1. La Prohibición y la Amenaza de Exclusión.
El Departamento de Agricultura de EE. UU. (USDA), bajo la administración Trump, emitió correos electrónicos y advertencias a minoristas de comestibles, recordándoles que no podían ofrecer tratos especiales o descuentos a los beneficiarios de SNAP, bajo amenaza de perder su autorización para aceptar tarjetas EBT en el futuro.
- The usda is out here threatening grocery stores who offer discounts to shoppers who are enrolled in snap.
- The govt sent an email out to grocery retailers nationwide saying if they give discounts to starving snap benefit recipients, the govt will stop those retailers from accepting snap cards.
- The regime is ordering grocery stores not to offer discounts to help snap recipients.
- Trumps usda bars grocery stores from offering discount for snap recipients.
2. La Crueldad como Estrategia Política.
La acción fue ampliamente condenada como un acto de crueldad intencional, diseñado para infligir dolor a las familias de bajos ingresos, ancianos y niños que dependen de SNAP, utilizando su hambre como palanca política durante la crisis de financiación.
- This is about as sick and cruel as it gets.
- The disdain, inhumanity, and cruelty the trump administration has for its citizens knows no bounds.
- The cruelty is the point.
- The trump administration is literally trying to starve americans.
3. Perversión de la Regla de Igualdad de Trato.
La regla citada por el USDA (la Regla de Igualdad de Trato de SNAP) fue originalmente diseñada para proteger a los beneficiarios de SNAP de ser discriminados o cobrados de más. Los críticos señalaron que la administración estaba retorciendo la intención de la ley para lograr el efecto opuesto: impedir la ayuda a los necesitados.
- The usda enforces rules for stores participating in snap. Stores must offer the same prices and discounts to snap recipients as they do to all other customers due to the equal treatment rule.
- Theyre taking a rule that was designed to protect snap recipients from being treated as second-class customers and using it as weapon to screw the poor.
- Theyre perverting this rule that was meant to prevent overcharging snap recipients into one that wont allow them any discounts while snap benefits remain unfunded.
- This is sort of dastardly no? they are taking a rule meant to prevent stores from charging snap recipients more ie fraud and using it for the opposite purpose of preventing good-will discounts for shutdown affected snap shoppers.
4. Cuestionamientos sobre la Aplicabilidad Legal de la Norma.
Surgió un debate sobre si la regla de "igualdad de trato" era aplicable, dado que los clientes afectados no estaban utilizando beneficios de SNAP (ya que estos habían sido suspendidos). Muchos argumentaron que, al no haber fondos de SNAP, los clientes no eran técnicamente "clientes de SNAP" en ese momento, lo que invalidaba la directiva del USDA.
- I dont understand this. Theyre not snap customers unless theyre using snap to buy the food. Which theyre not, because they havent received the benefit, which is why the stores are offering the discount.
- If they arent getting snap benefits, then theyre not a snap recipient. So if you get a discount it is at the retailers discretion as to who they give discounts.
- This should only be applicable if these customers are actually using snap benefits. If these stores are offering discounts to people who have used up all such benefits, then it shouldnt apply to them.
- The notice says snap paying customers. If there is no snap there are no snap paying customers.