As I was Saying...

[paft.livejournal.com]

I was sorry to see that my original post was removed. Unfortunately, I was not at my desk when I was notified of the problem, so I could not alter it in time. Here is an amended version:

Remember Donny Ferguson, the Steve Stockman's aide who took the SNAP challenge and declared it a snap?

Well, it turns out he couldn't actually manage it.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/on-food-stamp-challenge-stockman-aide-busted-budget-but.html/

But Ferguson, who bought his food and planned his meals at the beginning of the week, ran into a problem when attempting to travel –

Foiled by TSA. Can’t bring my #SNAPChallenge food on the plane with me, and I’m not paying $50 for the privilege of losing checked luggage.

— Donny Ferguson (@DonnyFerguson) June 21, 2013

His solution? Since SNAP funding breaks down to $4.50 a day, Ferguson limited himself to $9 in meals while traveling.

#snapchallenge Update, Day 5: On the road. Buying $9 of food for dinner tonight and Saturday and Sunday.

— Donny Ferguson (@DonnyFerguson) June 22, 2013

The Huffington Post noticed Ferguson’s tweet and pointed out that adding $9 to the original bill of $27.58 brought Ferguson beyond the $31.50 budget.

In the end Ferguson spent an additional $8.45 — $6.70 to feed himself and the rest to buy two cans of pork and beans for a local food bank. He spent $36.03 in total, going about 14 percent over budget.

In short, he discovered that a single unforeseen circumstance can toss you off the SNAP budget.

And yes, that unforeseen circumstance could quite possibly include a SNAP recipient taking a flight. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to imagine someone on SNAP taking a bereavement flight in the event of a family emergency. (I took one last autumn, after a close relative was diagnosed with Stage 4 Cancer. Coast to coast for $10.) Nor does it break the bonds of credulity to imagine some other unforeseen event taking place that could have the effect of forcing the recipient to spend more than what is allotted by SNAP.

Not that this matters, of course, because we've reached the stage where, for many on the American right, it's about whether or not people are worthy of being fed -- not whether or not they can feed themselves adequately. We seem to be approaching a mindset similar to the old British poor laws, in which recipients were deliberately starved and humiliated on the dubious grounds that poverty is an indication of of laziness, shiftlessness, or some other moral malaise.

It is my opinion that the issue should not be whether or not we approve of everyone who gets aid. It should be whether or not they need it.

.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

because we've reached the stage where, for many on the American right, it's about whether or not people are worthy of being fed -- not whether or not they can feed themselves adequately.

No, that's still you missing the point.

It is my opinion that the issue should not be whether or not we approve of everyone who gets aid. It should be whether or not they need it.

Both of those are not the issue.

We cannot afford to feed everyone in country at a middle-class level. It's that simple. So, there has to be an assessment of what the right thing to do is, in keeping with a lot of other parameters beyond just "need". After all, everyone needs food, so if that's the only parameter, then we might as well just hand it out to everyone.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Or, how much better it would be to have the discussion be based upon a question like: "Since we all agree that allowing starvation to occur is a moral wrong, let's look at how our safety nets are doing for those who are falling through the cracks in our system." but that's just wishful thinking.

That's the kind of question paft should be bringing up, because that is the discussion that a lot of people are trying to have, both on the left and the right, but paft doesn't see it. She's complaining about people calling out the problem with the safety net and claiming they're saying the net shouldn't exist at all.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Of course it can be answered. It could be answered very easily with appropriate allowances for variation.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

None of that is relevant to the question of how much the government should give for food as a safety net. It's not really a complicated question.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

How is that even close to just "typing to be typing"? What's wrong with using the government-standard poverty line as a baseline for answering a simple question?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, your answer is 100% of what they claim to need. You could have just said so 50 comments ago.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

As paft shows elsewhere, her real answer is actually 100%. I don't know why she wanted to hide this.

The issue isn't what the actual answer is, just that paft should have one, regardless what it actually is. It could be 100%, it could be 50%, it could be 100% up to 1/2 of the poverty line, then 75% up to the poverty line, then 50% up to double the poverty line, then 0%. It could be 100% for those in New York and 0% for those in Texas and 50% for everyone else. It doesn't really matter. The point is that she refused to answer with anything at all.

Personally, I don't believe it's a proper function of government, so the best compromise I can offer is to let people mark their tax forms with the categories of extra things they want paid for and that determines the budget available. Then we can figure out what the spending can be.

[404.livejournal.com]

Someone who hates to speak in public, I was feeling his pain as I watched it live.

[404.livejournal.com]

[404.livejournal.com]

So you're cool with evil Republican-lite, as long as they play lip service to you.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

YES! EXACTLY! we might as well just hand it out to everyone.

finally, you are seeing the light!!!!

water and food should be deprived to nobody, and thus, we should give it to everybody.


...if only i felt you meant that and it wasn't a snide way to end your comment.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That's a terrible system of taxation.

I don't believe drones bombings are a proper function of govt, but I don't see a way to get my tax dollars away from the military-industrial-govt complex.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Woah woah woah.

When did she use "what they claim to need" as the measuring stick for what they get?

We can all see someone who has food and medical care and hear them say they need more, but if we see that they are fed and healthy, that "what they claim to need" may not be identical with "what they need"

So don't go straw-manning *that* hard. You'll look much more reasonable if you straw man slightly less hard.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Well yes, it is easy for me to say. It is also easy for me to hold a bar, up to which I expect the 100 members of the senate to live up to.

Yes, many of them do not live up that standard, but, it is ENTIRELY reasonable for me to have a high standard for US Senators, is it not?

And don't get me wrong, I'll bash jackoff Dem senators too, I'm not a party fan-boy.
Fuck Rubio, Lieberman and Franken.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

she won't run, don't worry

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

well, it's a good thing you aren't running for, or holding, elected office then, huh?

you can't be camera shy if you are trying to get national attention
you can't claim "the pressure is too much" if you want our respect
leaders need to be exemplars and exemplars consider the consequences of stopping a speech for water. hydrate before the game, not when your on the court and the opponents are about to dunk.

[404.livejournal.com]

So you expect a public official to be able to give a speech perfectly with no perceived errors 100% of the time?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You should try some other comms, I suspect you'll find plenty of less humorfull people.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

You have a point. This is the internet. There is no bottom.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Alright, Policraticus, I will play your game.

You decided this was Paft's answer, but I will give it to you instead so that we play out this dialogue. Hopefully you will be a good sport about it and engage me on this topic?

100%! I believe that the govt should, if a person NEED IT, provide 100% of the cost of their food bill. Now, that said, they should not be permitted to buy the highest price items in the supermarket just for shits and giggles and then dump that cost on SNAP, which, I think should be renamed (obviously)

It is my theory that a member of our society that is in poverty is better suited, and more likely to pull themselves OUT of poverty, if they *KNOW* that they will be able to eat another meal and fill their stomachs. The STRESS of having NO IDEA where you will get your next meal from does not lend itself to a healthy and productive person.

Perhaps instead of providing money that people spend on food, I would be happier with an alternative system that had a govt run food-store. Provides the basic food-stuffs, not expensive food-stuffs. Any person on the food assitance program could go there and get their food needs, up to a dollar amount. The dollar amount would be dependent upon the size of the persons family--NOT to be effected by their income. At all. Period.

ANYBODY who wanted free food could go get it. It wouldn't be gourmet. It would be SUSTENANCE.

That is, even if you HAD lots of money you could go get this free food. You probably wouldn't want to, unless you were a penny-pincher. But that's OK. As is, a penny-pincher could go to a soup kitchen, right? But most don't.

If you wish to see a healthy and productive person, threatening them with starvation is bad stick to use, IMO.
I am completely happy to see a raise in taxes (even my taxes, and believe me, I am working poor) to make sure that EVERY SINGLE HUNGRY PERSON CAN BE FED.

I really do not see the point in spending money on the military (to keep our bodies safe from foreign armies) or on education (to keep our minds sharp) if we will not spend money to keep our population healthy (this applies to my reasoning for UHC and for UFC [universal food coverage. better term than SNAP for what I want])

So there you have it. I believe that up to 100% of a [basic, not gourmet] food budget should be covered.

Tell me what's so wrong with that.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

you realize those words were not always part of the program right?

"food stamps" existed before it was called SNAP and the addition of the words "supplement" and "assisted" may be like calling the Patriot act the Patriot act. Supporting it doesn't make you patriotic, and living off SNAP alone does not mean you are misusing the system.

sometimes politicians name things absurd things. what's in a name, besides some letters?

[404.livejournal.com]

It is unfortunate that our political arena has devolved into "if you can't speak like a carnival barker, don't bother trying to run for office."

[404.livejournal.com]

It is also unfortunate that there are so many people that only care about scoring cheap points by tearing down people over style, and not their substance.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I could tear his substance down--that speech was full of hollow talking points that sounded pretty but meant nothing. Tele-vangelists are impressed with that level of hot-air.

But the point remains, if you are going to try and be a big dog, you better act like one, otherwise, all the other pups are gonna start biting at your legs.

Rubio showed himself to be WEAK under pressure. Nobody wants that in a leader.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

That would be $8,000, give or take, for a family of 4. This is a rough estimate, obviously, but averaging $2000/person X 2.6 (ave. people per household) X 115M (number of households in 2011) = $598,000,000,000. That is roughly what we spent on "QE2" in 2010, but we'll spend it every year, year after year, forever. Think of it as another Defense Department. Now that money has to be allocated, it has to be administered, etc. I have no idea what that would cost, but do you really think that we'd do better having an agency handing out to people what the overwhelming number of Americans currently provide for themselves?? At no cost to the taxpayer? Why? Why subject that money to a political process that is certain, and I mean morally certain, to corrupt and misuse it? Do you expect this new agency will be better run than the Defense Dept.? And that is not to slag the Defense Dept., but any big budget government agency is a haven for rent seeking and cost overruns. People will not only line up at the front door for free food, they will line up at the back door for special deals and favors to constituents and favorites. Take the Farm Bill as an example. It is touted as "saving family farms," but all it does is line the pockets of giant agribusinesses and stifle trade that could be making the food on our shelves cheaper. That kind of money, concentrated into one place, begs for corruption, for cronyism, it will do nothing but promote figurative pork, rather than literal pork.

But it sure would feel good, wouldn't it?