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

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's not about covering "every possible contingency." It's about offering enough so that unforeseen but common occurrences don't escalate into more serious problems.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Paft, do you see the problem here?

Everyone posting their opinion on *exactly" how much the poor/hungry deserve or should be allocated by the authorities is, in effect, claiming, for themselves, as least hypothetically, the power to determine who eats and who doesn't. Well they would say they are determining who "truly" needs assistance obtaining food and who can get by if they just keep scraping by through hard work etc. But I am not so sure based on some of the responses... Again when those who call themselves "conservative" clearly value dollar signs over flesh and blood human beings, regardless of whether they feel they are savory or not, there is a problem.

I am in agreement with you. However, I think the principle also raises other issues. What about shelter? Is this "a NEED"? And if it is, is the number of homeless people and the ways they are treated by authorities justified? Or should people have a RIGHT to shelter somewhere in the same way those of us who believe in such things say they have a right to food/water?

But, let me help you. I will actually solve the real problem. And it doesn't involve any government assistance, which is always, as this recent activity proves, a very shaky foundation because the benefits and welfare one administration grants can be revoked or tampered beyond effectiveness by another administration. So-called democracies are especially prone to this--'two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch' as it was so humorously put.

The Solution: Abandon the inhumane (and logically unjustifiable) notion of privatized unoccupied land and profit-driven economics (i.e. capitalism). This will allow the hungry to form cooperatives on unused land to grow/gather/scavenge/hunt food without gouging other people through taxation. If voluntary libertarian socialist enclaves were allowed to exist without getting smashed up by state law enforcement thugs, then maybe truly free food and shelter and voluntary work for personal satisfaction and social benefit (rather than selling oneself to environmentally harmful/personally meaningless or degrading work because capitalism has the gun of homelessness, poverty and hunger to our heads if we don't play their game) would catch on? And don't think this is some kind of privileged, "if they want food, then let them grow it for themselves" kind of idea. If this were allowed to occur without imprisonment or, if resisted, death, I would certainly defect to do this despite my current income level.