talkpolitics | As I was Saying...

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.

.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

That would be $8,000, give or take, for a family of 4. This is a rough estimate, obviously, but averaging $2000/person X 2.6 (ave. people per household) X 115M (number of households in 2011) = $598,000,000,000. That is roughly what we spent on "QE2" in 2010, but we'll spend it every year, year after year, forever. Think of it as another Defense Department. Now that money has to be allocated, it has to be administered, etc. I have no idea what that would cost, but do you really think that we'd do better having an agency handing out to people what the overwhelming number of Americans currently provide for themselves?? At no cost to the taxpayer? Why? Why subject that money to a political process that is certain, and I mean morally certain, to corrupt and misuse it? Do you expect this new agency will be better run than the Defense Dept.? And that is not to slag the Defense Dept., but any big budget government agency is a haven for rent seeking and cost overruns. People will not only line up at the front door for free food, they will line up at the back door for special deals and favors to constituents and favorites. Take the Farm Bill as an example. It is touted as "saving family farms," but all it does is line the pockets of giant agribusinesses and stifle trade that could be making the food on our shelves cheaper. That kind of money, concentrated into one place, begs for corruption, for cronyism, it will do nothing but promote figurative pork, rather than literal pork.

But it sure would feel good, wouldn't it?

How much tax money did the US govt lose out on because of tax dodgers, frauds and oversees tax-havens?

How much money would the so-called Buffet Rule (although it could just as easily be called the Reagan rule!) have brought in for the govt?

How much is currently spent on SNAP?

If we spent as much money on feeding people as we did on the military and we had the same amount of waste, I would be WAYYYYY happier paying for food than bombs.

How much tax money did the US govt lose out on because of tax dodgers?

$3.4B

Buffet Rule

$47B (Assuming, of course, that the targets of the rule comply and don't just pay accountants and lawyers a couple of billion in order to avoid the tax via the usual loopholes and deductions. So, in reality, a fraction of the promised $47B, but for the purposes of the debate, I'll grant it.)

SNAP

2012 :$84B

Total: $134.4B

I would be WAYYYYY happier paying for food than bombs.

Who wouldn't? But we don't live in Cockaigne.

Also, and not for nothing, do you really want the government to be in charge of what and how much food you can eat? Do you really want a bureaucracy in Washington to have the power to decide how many calories are enough for your family?Cause we have some historical experience with that model and the results were usually less than optimal.

I dunno, the city of NY seems to be doing OK by me when it comes to the price of my water. penny for two gallons ain't too shabby, is it?

There's this odd thing where costs come down as you buy in bulk. Maybe if 115M Americans were purchasing food-stuff together they could bring the price down?

But we're not talking about paying for the food. We're talking about getting the food for nothing. 100%, remember? 1 cent/2 gallons X NYC adds up. Could the state just drop the penny and let you have all the water you wanted? Also, NYC has abundant water that it gets from impoverished up state counties via shady deals going back 150 years. How would Phoenix fare, I wonder? Or Las Vegas? Or most of the Plains states, for that matter.

Don't forget the new cudgel Democrats could use to browbeat those who complain about cost overruns of this new program: "The Repubkkkians want to cut your yearly SNAP benefits so they can give that money to the 1%!"

Not only that, but do you think that the new uber-SNAP would simply rise with inflation? Or would the ante be upped every 4 to 6 years by both parties. I'd love to imagine it would be "Foie Gras for all," but more likely it would be, "Here is extra Government Cheese, we're doing you a favor."

There is also the threat of getting mugged by the IRS.

As I was Saying...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject