• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Sword Drops on Food Stamps

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The Sword Drops on Food Stamps | The Nation

Aside from being, well, cruel, the food stamp cuts in the Senate bill are also damaging to the economy. The Center for American Progress, in a study released in March, found that for every $1 billion cut from SNAP, 13,718 jobs are lost
So basically, we learned absolutely nothing from Europe, or for that matter, ourselves. This is one of the most idiotic things our government could do for the economy, and it's completely unnecessary. At this rate, America is going to destroy itself before the new generation ever has a chance to save it.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The Sword Drops on Food Stamps | The Nation


So basically, we learned absolutely nothing from Europe, or for that matter, ourselves. This is one of the most idiotic things our government could do for the economy, and it's completely unnecessary. At this rate, America is going to destroy itself before the new generation ever has a chance to save it.
Shouldn't OUR generation be trying to save it?

Anyway, I agree... cutting SNAP is counterproductive. In addition to the jobs, it will hurt small farmers and increase diet related health issues among the poor, filling up clinics and ERs, straining medical services, driving up costs, straining local charities..

Fresh fruits and veggies are essential for health, health reduces costs, aids learning, and allows people to be more productive.
 

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Shouldn't OUR generation be trying to save it?
The generation in congress right now? Republicans are actively destroying the economy and Democrats are watering it down and swallowing it. If you ask me, they're all ****ing useless.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The preliminary figure (4 billion over 5 years) would amount to a reduction of less than a percent of current annual benefits. In addition, most projections point to a declining participation in the program as a product of an improving labor market in the upcoming years, which may account for the savings required without a reduction in benefits to speak of. More akin to a scalpel than a sword.
 

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The preliminary figure (4 billion over 5 years) would amount to a reduction of less than a percent of current annual benefits. In addition, most projections point to a declining participation in the program as a product of an improving labor market in the upcoming years, which may account for the savings required without a reduction in benefits to speak of. More akin to a scalpel than a sword.
Projections based on an improving economy, so let's cut benefits that are helpful to the economy. Because that makes perfect sense.

If participation declines because more people are employed, expenditure would go down automatically. Cutting SNAP is a completely unnecessary burden on a stagnant economy, but that's exactly what the austerity angels are about. It's not going to stop here.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Projections based on an improving economy, so let's cut benefits that are helpful to the economy. Because that makes perfect sense.

If participation declines because more people are employed, expenditure would go down automatically. Cutting SNAP is a completely unnecessary burden on a stagnant economy, but that's exactly what the austerity angels are about. It's not going to stop here.
As if cuts of this magnitude would significantly hamper the recovery. A bit of realism is in order here. Obviously these expenditures have stimulative effects (although they will likely continue to taper off), but to label the reductions as cruel or draconian is absurd. Also important to note is that the 4 billion dollars worth of cuts that passed the Senate contained no reduction in actual benefits, but rather an ending of the practice of automatically enrolling those who received assistance for energy related expenses into SNAP as well, in addition to a reduction in administrative costs. Quite a reasonable proposition.
 

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Also important to note is that the 4 billion dollars worth of cuts that passed the Senate contained no reduction in actual benefits, but rather an ending of the practice of automatically enrolling those who received assistance for energy related expenses into SNAP as well
That makes zero difference. In the end, it still cuts benefits.

in addition to a reduction in administrative costs
That'd be fine, but I didn't see it at all, so I have no idea where you're getting it from.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Projections based on an improving economy, so let's cut benefits that are helpful to the economy. Because that makes perfect sense.
I'm unclear as to how food stamps are helpful to the economy.
 

Baralis

DP Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,400
Reaction score
1,551
Location
MO
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm unclear as to how food stamps are helpful to the economy.
They bolster food sales. Sales that may other wise not occur.

However its the same old argument from many on the left. Yes of course cutting government spending will have a negative effect on the economy in the short term. But I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Long term government overspending is going to have a much more profound effect then these cuts, cuts that can actually be very beneficial to our economy down the road. Personally I would rather feel a little more pain now then to have a lot more in the future.

If we were going to go by their thinking then we should just pump an additional 15 trillion a year into the economy and make the economy boom. Gee I wonder why no one ever does that... Maybe because the know the consequences?
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm all for cutting foodstamps if we also significantly cut taxes on lower income families. That way we create a double incentive to get a job (or a better paying job), while at the same time families that do have earned income have more after tax income to spend and create demand with (which creates jobs).
 

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm all for cutting foodstamps if we also significantly cut taxes on lower income families. That way we create a double incentive to get a job (or a better paying job), while at the same time families that do have earned income have more after tax income to spend and create demand with (which creates jobs).
Of course, we could cut taxes and not cut food stamps. If the economy was great there'd hardly be a need for food stamps anyway.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course, we could cut taxes and not cut food stamps. If the economy was great there'd hardly be a need for food stamps anyway.
Exactly. If the lower income brackets had a smaller income tax burden, there would be more incentive for folks to get off of welfare, and work.

With the right policy, we could not only grow ourselves out of the deficit, we could largely grow ourselves out of the need for welfare.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pretty weak sword given that it didn't kill the program.

Which is what should be done.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Can anyone explain those hyped numbers? $1,000,000,000 /13,7178 = $73,896.

If it's costing the tax payer $73,896 per job... How many people would rather the government just pay them that much?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,983
Reaction score
12,499
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
For anyone interested, here is the document that the figure 1 graphic was taken from in the OP link.


The Economic Consequences of Cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

For those who care about the source, it's from American Progress. In their "about" statement:

What we believe

As progressives, we believe America is a land of boundless opportunity, where people can better themselves, their children, their families, and their communities through education, hard work, and the freedom to climb the ladder of economic mobility.

We believe an open and effective government can champion the common good over narrow self-interest, harness the strength of our diversity, and secure the rights and safety of its people. And we believe our nation must always be a beacon of hope and strength to the rest of the world.

Progressives are idealistic enough to believe change is possible and practical enough to make it happen.
 
Last edited:

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Shouldn't OUR generation be trying to save it?

Anyway, I agree... cutting SNAP is counterproductive. In addition to the jobs, it will hurt small farmers and increase diet related health issues among the poor, filling up clinics and ERs, straining medical services, driving up costs, straining local charities..

Fresh fruits and veggies are essential for health, health reduces costs, aids learning, and allows people to be more productive.
And so people can't buy those items without the aid of SNAP?

Perhaps the SNAP participants should cut back on the things they were buying that weren't on the snap list, and focus on the nutritional value of what they were buying and should be buying.

But that's too easy an answer.....
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
And so people can't buy those items without the aid of SNAP?

Perhaps the SNAP participants should cut back on the things they were buying that weren't on the snap list, and focus on the nutritional value of what they were buying and should be buying.

But that's too easy an answer.....
No, it's oversimplified. Google food deserts. not desserts. deserts.

SNAP wasn't just freebies for good food, it was to help small farmers, encourage markets in poor areas, and solve a problem. Not sure if you've ever been to a ghetto grocery store, but you're not going to find a lot of fresh food, or much food without 50% processed sugar.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Pretty weak sword given that it didn't kill the program.

Which is what should be done.
Yeah, its a must be pretty blunt piece of crap.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They bolster food sales. Sales that may other wise not occur.
How is that actually a good thing? It just creates demand from outside of the market and I can't imagine how that is good for the market as a whole.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it's oversimplified. Google food deserts. not desserts. deserts.

SNAP wasn't just freebies for good food, it was to help small farmers, encourage markets in poor areas, and solve a problem. Not sure if you've ever been to a ghetto grocery store, but you're not going to find a lot of fresh food, or much food without 50% processed sugar.
By your statement, if the products weren't available without SNAP, why would they suddenly be available at the store WITH SNAP? Either the ghetto grocery store carries them, or they don't. If they were having to travel elsewhere to get the healthy foods before, then it shouldn't be stopping them from doing it with out SNAP.

Besides, the program was reduced, not eliminated.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
How is that actually a good thing? It just creates demand from outside of the market and I can't imagine how that is good for the market as a whole.
Because it feeds people nutritious food they wouldn't get. It feeds CHILDREN, seniors who made this country great and lost their pensions to unscrupulous corporate raiders, it provides jobs, it sustains small farms who otherwise can't compete with monstrous factory farms getting millions in subsidies.

Sometimes it's not about the market, sometimes it's about your neighbors and countrymen.
 

Occam's Razor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,122
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
By your statement, if the products weren't available without SNAP, why would they suddenly be available at the store WITH SNAP? Either the ghetto grocery store carries them, or they don't. If they were having to travel elsewhere to get the healthy foods before, then it shouldn't be stopping them from doing it with out SNAP.

Besides, the program was reduced, not eliminated.
I asked you to google food deserts. It's not my job to remove your ignorance.

The program has made hundreds of farmers markets possible where they were not before. In addition, there is a mobile farmers market movement gaining ground on the problem of FOOD DESERTS.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I asked you to google food deserts. It's not my job to remove your ignorance.

The program has made hundreds of farmers markets possible where they were not before. In addition, there is a mobile farmers market movement gaining ground on the problem of FOOD DESERTS.
And it's not my job to tell you I am already aware of what a food desert is. Presumptive thinking like that will get you into trouble.

But you failed to answer the question.... if they had access to them before, and since SNAP has not been eliminated, why would that access change? In the ghetto's you refer to, there is mass transit, which does give them access, IF THEY WANT IT.

I've given Grow Your Own classes (free of any charge, and starting supplies given freely)in low income areas... those that have attended, are the very people that live in areas that desperately need fresh fruits and produce, and the most common complaint was the food pantries would run out of the fruits and veggies before they could get there.

And guess what, food pantries are voluntary donations, not a taxpayer funded effort.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Because it feeds people nutritious food they wouldn't get. It feeds CHILDREN, seniors who made this country great and lost their pensions to unscrupulous corporate raiders, it provides jobs, it sustains small farms who otherwise can't compete with monstrous factory farms getting millions in subsidies.
So basically these programs create market activity and with that market activity we get jobs, assist business, and we feed some people, which was all created from outside of the market. By doing so we make people dependent on a supply of money from the government, not market activity itself, which will in turn lower wages, raise profits, and create business opportunity where their naturally would not be any. I don't understand how you fight monstrous farms and assist small farms by providing business to all involved. All that would do is create further separation between the two.

Sometimes it's not about the market, sometimes it's about your neighbors and countrymen.
The market is about my neighbors and countrymen though. :confused:
 
Top Bottom