Newark NJ Mayor Cory Booker to Live off Food Stamps For A Week

This article from a few days ago made me have rekindled hope in this country:

Booker proposed the challenge after getting into a Twitter discussion with a user named TwitWit, who describes herself on Twitter as a “Daughter of the American Revolution, fighting against any and all forms of socialism/communism.. Army Veteran, Army Daughter, Army Wife.”

At first, Booker had tweeted a Greek proverb:

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

TwitWit accused Booker of wanting to redistribute wealth, and then the two eventually began talking about the government’s role in funding school breakfast and lunch programs. TwitWit stated that nutrition is not the responsibility of the government.

This is great.......a politician vs a civilian.

Eventually the conversation turned to food stamps when TwitWit wrote:

why is there a family today that is "too poor to afford breakfast"? are they not already receiving food stamps?

That’s when Booker followed up with the challenge:

Lets you and I try to live on food stamps in New Jersey (high cost of living) and feed a family for a week or month. U game?

TwitWit agreed to the challenge.

In New Jersey, according the 2011 fiscal year, the average monthly food stamp benefit was $133.26 a person. Meaning, those taking the challenge will have to live on about $4 dollars a day.

According to the Associated Press, Booker told reporters, "This will not be a gimmick or a stunt," but provides an opportunity "for us to grow in compassion and understanding" and dispel stereotypes. A few months ago, a Phoenix Mayor also tried to live on a food stamp budget and noted that he was “tired” and it was “hard to focus.”

Booker responded:

We have a shared responsibility that kids go to school nutritionally ready 2 learn.

Then there's this statistic:

The AP also landed an interview with TwitWit, who is a 39-year-old woman from North Carolina and who said she does not oppose food stamps, but thinks that the more taxpayer money designated to the food stamp program, the more people will need them.

She told the AP, “There is going to be a lot more of us needing those food stamps if it doesn't stop.”

Ironically, she seemed in need of some financial relief as well, stating that her family is “Six months away from being in debt and on welfare ourselves."

She added, "Most of us are in the same boat. … Some of us just aren't getting the assistance."

Meanwhile, FOX News has reported on Booker’s challenge with an extreme insensitivity toward food stamp recipients.

Media Matters reported that FOX pundit Andrea Tantaros disgustingly said she “would ‘look fabulous’ if she were forced to on a food stamp diet.”

!

Yeah, I know, www.alternet.org... is a liberal, lefty, new-agey site. We all know FOX is a conservative, ultra-right-wing ENTERTAINMENT outlet.....

But I found this article to be awesome.
What do you guys think? Should we ask politicians and elected leaders to spend just ONE WEEK managing our own households?

I'm in...anyone else?

MODS: If this is a duplicate story, please close Search turned up nowt.

My other half and I both think that we should knock Congressional salaries down to minimum wage. There is no excuse for the gov't to have so many people making over $1M a year.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I agree with you completely.
And we need term limits, and "length-of-campaign" limits, and "money-thrown-at-it" limits, and NO LOBBYING.

Anyway.....
Thanks for your response. I'm not sure yet whether the source site is "vetted" on ATS, but I've found it interesting.

so the Mayor will have to live off of , say 40$ for the whole week..

I don't think he could do it..

although i have done it..

I just don't think HE can do it..

reply to post by baddmove


I have done it, too. For YEARS.
Each month.

"List all the bills.
List expected income (this was with a steady one).
Subtract bills from income.
Divide excess by number of days until next income.
That is your budget PER DAY."

If it's a tuna/mac salad, that's what it is.

It is not IMPOSSIBLE to survive on that much, but it takes budgeting (something our government(s) seem challenged to do").

I did it while raising two kids, and they were very well nourished.
For someone who enjoys luxurious meals out, or high-dollar steaks at home, yes, it's hard. But it doesn't leave you hungry if it's done properly (pragmatically).

Unless the mayor has somebody watching him all the time, he has ample ability to cheat on this "food stamp diet". He's a politician, so he lacks credibility. I assume he may be up for re-election soon, hence this cute little "walk a mile in a po' man's shoes" stunt.

And no, the idiot female anchor wouldn't look "fabulous" on a budget of $4 per day. She would become tired, bloated, and lack sufficient protein, unless all she ate was a few spoonfuls of peanut butter and a few hard boiled eggs. Most people end up purchasing empty calories like white bread, noodles, etc., because you get more initially, but it is nutritionally deficient and leaves you feeling weighted down and lifeless. It also leaves you hungry, as the body cries out for vitamins.

It takes a smart shopper to survive and give their body the proper balance of nutrients on $4 per day. Most people that are poor are tired, frustrated, and end up trying to get the most bang for their food stamp buck, rather than the most nutrient-dense groceries, which are, as a rule, more expensive.

If only it would work that way, government would then pass effective laws that make sense and ultimately serve the public interst. As I have lived and watched, voted and ultimately have determined, most of those who are elected are not in touch with the common man, to know what ultimately they would believe, would be best served by using the IRS for something other than collecting income, but to come up with a round number and then basing the pay for that person off of what the people they are suppose to represent make. That means a mayor would have to live off of what the average in his city makes, a govenor for those of his state, and those who are in the different positions do such. It would ultimately be an eye opener for them and then the laws would ultimately have to change accordingly, but most politicians and people who govern would not take that.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


I have certainly seen the increase in food prices, especially healthy foods, raw vegs/fruits, etc.
Back in the early 90s was when my kids were little.....
and I served beans, rice, vegs/fruits, etc.....

I think too many people (who are tired, etc) grab the frozen "TV dinner" rather than shopping at local farmer's markets, or learning how to cook healthy foods.

A head of cabbage, a sack of potatoes, a bag of rice, a bag of beans......
feeds two people quite well for a few days.

I shop based on what's "on sale." Join your local grocer's "rewards" or "card-member price" club.....
buy store brands, and look into menu planning.

And once in a while, treat oneself to a filet mignon, or a lobster tail -- or even a dinner out! -- but mostly, just,

It can be done.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

That means a mayor would have to live off of what the average in his city makes, a govenor for those of his state, and those who are in the different positions do such. It would ultimately be an eye opener for them and then the laws would ultimately have to change accordingly, but most politicians and people who govern would not take that.

That is a BRILLIANT idea!!

Just....brilliant.
Along with term limits, no lobbying, etc. If only!

reply to post by wildtimes

Start small, that way it will pass, and open the door to bigger changes.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The problem with that idea is the only people who would want that job already have money. Afterall, why give up $20/hr for $7.50/hr? Thus the only people who could afford to be a Congressman would be people of influence which would further the plutocracy. Not to mention being more open to bribes to subsidize their income.

Real Congressional change would mean allowing more representative seats. The 435 limit was made up in the 1930s. Seriously, Congress passed a law saying that 435 is enough. Today that translates into representing 750,000 view points.

Upping that number to 6,000 would mean 50,000 citizens per representative. A company would go broke trying to influence 6,000 people.

reply to post by wildtimes


Public officials in Arizona and other places have done this in the past. Nothing changes as a result.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

Here is a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon regarding the qualities a leader should have, and the best way to get them to step up.
Hint: Those who are truly capable and would lead the best DO NOT WANT THE JOB.

PLATO
The Republic, c. 378 BC

No one willingly chooses to rule and to take other people’s troubles in hand and straighten them out, Socrates said, but each asks for wages; for anyone who intends to practice his craft well never does or orders what is best for himself—at least not when he orders as his craft prescribes—but what is best for his subject. It is because of this, it seems, that wages must be provided to a person if he’s willing to rule, whether in the form of money or honor or a penalty if he refuses.

What do you mean, Socrates? said Glaucon. I know the first two kinds of wages.

Then you don’t understand the best people’s kind of wages, the kind that moves the most decent to rule, when they are willing at all. Don’t you know that the love of honor and the love of money are despised, and rightly so? Therefore good people won’t be willing to rule for the sake of money or honor. So, if they’re willing to rule, some compulsion or punishment must be brought to bear on them; perhaps that’s why it is thought shameful to seek to rule before one is compelled to. Now, the greatest punishment, if one isn’t willing to rule, is to be ruled by someone worse than oneself.

And I think that it’s fear of this that makes decent people rule when they do. They approach ruling not as something good or enjoyable, but as something necessary, since it can’t be entrusted to anyone better than, or even as good as, themselves. In a city of good men, if it came into being, the citizens would fight in order not to rule, just as they do now in order to rule.

There it would be quite clear that anyone who is really a true ruler doesn’t by nature seek his own advantage but that of his subject. And everyone, knowing this, would rather be benefited by others than take the trouble to benefit them. So I can’t agree that justice is the advantage of the stronger—but we’ll look into that another time.

www.laphamsquarterly.org...

Found this little gem this morning, and it certainly is applicable today...unfortunately those who would be best as our leaders are NOT the ones who are filthy rich or famous or exploit others.

Thanks for your contributions to the thread. I think few people are really aware that this same kind of thing is not so "modern" - it's classic. Politics has not improved since ancient Greece and Rome. We need a new "model."

reply to post by wildtimes


Plato was justifying the moral nobility that he assumed to be there in rulers, but wanted to distinguish it from regular tyrants by giving these men humble traits. You shouldn't expect any less from a man who abhored ruling by the masses and trained up and coming dictators... I mean philosopher-kings.

Socrates never wrote anything and Plato would have hated you. Be careful the wine you sip.__

I know people who have to live on food stamps and the first week is the easy part for them. The last week is the one where things apparently get rough. If this guy really wants to understand - then he needs to complete the cycle and spent an entire month on the program.

~Heff

It's a shame Booker will either never get anywhere past where he is, or will become corrupt if he does. That's just how it works. You can't stay there and stay good, to reverse what they said about William Goldman and Hollywood. Meanwhile, I for one would like to gay interracial marry Mayor Booker. Rescuing somebody from a burning building, inviting Sandy victims into his personal home, personally shoveling older folks' driveways in the winter, leading nighttime crime-watch walks around the city, and now putting his mouth where his money isn't. Anybody who loves Newark, of all places, as much as he does is crazy in all the right ways.