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

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Yes, the GOP is just a thin cover for social darwinists now.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

And yet, they are the quickest to abandon their morals when the cost becomes too great.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Coast to coast for $10???

I'll be honest, I am part of the poor working class, but I can find 10 bucks to spend. How do I get to visit Cali or Oregon (from NY) for 10 bucks.....


And also, you may not have seen in the comments, but my response to the "OMG THEY ARE FLYING?! THEY CAN'T BE POOR!" is that it's entirely possible that they are flying for work purposes and not for personal purposes.

[paft.livejournal.com]

es: Coast to coast for $10???

Yep. A red-eye and coach, but only $10.

es: How do I get to visit Cali or Oregon (from NY) for 10 bucks.....

Have a very dear, very close relative develop stage four cancer of the lungs, bones, and brain.

Frankly, I could have done without that.

es: it's entirely possible that they are flying for work purposes and not for personal purposes.

Indeed.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

My husband says it all the time: the Republicans want to go back, not to the 1950s, but to the 1850s, economically.

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 laziness, shiftlessness, or some other moral malaise.

It has been that way for decades now.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for reposting with amendments. Sorry about the lost comment content.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Irritating for those of us in the middle of things: but conventions exist for a purpose. :)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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

^That was not a stage we 'reached'. We were there all along. It's just that nowadays they're back to being unsubtle about it.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

SNAP.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Ferguson's mistake was playing a rigged game.

[404.livejournal.com]

If the government isn't paying for 100% of your weekly food bill, the poor will starve!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Rigged against the poor.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Or was his mistake not playing it for two weeks and leaving his food at home to eat when he got back?

[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.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Oh SNAP!

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I don't know how productive it is to frame the issue of social assistance as a demand for tribute by one group of citizens against another, under the threat of violence and cannibalism. Many in the middle class, who are generally willing to do their bit, might do a little civil unrest and uprising of their own, faced with this kind of blackmail.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

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
How much extra cash, over and above basic needs, is necessary to cover unforeseen events? Are recipients responsible to save unused surpluses, or can they just pocket the cash if unforeseen events don't occur within a particular time frame?

[paft.livejournal.com]

That would depend on your situation, where you live, whether you depend on public transit or some beat up, coughing used car, the health of you and your family, etc.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well the SNAP challenge is bunk because most recipients aren't using it as their only source of income. The whole thing is terribly patronizing and gives opponents and easy way to ignore the real issues that the working poor face in this country.

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, actually, it's not "bunk" because many people are ending up relying on it to the point where they run out entirely before the end of the month and have to visit Food Banks.

Since I've heard SNAP recipients challenging politicians to take the challenge, I don't consider it especially "patroniizing."

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

So another politician realizes he's out of touch with reality. I'm not too surprised.

[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.

[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.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

And then there is the modern version of the modest proposal: soylent green. Face it the GOP simply wants to find some way to continue funding military machinery. It is a matter of robbing Breh to pay Pierre.

[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.