The Sword Drops on Food Stamps

[Fisher]

Food stamps is probably the least offensive form of welfare we have for the poor. Unfortunately, too many stores will trade you those dollars for real ones for a cut of the pie, cooking the books and enabling the addicts.

 

[head of joaquin]

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.

Conservatives aren't interested in empirical data. They are ideologically driven to attack and blame the poor. They couldn't care less how that affects the economy. Indeed, they want the economy to suffer since it suppresses wages and enriches the rich - the ultimate goal of conservatism.

 

[Mach]

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.

The primary reason why many people would like to reduce government power/scope because the are useless when it comes to doing what it is we think we asked them to do. Or we can keep expecting our dreams to be solved by centralized government and be bewildered that the results never really change.

 

[gavinfielder]

The primary reason why many people would like to reduce government power/scope because the are useless when it comes to doing what it is we think we asked them to do. Or we can keep expecting our dreams to be solved by centralized government and be bewildered that the results never really change.

The mainstream right has turned free market principles into state sponsored private monopoly. Indeed, small government would be slightly preferable than that. I'd still much prefer a government that's held accountable and is able to protect its citizens. Theoretically, it should still be possible under democracy even if the current generation of government isn't interested in it.

 

[fmw]

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

Not as simple as you make it. The money to pay for the food stamps came from the private sector where they are used. That is a net zero gain. It doesn't help the economy a bit. It redistributes a little wealth and nothing more.

 

[gavinfielder]

Not as simple as you make it. The money to pay for the food stamps came from the private sector where they are used. That is a net zero gain. It doesn't help the economy a bit. It redistributes a little wealth and nothing more.

Even if it were simple wealth redistribution, it would still be economically stimulative by increasing velocity. But it's not even simple wealth redistribution, because we can finance a public deficit as needed, and even if we couldn't do that, we technically have a sovereign fiat currency, so we don't even really need to create debt to sustain a deficit in the first place.

But don't let me disturb your rest. Several layers of ignorance must be comfortable.

 

[fmw]

Even if it were simple wealth redistribution, it would still be economically stimulative by increasing velocity. But it's not even simple wealth redistribution, because we can finance a public deficit as needed, and even if we couldn't do that, we technically have a sovereign fiat currency, so we don't even really need to create debt to sustain a deficit in the first place.

But don't let me disturb your rest. Several layers of ignorance must be comfortable.

Thanks for the insult, O nonsense speaker. Velocity of what? How does financing a public deficit help the economy? Presumably it has to be repaid at some point resulting in another zero sum. And printing money without increased wealth in the economy is not without consequences. It is beliefs like this that have put us in the hole we now seem to be unable to see out of. I'm not ignorant. I just disagree completely with what you said. And, I'm not alone in that position, as you should know.

 

[soot]

At this rate, America is going to destroy itself before the new generation ever has a chance to save it.

Have you been successful in dodging all those pieces of sky that appear to be falling?

From your article:

The Center for American Progress, in a study released in March,

I see that the article fails to mention that this report was published in March 2012.

The employment picture, and the economic picture more generally, have changed a great deal in this country since March of last year. We're not out of the woods by any means, but we're back on a path of growth and we're steadily climbing out of the hole that was dug by the recession.

A year and a half ago I very well may have been swayed by a report that taking "X" action might negatively impact agregate job growth as things were stioll kinda "raw" back then.

Now?

Not so much.

Back to your article:

...found that for every $1 billion cut from SNAP, 13,718 jobs are lost

We're talking about cutting $4 billion right?

So ~55000 jobs.

On the other side of the ledger we added ~1.5 million job to the economy in the April through December 2012 period and ~ 1 million more year to date 2013.

2.5 million jobs, in aggregate, added since this report was released.

We're talking about saving ourselves $4 billion (of taxpayers money) on the one hand and losing about 2% of total jobs (or roughly 10 days worth) that have been created since this report was released on the other.

Okay, I'll give you that it's a sacrifice but:

At this rate, America is going to destroy itself before the new generation ever has a chance to save it.

Again, not so much.

 

[iguanaman]

Not as simple as you make it. The money to pay for the food stamps came from the private sector where they are used. That is a net zero gain. It doesn't help the economy a bit. It redistributes a little wealth and nothing more.

I thought we were borrowing a lot of the money the Govt. spends? I do know that a lot of it comes from people that don't spend it. The wealthy only spend a small % of what they make so it is FAR from a net zero gain.

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, each $1 billion of retail generated by SNAP creates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value-added, and 3,300 farm jobs
Every $1 billion of SNAP benefits also creates 8,900-17,900 full-time jobsAn additional $5 of SNAP benefits generates $9 in total economic activity
83% of SNAP benefits, equal to $53.4 billion, were spent at 36,500 supermarkets around the U.S.; the remaining 17% was spent at 180,000 small retail stores (including grocery stores, farmers’ markets, wholesalers, and meal services), for a total of $11 billion
SNAP beneficiaries spend more dollars on food in local stores than eligible non-participants
An increase in SNAP participation by 5% would result in 2.1 million low-income Americans receiving $973 million in SNAP benefits, generating $1.8 billion in new economic activity

The Real Benefits of SNAP | Snap To Health

 

[GottaGo]

I thought we were borrowing a lot of the money the Govt. spends? I do know that a lot of it comes from people that don't spend it. The wealthy only spend a small % of what they make so it is FAR from a net zero gain.

The Real Benefits of SNAP | Snap To Health

And where do you think they are 'borrowing' it from?

 

[fmw]

I thought we were borrowing a lot of the money the Govt. spends? I do know that a lot of it comes from people that don't spend it. The wealthy only spend a small % of what they make so it is FAR from a net zero gain.

The Real Benefits of SNAP | Snap To Health

Yes, we are currently running much of the government on debt and "quantitative easing." But the money has to be repaid and the quantitative easing will eventuall turn into indirect taxation through inflation. Money never has grown on trees and it still doesn't. All these things have consequences and the consequences are very negative.

 

[gavinfielder]

Velocity of what?

Why are you even in this forum?

 

[fmw]

Why are you even in this forum?

Because it entertains me. Why are you?

 

[gavinfielder]

Because it entertains me. Why are you?

Oh. Well I guess the same reason. Can't fault you for that, then.

Ok.

 

[head of joaquin]

Yes, we are currently running much of the government on debt and "quantitative easing." But the money has to be repaid and the quantitative easing will eventuall turn into indirect taxation through inflation. Money never has grown on trees and it still doesn't. All these things have consequences and the consequences are very negative.

Such a "tax" (it isn't) falls heaviest on creditors, and they have all the money. So this scenario, while inaccurate, wouldn't be such a bad outcome. It would make paying back debt all the easier.

But of course as the economy grows debt can be paid back with increased productivity (as it always has), and thus the prospect of any significant inflation is low. The only way that would happen is if another conservative like Bush got into the White House and started more expensive vanity wars and continued the failed policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the poor. Thank God Romney lost or that's exactly what would have happened.

 

[head of joaquin]

Thanks for the insult, O nonsense speaker. Velocity of what? .

Jesus.

The velocity of libertarian minds not bothering to learn basic economic concepts while purporting to discuss them.

 

[head of joaquin]

Because it entertains me. Why are you?

Libertarians entertain me too. It's like watching Constello trying to find out who's on first.

 

[GottaGo]

Such a "tax" (it isn't) falls heaviest on creditors, and they have all the money. So this scenario, while inaccurate, wouldn't be such a bad outcome. It would make paying back debt all the easier.

But of course as the economy grows debt can be paid back with increased productivity (as it always has), and thus the prospect of any significant inflation is low. The only way that would happen is if another conservative like Bush got into the White House and started more expensive vanity wars and continued the failed policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the poor. Thank God Romney lost or that's exactly what would have happened.

:blink:

Did you read what you posted?

 

[head of joaquin]

:blgink:

Did you read what you posted?

No, I was too busy trying to find out why another libertarian doesn't understand the concept of the velocity of money.

 

[fmw]

Jesus.

The velocity of libertarian minds not bothering to learn basic economic concepts while purporting to discuss them.

Not so. I just disagree with that school of economics. In fact, I've studied economics. I find it to be mostly opinion wrapped up in pseudo-science.

 

[fmw]

Such a "tax" (it isn't) falls heaviest on creditors, and they have all the money. So this scenario, while inaccurate, wouldn't be such a bad outcome. It would make paying back debt all the easier.

My assumption has always been that this the purpose of QE. We can't pay the debt unless we devalue it. It is a tax in a sense because it makes the currency less valuable.

But of course as the economy grows debt can be paid back with increased productivity (as it always has), and thus the prospect of any significant inflation is low. The only way that would happen is if another conservative like Bush got into the White House and started more expensive vanity wars and continued the failed policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the poor. Thank God Romney lost or that's exactly what would have happened.

Firstly, the economy isn't growing at any reasonable rate. Secondly, I consider the inflation we've been experiencing to be anything but low. That's a matter opinion, of course. I hate war more than you do. I've been in one.

 

[fmw]

I thought we were borrowing a lot of the money the Govt. spends? I do know that a lot of it comes from people that don't spend it. The wealthy only spend a small % of what they make so it is FAR from a net zero gain.

The Real Benefits of SNAP | Snap To Health

That's what I said. The government borrows a ton of what it spends. How do the people not spend it if they are spending it on treasury bonds and notes? What does not spending money have to do with a net zero? The link you provided is what we call propaganda. I'm not against food stamps. I am against selling it as an economic benefit. It isn't. Somebody has to pay for them either now (taxes) or later (debt.) It should be sold as a benefit to those who receive it. It is that to be sure.

 

[head of joaquin]

Not so. I just disagree with that school of economics. In fact, I've studied economics. I find it to be mostly opinion wrapped up in pseudo-science.

There is no "velocity of money" school of economics. The velocity of money is an actual economics metric. You can disagree with the effects (though that seems senselessly counterfactual), but you should at least be aware of the concept if you are going to discuss economics on anything but a plebeian level.

 

[iguanaman]

That's what I said. The government borrows a ton of what it spends. How do the people not spend it if they are spending it on treasury bonds and notes? What does not spending money have to do with a net zero? The link you provided is what we call propaganda. I'm not against food stamps. I am against selling it as an economic benefit. It isn't. Somebody has to pay for them either now (taxes) or later (debt.) It should be sold as a benefit to those who receive it. It is that to be sure.

Money not spent in the economy does not contribute to GDP. Give that money to some who is hungry and he will spend it, increasing GDP and employment. Surely you can see that more money spent on food benefits a whole chain of people from the farmer to the grocer. Not giving that money would hurt those same people.

 

[iguanaman]

My assumption has always been that this the purpose of QE. We can't pay the debt unless we devalue it. It is a tax in a sense because it makes the currency less valuable.



Firstly, the economy isn't growing at any reasonable rate. Secondly, I consider the inflation we've been experiencing to be anything but low. That's a matter opinion, of course. I hate war more than you do. I've been in one.

You might see commodity inflation but the FED is more worried about Deflationary forces. Deflation is suicide for a consumer economy.