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]

That would depend on where someone was living and what was the average cost of food in that area and at that time.

[404.livejournal.com]

What percentage of their weekly food bill is fair, regardless of their location?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Again, that would depend on where food prices were and the extent to which wages and other income had kept up with them.

What percentage of our incomes do you think should be spent on funding our military, or emergency services like the police, or transportation services like highways and railroads? Can you answer in detail questions about, say, how much should be spent on road repairs? Rust prevention? Training?

Or, better yet, do you IMAGINE you can answer such questions?

[404.livejournal.com]

Food needs should be easy to calculate compared to the other things you threw up to obfuscate the discussion. The amount of daily cost or any other variables which only serve to muddy the water aren't necessary, only what percentage should the government contribute to keeping poor people fed?

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. Is the area a food-producing region? What foods have to be shipped in from elsewhere? Was there a good or bad harvest? How much do food sellers have to pay for overhead in the area? Even such seemingly unrelated factors as property values and the price of fuel in a region can change the price of food.

[404.livejournal.com]

There is a baseline need for any person/family. The government decides how much of that need they will provide. The actual payment is tailored to the current condition of said people/family. So, how much should the government contribute to said needs?

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

And the government is wrong on many occasions, and the state has to step in and supply the difference.

This is what happens when there is too much centralization in the decision-making process.

[404.livejournal.com]

So now what? How should the SNAP program be constructed?

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

I personally think the SNAP program is like using a can of Stop-Leak on slashed tires. These problems are not going to be solved without major changes in how economy works.

I'm too tired to discuss the matter further right now, but all I know is that for many of the people on SNAP it can be the difference between eating and not eating. SNAP isn't perfect, but it's necessary.

[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.

[paft.livejournal.com]

404: Food needs should be easy to calculate compared to the other things you threw up to obfuscate the discussion. The amount of daily cost or any other variables which only serve to muddy the water aren't necessary.

Of course they're necessary. The price of food often varies depending on how far you live from where it's grown/produced, what kind of year it's been for crops, herds, etc., and the percentage of income you spend on it depends on the extent to which wages and other sources of income have grown or fallen.

[404.livejournal.com]

There is a baseline need for any person/family. The government decides how much of that need they will provide. The actual payment is tailored to the current condition of said people/family. So, how much should the government contribute to said needs?

[paft.livejournal.com]

404: There is a baseline need for any person/family

You keep chanting this. Did you read it somewhere?

[404.livejournal.com]

Obviously there must be, there's that whole "poverty line" we're all force fed. Let's pretend that's the baseline!

[paft.livejournal.com]

In other words, you're just typing to be typing.

[404.livejournal.com]

Talking about talking!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Just pointing out that you don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

YOU, are not arguing in good faith.

[404.livejournal.com]

Not arguing in good faith. Translation: I'm not winning.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not sure how you define "winning." You seem to believe that to "win" an argument, you merely have to keep repeating the same phrase over and over again. I guess you figure it's like a magic spell.

[404.livejournal.com]

I'm not the only one asking you for an answer, you just keep sidestepping it with the same response. If you wish to reply, and give us a figure on how much you think the government should subsidize poor people's food (and you can skip replying if you are going to fall back to your stock reply), go right ahead.

[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?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Fair? What does this have to do with fairness?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

We know this on a macro level from the FDA data I provided. The number depends on how "frugal" or "liberal" your budget is, but it ranges between $7K and $13K for a family of four, as of 2012.