Maggie Thurber has a post on the Food Stamp Challenge and it begs the question I always ask.
Should it suck to be poor?
Seriously, let's assume that food stamps would more than cover 3 squares a day. Would there ever be an incentive to not be on food stamps?
I like to compare this with homelessness. I think we can all agree that homelessness is bad. But should being homeless suck? Shouldn't we create an environment where being homeless is much worse than getting off the drugs and booze and actually getting a home for yourself.
Let's look at San Francisco. San Francisco spends over 100 million on their homeless population every year. Has that increased or decreased the homeless population in the Bay area?
I would say that from the smell of urine that pervades the city, my guess is not.
Imagine that you had a brother who fell on hard times and you allowed him to stay in your home. Would you be pissed if he got all uppity about that spaghetti you served him? Even though it was plenty good enough for you. What about that mac and cheese and hot dogs?
After a while, wouldn't you realize that you were just enabling this clown and give him the boot out?
Yet somehow we allow our governments to enable people's dysfunctional lives for generation upon generation.
Last year, I thought about doing this challenge. But then it dawned on me, I've already done it, only we called college.
I can't even look at a box of Kraft macaroni and cheese after the reminders of the cases of that crap I ate as an undergrad.
The same with those 33 cent pot pies and frozen burritos.
So excuse me if I don't have have a lot of compassion for people on food stamps who can't eat great cuts of meat and fresh vegetables for each meal. Guess what, me and my roommates ate shit and garbage for for five years, you can do it to and if you don't like it; do something about it. After all, being poor should suck.