"I'm putting my faith in republicans standing by their word rather than in Justice Jackson"
Scrivener7
Nov 2025
#45
What are you talking about? If Johnson makes any changes to the bill passed by the Senate
lapucelle
Nov 2025
#47
The Senate deal fully funds SNAP (with an increase in appropriations) until Sept. 30, 2026,
lapucelle
Nov 2025
#14
The food situation is immediate. The ACA subsidies are 1.5 months away. And if after all of this, we can't draft
Silent Type
Nov 2025
#16
The "One Big Ugly Bill" cut SNAP benefits and added work requirements. Those recipients that
walkingman
Nov 2025
#19
If we made people go hungry for a few months, what could be gained and what would we leave behind?
ericjhensal
Nov 2025
#23
Again, November SNAP went out, and we were on the verge of restoring it permanently.
Scrivener7
Nov 2025
#29
Are you of the belief that people were asked to sacrifice and go without adequate food?
Quiet Em
Nov 2025
#41
November SNAP went out, and the courts were about to restore it permanently. NO ONE
Scrivener7
Nov 2025
#46
It is as ethical (or unethical) as every and any other vote which Congress takes.
RockRaven
Nov 2025
#34