Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Beware Liberals Bearing Newspeak

I normally pay the amount of attention to Cory Booker that one would more readily associate with one's appendix function.  However, when FotB tsrblke sent me this on twitter, I just couldn't help myself.

Time to mock a self-important liberal douche mercilessly.

Let's start where he does:
This morning, I will begin living on a food budget of $30 a week / $4.32 per day.  This is the financial equivalent of the budget provided to people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, in the State of New Jersey.  I will live only on a SNAP equivalent food budget for the next seven days.

Okay, first off, what part of "supplemental" didn't you understand, Mr. Booker?  The assumption is that SNAP will not be the only way you're paying for your groceries.  The assumption is that you will have some other form of income- a job, disability, or some other form of government assistance.  Proving that you'll have a hard time living on an amount you were never intended to live on proves precisely nothing, you self-important sub-moron.

A Twitter user tweeted me her opinion that "nutrition is not the responsibility of the government".  This comment caused me to reflect on the families and children in my community who benefit from SNAP assistance and deserve deeper consideration.  In my own quest to better understand the outcomes of SNAP assistance, I suggested to this specific Twitter user that we both live on a SNAP equivalent food budget for a week and document our experience.

So are you saying that nutrition is the responsibility of the government?  You do realize, do you not, that anything that is the government's "responsibility" is also theirs to withhold?  Also, I sincerely doubt that anyone in Cory Booker's "community" relies on SNAP for their groceries.  Whether or not they receive it is a different matter, but I sincerely doubt anyone around him relies on $30/week for their food.

My goals for the #SNAPChallenge are to raise awareness and understanding of food insecurity; reduce the stigma of SNAP participation; elevate innovative local and national food justice initiatives and food policy; and, amplify compassion for individuals and communities in need of assistance.

This just might be his most ignorant quote.  And that's saying something.  First off, "food insecurity" is something dreamt up by the loony left.  The idea of 21+ meals a week is due directly to American affluence.  Most cultures in the world still get by on one or two meals a day.  I don't wish that on anyone, but let's not pretend that starvation is some big problem in America.  It's certainly not a big enough problem that Government needs to get involved.

As for reducing "the stigma of SNAP participation?"  Seriously?  We want to reduce the stigma of living off the government teet?  How about we increase the stigma?  How about people who have to rely on forcing their neighbors to provide their meals have a little bit of shame?  Relying on the benevolence of others should be humbling, at least, and "shaming" is not going too far.

"Food justice initiative?"  Seriously, now he's just throwing random words together.  What the heck is "food justice?"  Is everyone now entitled to a pound of Swish Shard per week?  Is having a rib eye the new desegregation?

As for compassion, hows this?  Give to food banks.  Give to local charities.  Cory Booker is not a poor man.  The Tarrant County Food Bank can feed three people for a dollar.  How about, instead of this stupid "#SNAPChallenge," he uses that $30/week to feed 10 people per week?  How does that sound?  But, of course, it's not about charity and compassion, it's about an ever-growing government, and the need that Liberals have for Government to "take care" of people 24/7/365 from cradle to grave.  Nevermind the resulting loss of Liberty.

We'll end here:
We have much work to do at the local level to address a legacy of structural inequities in the American food system.  As more and more working people and families - many holding down more than one job - face greater and greater challenges to juggle housing, medical, and transportation costs, meeting nutritional needs becomes a serious problem and a social justice issue.

What "legacy of structural inequities?"  Unless he really does mean that everyone should be entitled to their weekly rib eye, I have no idea what he's talking about.  As for those "working people and families" that are "holding down more than one job," don't they, by definition, have more income than just $30/wk to buy groceries?  And before I cry about their challenges to juggle "housing, medical, and transportation costs," I think I want an accounting of where their money goes.  Do they have ipads?  Iphones?  Is Mr. Booker perhaps unaware that health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 per year for families since the very beginnings of Obamacare, and that they'll be going up any more?  I wonder about Mr. Booker's take on repealing ObamaCare so that those "working people and families" might be able to keep that $2,500/yr for themselves?


  1. MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party HobbitDecember 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM

    What the heck is "food justice?"

    It's what happens when a lone banana sets out to kill the men what murdered its pa.

    Hey, it makes as much sense as any other definition. What a stupid term. I never thought I'd hate the word "justice," but the way the regressive left whores it out like a $5 hooker to any passing modifier has shot it up into my top twenty.

  2. Side note,
    FotB tsrblke would like you to know that the goal of him and his wife is to keep weekly grocery costs around $80/week for both of us.
    that's only $10 more per person than SNAP!
    Now granted, we do go over this more than we should, and we do eat out to supplement our spending (although less now than we did before.) BUT this is partially (or more likely totally) offset by the fact that we buy things that people surviving on a shoestring budget shouldn't really waste money on like soda, individual bags of chips for lunch, nice lunch meat, more expensive cuts of meet to I can eat more and not have my cholesterol go up, healthy life bread (see aforementioned cholesterol problems.)
    The long and short of is is, I can control my diet by either a) eating less or b) spending more money on more expensive (but lower fat/carb) things. I go for the latter, and still don't (in theory) spend much more than SNAP apparently.
    (If I really wanted to cut down on my spending, we'd eat more rice, beans, etc.)

  3. No Chocolate! No Peace!!!!

  4. My food budget back when I was in grad school (graduated a year ago) was about $25/week. It wasn't fun, and I benefited from the fact that some of the church groups I attended provided food, (so I could get by without my own food on Sunday if I was content with two meals), but it was quite doable. You just have to think in terms of making your own food from basic staples (example: dried beans can be cooked overnight in a crock pot - add some chicken cut up into small bits and browned in a pan, a small can of chopped tomatoes, some chili powder, and some spices, and you have a pot of chili that will feed a person several meals for a few dollars) and buying non-namebrand products.

    Grey Fox