The White House calls food stamp funds for Puerto Rico "excessive and unnecessary"

[GMDino]

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/23/the-white-house-calls-food-stamp-funds-for-puerto-rico-excessive-and-unnecessary_partner/?fbclid=IwAR1ak3ILkGdPxYz-miZzmFjji67tFetClLwDNhRj0wFJ-6mXGKXOQgKps3I

Quote:The White House is all about providing piles of fast food to elite college athletes, but when it comes to funding Puerto Rico’s post-hurricane food stamp program, it’s not feeling so generous.


On Wednesday, the Trump administration released a statement officially opposing an additional $600 million in post-hurricane Nutritional Assistance Program (NAP) —the island’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps — calling the funding “excessive and unnecessary.” The news comes after reports that Trump didn’t want a single dollar going to the disaster-stricken island.

Puerto Rico already receives fewer federal resources to support low-income families through NAP than it would under SNAP, even though its poverty rate is over three times the national average and its cost of living exceeds many other areas of the country, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The extra NAP funding would have helped an estimated 100,000 impoverished Puerto Rican families meet their nutritional needs. (NAP is operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which has been shut down for nearly a month.)


“There is no indication that households need ongoing support at this time or that Puerto Rico requires additional time to return to normal NAP operations,” said the official White House statement.


The news was met with outrage from Puerto Rico’s governor, Ricardo Rosselló, who requested additional disaster relief funding last year, citing the island’s “inability to provide food security to those in need.” Rosselló took to social media on Thursday to address President Trump directly, calling for a meeting “so I can correct the ill-informed advice and disconcerting notions you are getting on Puerto Rico, particularly on the NAP program which provides much needed nutritional assistance to over 1 million US citizens living in Puerto Rico.”


Rosselló said the Puerto Rico’s food stamp program was already inadequate before Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit the island. 
Now he expects to see even more people going hungry.


“This is a program that aids some of the most vulnerable who have already suffered immensely because of the Trump Administration’s bumbled and ineffective response to Hurricanes Maria and Irma,” said New York Representative Nydia Velázquez, who authored the amendment adding NAP funds to the House bill, in a statement.

[url=https://velazquez.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/velazquez-statement-trump-administration-sap-emergency-supplemental][/url]

Have to start cobbling together some money for the wall/not-a-wall.

[Vas Deferens]

which term would you categorize this abortion?

[*michaelsean*]

Opening paragraph is so ridiculous it doesn’t merit any further reading and I’d probably agree with a lot of it.

[GMDino]

(01-28-2019, 04:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Opening paragraph is so ridiculous it doesn’t merit any further reading and I’d probably agree with a lot of it.

Good for you.

Here is the official statement.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/saphr268h_20190116.pdf

[*bfine32*]

What should they call it if they're opposed to providing it? "Needed and Necessary". I also don't know what it has to do with Trump paying for the National Camps dinner.

[GMDino]

(01-28-2019, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What should they call it if they're opposed to providing it? "Needed and Necessary". I also don't know what it has to do with Trump paying for the National Camps dinner.

Maybe they should call it needed and necessary and shut up?

Also, nothing...it was a snarky aside to start the article about where Trump's priorities lie.  Thankfully it provides a distraction to those who would want to throw cover to the admin on the issue rather than discuss it.

[*bfine32*]

(01-28-2019, 06:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe they should call it needed and necessary and shut up?

Also, nothing...it was a snarky aside to start the article about where Trump's priorities lie.  Thankfully it provides a distraction to those who would want to throw cover to the admin on the issue rather than discuss it.

I'd assume any politician against increased funding would call providing the funding excessive and unnecessary. The article was from Salon; I didn't expect it to be an unbiased piece.

Just so you know: What they are doing is a fallacy known as "Appeal to Emotion".

[BmorePat87]

Context:


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/puerto-rican-officials-blast-trump-administration-for-opposing-bill-to-fund-the-islands-nutritional-program/

This is from a week ago. It was a stop gap funding bill, so the Administration was going to reject it either way. The Administration was calling that amount itself "excessive" on top of what already was allocated and criticized it for not including border wall funding.

Trump could very much oppose necessary aid to Puerto Rico, but the entire story isn't being told here. It's similar to conservatives saying Chuck Schumer doesn't want the Coast Guard to get paid when he opposed the legislation because it didn't fund everyone getting paid.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2019, 06:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe they should call it needed and necessary and shut up?

Also, nothing...it was a snarky aside to start the article about where Trump's priorities lie.  Thankfully it provides a distraction to those who would want to throw cover to the admin on the issue rather than discuss it.

Snarky wasn’t the problem. Incredibly horrible analogy was the problem. It made zero sense. I have zero faith in whatever would follow.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-28-2019, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd assume any politician against increased funding would call providing the funding excessive and unnecessary. The article was from Salon; I didn't expect it to be an unbiased piece.

Just so you know: What they are doing is a fallacy known as "Appeal to Emotion".

Pathos, of the Ethos, Pathos and Logos appeals to argumentation and debate.

[GMDino]

(01-28-2019, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd assume any politician against increased funding would call providing the funding excessive and unnecessary. The article was from Salon; I didn't expect it to be an unbiased piece.

Just so you know: What they are doing is a fallacy known as "Appeal to Emotion".

(01-28-2019, 10:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pathos, of the Ethos, Pathos and Logos appeals to argumentation and debate.

(01-23-2019, 01:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: if I had a nickel for every time I've been told what I meant in this forum............

yeah, I also shared the link to the declaration.

I also pointed out that I shared the story (with links to the information) because while DJT is manufacturing an "emergency" at the border and demanding billions his admin considers the added aid for PR to be unnecessary and excessive.

Which I believe shows where their priorities are (not that it surprises me) with taking away from those in need to protect Trump's "promises" and fear mongering tactics.

You could debate that OR you could continue to complain about how the story was written.  I bet I know which will happen.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2019, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I also don't know what it has to do with Trump paying for the National Camps dinner.

(01-28-2019, 09:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Snarky wasn’t the problem. Incredibly horrible analogy was the problem. It made zero sense. I have zero faith in whatever would follow.

It made sense to me.  Trump created the story about feeding the football team to show how generous he was.  It was nothing but a publicity stunt, and his followers loved it.

Since it involved food I think it was appropriate to use the publicity stunt against Trump to show how little he really cares about feeding anyone.