Ugh, previous comments were lost, but glad the post is back.
What I said before was: I can easily imagine having a lower income and still having to fly. Your medical example is one reason. My work reasons are another. In both cases, the cost of the flight might be subsidized by others (employer, or as a bereavement discount), but food is not - or at least is not reimbursed immediately.
But moving away from flying as a specific example, there's an actual point to make here: it's very easy for folks living at that level to have their budget completely upended by unexpected events. This does not mean these people are not working their asses off. It does not mean they are not being extremely frugal. They might be being both, and using SNAP to try to cover the gaps so that they, and their families, can survive.
And one thing can come along and turn it all upside down very quickly. This is what happens when folks are forced to live paycheck to paycheck - or not even that.
So what's my point here? It's that maybe the folks who are so willing to play semantic and technical games and to swing away at strawmen ought to instead answer some questions themselves. Instead of asking: "How much is enough? Why are poor people on airplanes? Why is all of their food coming from the government!?!", I would like to see them answer: "How much starvation are you willing to tolerate in society? " Or, to put it in a more "businesslike" (I'd say heartless, but whatever) way: "Do you think it's economical and beneficial to society to provide at least a basic safety net to avoid the civil unrest and uprising that happens when we let conditions deteriorate too much? Are you willing to have at least something there to make things safer for yourself? Considering that, according to what is being presented here, these programs don't seem to be doing enough to meet the shortfall, can we discuss an increase in scope?" Or, I'll put it in even more simple terms that maybe the most obtuse might understand: "Scary poor people! If they get TOO hungry, they might eat YOU, so give them some food!"
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.
no subject
What I said before was: I can easily imagine having a lower income and still having to fly. Your medical example is one reason. My work reasons are another. In both cases, the cost of the flight might be subsidized by others (employer, or as a bereavement discount), but food is not - or at least is not reimbursed immediately.
But moving away from flying as a specific example, there's an actual point to make here: it's very easy for folks living at that level to have their budget completely upended by unexpected events. This does not mean these people are not working their asses off. It does not mean they are not being extremely frugal. They might be being both, and using SNAP to try to cover the gaps so that they, and their families, can survive.
And one thing can come along and turn it all upside down very quickly. This is what happens when folks are forced to live paycheck to paycheck - or not even that.
So what's my point here? It's that maybe the folks who are so willing to play semantic and technical games and to swing away at strawmen ought to instead answer some questions themselves. Instead of asking: "How much is enough? Why are poor people on airplanes? Why is all of their food coming from the government!?!", I would like to see them answer: "How much starvation are you willing to tolerate in society? " Or, to put it in a more "businesslike" (I'd say heartless, but whatever) way: "Do you think it's economical and beneficial to society to provide at least a basic safety net to avoid the civil unrest and uprising that happens when we let conditions deteriorate too much? Are you willing to have at least something there to make things safer for yourself? Considering that, according to what is being presented here, these programs don't seem to be doing enough to meet the shortfall, can we discuss an increase in scope?" Or, I'll put it in even more simple terms that maybe the most obtuse might understand: "Scary poor people! If they get TOO hungry, they might eat YOU, so give them some food!"
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.