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]

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.

[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.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, defense is a proper function of government, so you have a different issue. We could focus on the MIG complex if we got rid of all the other government powers it's taken on itself.