Keyword: “partial”.

  • zaugofficial@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    I mean, a lot of it is to avoid an actual meltdown in society because stopping food benefits without any kind of transition plan for those relying on them will seriously upset the balance.

    We don’t like to admit it, but our rulers have learned from revolutions of the past. They know if they squeeze us too hard, they’ll be ousted before the next election cycle.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Normally I would agree, but this administrations actions over the year entrenched police/military protections from citizens from the get-go and strategically targeted cities to incite retaliation. It is clear conflict with American citizens in some form is a desirable outcome.

      Attacking SNAP was a calculated move, but outcome turned unfavorable so they are backtracking. Polish the turd with spin, and try something else.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Yes, but all the while they are facing more controlled resistance. The more resistance builds, the less they can try to pull off. Eventually there is a crack in either direction. They have a timeline they need to keep or they won’t enact their plan on time.