As I was Saying...
25/6/13 13:23![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI 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/
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.
.
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.
.
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 00:36 (UTC)You are naive. Or pretending to be.
A scared worker is an easily controlled worker. If the consequences of unemployment are so dire that your kids could end up hungry, uneducated and in rags, a worker is less likely to complain about being treated unfairly, less likely to take the risk of organizing with other workers, less likely to walk away from a job in search of a better deal. That's why in notoriously non-Union towns (Like Spartanburg SC) wage collusion among local employers has been done almost openly.
P: Let me ask you: What would be enough? Give me a number. Bottom line.
Enough so that the recipient is able to feed him or herself and his or her family, AND pay rent AND obtain needed medical care.
Anything unclear about this?
P: For the record, a family of four can receive up to $8,016 a year with SNAP already.
And do they?
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 01:23 (UTC)Well, you haven't given me a number. So, yes, everything. And on top of it all you are now you are throwing in housing and medical care, too boot. Christ. Maybe I should ask how much of burden the recipient should carry. But let's ask the question. How much can the family of four who is getting the $8K in food subsidies from SNAP get from HUD for rental assistance? How much Medicaid do they qualify for? What about other government programs run by the state or municipalities? WIC. Food banks. Child care. Legal aid. Utility bills assistance, especially in the wintertime. Dental care. There are real numbers for these real programs. Add them up and then get back to me with how much more you think people deserve.
And do they?
If they apply and qualify, I assume so. I can only assume you'd have to have very nearly $0 income to qualify for the whole amount, but you'd have to tell me, do they?
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 01:49 (UTC)Because, as I've already explained at length elsewhere, the numbers would vary widely depending on where you lived and when you lived. Nor am I a professional accustomed to budgeting for projects of this size.
Do you think or highways and bridges should be maintained? How much would you allocate for this? How about the military? Law enforcement? Emergency services? Would the numbers for, say, emergency services in Tornado Ally or the Gulf Coast be the same as the numbers for California?
What do you think should be spent on maintaining the Golden Gate Bridge? The San Francisco fire department? The levees along the Mississippi? The North Carolina coastline?
P: And on top of it all you are now you are throwing in housing and medical care, too boot. Christ.
Other western industrialized countries manage this. Don't see why we couldn't.
P: If they apply and qualify, I assume so.
Why?
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 02:05 (UTC)I've given you the average numbers. I'm not asking you to do a community by community allocation. We're talking principles here. In principle if it costs a family of four $7K-$13K to buy food every year how much should be paid for by the state??
HOW MUCH????
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 02:19 (UTC)Oh, stop shouting. Nobody is impressed.
I am not a budget wonk so no, I can't give you a number any more than I could give you an assessment of how much it would take to refurbish a bridge or maintain a highway.
I am, however, able to tell when a highway is not being well maintained or a bridge has become unsafe. I can recognize a need that should be filled and say, "that highway/bridge needs to be repaired." And when roughly half the recipients of a food aid program find themselves STILL frequently having to turn to Food Banks before the month is out, I can see that the aid being offered is inadequate.
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 02:29 (UTC)But wait, why is turning to Food Banks a failure? Isn't that just another safety net? This line of argument is looking increasingly incoherent. Shouldn't we have multiple layers of aid so that some can be caught by one net, others by another? Don't we want a series of backstops so that what passes on net is saved by the next one? One size never fits all. If people were turning to cannibalism at the end of the month, well, then I'd say we need to up the ante. But here your problem is that people on assistance sometimes require more assistance??
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 02:45 (UTC)Yes, I have. Repeatedly. You simply didn't like the response.
P: But wait, why is turning to Food Banks a failure?
Because Food Banks are often swamped by people in need and frequently have to turn people away.
P: Shouldn't we have multiple layers of aid so that some can be caught by one net, others by another? Don't we want a series of backstops so that what passes on net is saved by the next one?
Nobody here is saying Food Banks should be eliminated.
P: If people were turning to cannibalism at the end of the month, well, then I'd say we need to up the ante.
Are you %$)D~! serious? THAT'S what it would take?
Not rickets. Not people dying or becoming disabled from malnutrition related illnesses. Not children ending up with significant physical and cognitive deficits because they didn't get adequate nutrition. No. None of these things.
The poor have to be reduced to cannibalism.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 03:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 14:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 14:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/6/13 19:52 (UTC)