Just because judges rule that the administration must pay SNAP benefits does not mean they will comply.
I think you mean aren’t paid.
So there is a depression era law that says the president can not use money for anything other that what congress dictates.
No president has ever violated it until now.
I meant, “funded”.
…to SNAP recipients and services that run them?
I think I’m failing to parse the question here.
I think they’re asking about the government’s refusal to use the money for SNAP they were given in case of a shutdown. I believe it would just be sitting in a bank account somewhere.
what’s even more corrupt is that the president and congress etc. still get paid
while the workers get nada.
In the era before the average net worth of a Congress person was in the tens of millions, it made sense because it prevented them from their wages being held hostage.
Except it doesn’t make sense as even back then, they could still mooch profit off such a stop.
Plus, if they wanted such a STOP to stop, they’d not feel the pressure themselves. Sure, on the other hand it makes them less prone to corruption in theory, but if they already are rich then why would we even need to make politicians even richer?
Thank you! In that case I’m moderately certain that the government needs to go into debt to cover it, and is prevented from gaining more debt during the shutdown.
I am not sure that’s literally true for SNAP benefits, but I think this is true ‘overall’; this is the reason for stopping most the things they stop.
Edit: I do want to emphasize that I don’t know for sure where the money in this case is.
To the person, then the corporations, the investors, the leverage from the investors, to assets, and then that makes the cash flow, which is tax-free, to the corporation.
