The Sword Drops on Food Stamps

[Occam's Razor]

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.

Then why feign ignorance as to the help it gives to small farmers and the creation of farmers markets in urban areas? Not to mention the new wave of urban farmers? Why play that game. If you feign ignorance, I will assume you are ignorant.

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.

Sorry, I thought we were talking SNAP/no SNAP.

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.

Of those that attended.. what about those that didn't? The elderly and infirm? The mother who couldn't find a sitter? Someone working their third part time job during pantry hours? That's what is cool about the mobile markets... they go to the areas that need them, like retirement communities...

And very cool on your community outreach!

 

[fmw]

I bet you are.

It's not as if purchasing power has anything to do with demand.

I hate to have to repeat this but the government can't fix a weak economy. Certainly issuing food stamps that are paid for by the rest of the economy can't increase purchasing power. It just robs peter to pay paul. I wondered what the answer to my comment would be. I didn't expect that.

 

[GottaGo]

Then why feign ignorance as to the help it gives to small farmers and the creation of farmers markets in urban areas? Not to mention the new wave of urban farmers? Why play that game. If you feign ignorance, I will assume you are ignorant.

I didn't feign ignorance, SNAP, though it is a program that has some benefits, I feel it has been over reached, and don't agree with the 'assistance to small farmers'.

I don't believe the benefits it has, justify the cost.

Sorry, I thought we were talking SNAP/no SNAP.

Benefits have been reduced, but some would make it sound like sound like a complete and total elimination.

Of those that attended.. what about those that didn't? The elderly and infirm? The mother who couldn't find a sitter? Someone working their third part time job during pantry hours? That's what is cool about the mobile markets... they go to the areas that need them, like retirement communities...

And very cool on your community outreach!

These classes have been given a multitude of times and places, with posters prominently displayed in various assistance offices, banks, grocery stores and convenience stores. We even lined up ETHRA for those who were interested.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. We hope to continue the program again this late winter.

Thank you, I just wish there were more of us.

 

[imagep]

I hate to have to repeat this but the government can't fix a weak economy. Certainly issuing food stamps that are paid for by the rest of the economy can't increase purchasing power. It just robs peter to pay paul. I wondered what the answer to my comment would be. I didn't expect that.

Depends on what the cause of the weak economy is. If it is weak due to lack of consumer demand (which is almost always one of the causes), and the economy has a high amount of unemployment due to weak demand, and if those with the lowest propensity to spend aren't using their savings to expand businesses with, then shifting income from those with the least propensity to spend to those with the highest propensity to spend can improve the economy, and can actually result in the wealthy becoming wealthier even after taxes (due to improved business profits which generally occur when business sales increase).

I'm not suggesting that welfare is the best solution, but it is a (temporary) solution.

 

[fmw]

Depends on what the cause of the weak economy is. If it is weak due to lack of consumer demand (which is almost always one of the causes), and the economy has a high amount of unemployment due to weak demand, and if those with the lowest propensity to spend aren't using their savings to expand businesses with, then shifting income from those with the least propensity to spend to those with the highest propensity to spend can improve the economy, and can actually result in the wealthy becoming wealthier even after taxes (due to improved business profits which generally occur when business sales increase).

I'm not suggesting that welfare is the best solution, but it is a (temporary) solution.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not supporting starvation. I'm not even fussing about food stamps. I'm merely pointing out that a government welfare program doesn't help the economy. It helps the recipients of the program but it doesn't ever do anything positive for the economy as a whole. In my opinion the reason the economy is so bad is that we've spent 50 years sending our wealth abroad. We are simply less wealthy now. That's why economic growth is stagnant and, in my opinion, will remain stagnant until we fix the trade deficit problem. I believe all of this would have happened 20 years ago were it not for the huge impact of the internet in the 1990's. Just an opinion. No need to ask for quotes or links.

 

[Lakryte]

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.

Lower brackets don't pay any federal income tax. In fact, 49% of Americans pay no federal income tax. What is there to cut?

 

[gavinfielder]

I hate to have to repeat this but the government can't fix a weak economy. Certainly issuing food stamps that are paid for by the rest of the economy can't increase purchasing power.

Your lack of understanding of economics is astounding. MV=PY. The public debt can be expanded as much as needed to raise Y and then be pulled back once V takes over the need to raise M.

But go ahead and live in your fantasy world, it's not like anything I say will bring you out of your bubble.

 

[gavinfielder]

Lower brackets don't pay any federal income tax. In fact, 49% of Americans pay no federal income tax. What is there to cut?

You're behind. Most lower income families now pay 15%. There's only one lower bracket for the extremely impoverished, and they pay 10%. That was the fiscal cliff that our inept congress only half avoided.

If it returned to zero again, it would have enough of an effect to lower the need for food stamps.

Not that that justifies cutting it. Again, that's completely unnecessary.

 

[Lakryte]

You're behind. Most lower income families now pay 15%. There's only one lower bracket for the extremely impoverished, and they pay 10%. That was the fiscal cliff that our inept congress only half avoided.

If it returned to zero again, it would have enough of an effect to lower the need for food stamps.

Not that that justifies cutting it. Again, that's completely unnecessary.

You're right, my mistake. Regardless, out of all the things to possibly cut, I feel like food stamps should have been at the bottom of the list.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

No, SNAP was not originally meant to help small farmers or encourage markets in poor areas. It was originally meant to help those that cannot help themselves. Unfortenately the food stamp program has been abused by lazy people who don't even try to look for work. And please note that I am ONLY talking about those that are not working when they are capable of working...NOT the ones that are working and still need the help. Because of those lazy people the food stamp program has become bloated and costs billions more than is necessary.

But I'm not heartless. I propose that those that get on foodstamps but do not work get put to work doing various community service jobs. I believe that would be the only change that would truely be needed. Being put to work for 40 hours for no more pay than what your benefits are is a GREAT incentive to get an actual job.

 

[gavinfielder]

But I'm not heartless. I propose that those that get on foodstamps but do not work get put to work doing various community service jobs. I believe that would be the only change that would truely be needed. Being put to work for 40 hours for no more pay than what your benefits are is a GREAT incentive to get an actual job.

I'd be fine with that.

 

[fmw]

Your lack of understanding of economics is astounding. MV=PY. The public debt can be expanded as much as needed to raise Y and then be pulled back once V takes over the need to raise M.

But go ahead and live in your fantasy world, it's not like anything I say will bring you out of your bubble.

When did the government pull back public debt? I must have missed it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

Then put restrictions on what food stamps can buy. Make it so you can only purchase healthy food with them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're behind. Most lower income families now pay 15%. There's only one lower bracket for the extremely impoverished, and they pay 10%. That was the fiscal cliff that our inept congress only half avoided.

If it returned to zero again, it would have enough of an effect to lower the need for food stamps.

Not that that justifies cutting it. Again, that's completely unnecessary.

What?

They don't pay that 10% until after deducting the standard deduction, exemptions, and child credits. A family of four, under the 2012 tax table, doesn't start to pay a 10% tax rate until they make $28,100. At this point they still get 10% of $0 taxable. At $28,200, they pay $10 for $100 taxable. However, at the $28,100, they still get $4,009 in earned income credit, so they still are not contributing to federal income taxes. It isn't until $41,000 that their tax liability matches their earned income credit, and have a zero tax or gain with the government. By the time a family of 4 makes $50,000, they pay $2,435 in federal income taxes, or 4.87% of that $50,000.

 

[Republic Now!]

But I'm not heartless. I propose that those that get on foodstamps but do not work get put to work doing various community service jobs. I believe that would be the only change that would truely be needed. Being put to work for 40 hours for no more pay than what your benefits are is a GREAT incentive to get an actual job.

How is someone supposed to work towards bettering their situations if they have to spend all their time with mindless busywork? People should be required to work toward improving their situation to receive benefits.

The goal should be to help people improve their finances to the point where they don't need it anymore, and keeping them busy with that sort of thing seems counter-productive.

 

[Kal'Stang]

How is someone supposed to work towards bettering their situations if they have to spend all their time with mindless busywork? People should be required to work toward improving their situation to receive benefits.

The goal should be to help people improve their finances to the point where they don't need it anymore, and keeping them busy with that sort of thing seems counter-productive.

They can look for a job when they are not working.

 

[austrianecon]

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.

There is always a segment of the population on Food Stamps, despite if the economy is great or not.

 

[gavinfielder]

There is always a segment of the population on Food Stamps, despite if the economy is great or not.

True enough, but the more people working instead of receiving, the better.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm unclear as to how food stamps are helpful to the economy.

Because the money is spent. How much simpler can it be? We depend on spending for employment and growth.

 

[GottaGo]

Because the money is spent. How much simpler can it be? We depend on spending for employment and growth.

And where does the money come from to support the program? From other people, who then no longer have it to spend.....

 

[iguanaman]

And where does the money come from to support the program? From other people, who then no longer have it to spend.....

That's why we tax income not spent at a higher rate. You are starting to understand.

 

[GottaGo]

That's why we tax income not spent at a higher rate. You are starting to understand.

Translation please... this doesn't make sense.

 

[iguanaman]

Translation please... this doesn't make sense.

It's called progressive taxes. If you make more than you can spend you pay a higher rate on that.

 

[austrianecon]

True enough, but the more people working instead of receiving, the better.

Not always true.. how many receive food stamps today.. and how many are unemployed? So there is always an overlay.

 

[GottaGo]

It's called progressive taxes. If you make more than you can spend you pay a higher rate on that.

It doesn't matter if you spend it or not, it is taxed on income, not spending it.

If you are referring to the ones who spend it based on receiving it from someone else's pocket, it is just transferring it from one person to another, via the government.

Since investment gains and savings are also taxed, usually at a higher rate than a sales tax, it is a net loss on tax revenue when taken from one and given to the other.