General Discussion

I've been looking at my "headlines" in light of your reply. Certainly, these are longer than any headline should be. Given the rhetorical purpose, that is unavoidable. They are long because they capture points that would be elucidated with supporting material in the article that would follow. With regard to "opinion." I consider headlines of commentary to part of the "news" -- they appear in our feeds. I made no attempt to exclude that. Nevertheless, I would argue that everything in these "headlines" is objectively accurate.

Here are my thoughts on each:

They had a choice.
a) Follow the order and fully fund snap.
b) Refuse to follow the order by mounting an appeal and thereby continue to cause the irreparable harms to beneficiaries of hunger and fear.

An appeal is a refusal. The grounds are irrelevant. When you appeal an order you are stating that you object to following the order. And refusing to do something you claim that want to do when ordered by a court to do so demonstrates a willingness to go to any lengths to avoid doing what you are ordered to do -- i.e., feed people who are on SNAP because without it they go hungry.

That refusal, particularly when compared to their willfully unlawful firings and redirection of funds whenever it suits them (I can dig up the lost lost lawsuits if need be), speaks volumes.

To me, "hellbent" captures that level of determination and the lengths to which they are willing to go. But if that term is too loaded, I'd be happy to hear a description that strikes you as more accurate/objective, while nevertheless capturing the reality of what they are doing.



I think this is accurate too. On it's face, it strikes me as absurd to claim the expenditure against such a well funded reserve would be an unacceptable risk.

Also, I don't know a better word than "cruel" to describe intentionally withholding funds when you know doing so will cause vulnerable people to go hungry.

If you doubt that the withholding is an intentional act, I'm happy to debate. And if you doubt they know that withholding the funds will cause vulnerable people to go hungry, we have their own statements (e.g., they cite the terrible consequences, they just lie and pretend it is the democrats fault when it is in fact their own intent/choice.



These are facts. The USDA stopped purchasing food for food banks, school lunches, and other programs that feed vulnerable Americans. Making such purchases serves two of the key purposes for the money. That is, the fund is intended by Congress to serve farmers in a variety of ways, with a primary way being to purchase from food from them to stock food reserves that meet the needs of the vulnerable.

They are refusing to do this. I don't know a better word than "hoarding" for such a refusal to carry out a primary purpose of funds. Happy to hear a word you think would convey what is happening better.



Based on the CNBC article, I think this is an accurate description, but I would love to hear what you would consider more objective/accurate, while nevertheless conveying the reality of what is happening.