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

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Implementation question!

I bet you won't get an exact answer though.

[404.livejournal.com]

I don't expect an answer, other than obfuscation.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

But you put the question anyway, just in case? ;)

[paft.livejournal.com]

You won't get answers on implementation because none of us here are professionals whose job is determining the budget for projects of that scale.

[404.livejournal.com]

But you will complain, regardless of your training or expertise, on the state of the current implementation.

[paft.livejournal.com]

404: But you will complain, regardless of your training or expertise, on the state of the current implementation.

Yes, when the current implementation is leaving people with inadequate food supplies, I will complain, just as I will complain if a recently built bridge comes tumbling down on a clear day during normal rush hour traffic, even though I can't answer technical questions about how to build a bridge. I will also complain if houses start collapsing due to poor engineering and construction, even though I can't answer questions about engineering and construction.

[404.livejournal.com]

So how much should the government assist the poor?

[paft.livejournal.com]

To the extent to which they are not going hungry or having to do without needed medical care.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> You won't get answers on implementation

Of course. You're not a professional to explain how this policy is supposed to work, yet you're professional enough to reason such a system shall exist.
That's exactly what I'm saying.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: You're not a professional to explain how this policy is supposed to work, yet you're professional enough to reason such a system shall exist.

Yes. I also believe that roads should be maintained and buildings should be constructed so they can be used safely, even though I'm not a professional construction engineer.

[404.livejournal.com]

I don't expect an answer, other than obfuscation.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Considering the quality of the questions, I'm surprised she even bothers answering you guys.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Oh snap!

[404.livejournal.com]

BAZINGA!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

With water please!



Conservatives with dry mouth, are a bad bad thang, man!

[404.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see you under the pressure that he was.

[404.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the gif-instead-of-an-argument man has any room to judge.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

404 mad!

[404.livejournal.com]

telemann troll!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Naw, if you get to whine about the answers, we get to whine about your questions.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, she always does.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And you always ask the really bad questions.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Sure I do.
Her total lack of formal logic and inability to answer questions asked are definitely charming.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I think she knows your game.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I gather from this bit of posturing that you are officially out of arguments.

You guys run out of gas so fast.