House passes farm bill, eliminating Food Stamps

[barfbag]

Hasn't it been rather conclusively shown that by stimulating spending food stamps ultimately make money for the government -- that is to say, more tax revenue as a result of food stamps comes in than is spent on food stamps? Or am I confusing this with something else?

It's a similar concept to tax cuts. If people have more money in their pockets, then more money is spent on the economy which creates jobs and makes things better for the average person. The difference is that we don't actually borrow money or even use money that we have to pay for food stamps because the money used by congress belongs the people. Basically, instead of lowering taxes, you're only giving money to the less fortunate so they can eat and the money is only spent on food. I think people have the right not to starve and it helps the food and agriculture industries. I hope neither party takes me out of context by thinking I'm a socialist or suggesting something I'm not.

[Zioneer]

Hasn't it been rather conclusively shown that by stimulating spending food stamps ultimately make money for the government -- that is to say, more tax revenue as a result of food stamps comes in than is spent on food stamps? Or am I confusing this with something else?

It's a similar concept to tax cuts. If people have more money in their pockets, then more money is spent on the economy which creates jobs and makes things better for the average person. The difference is that we don't actually borrow money or even use money that we have to pay for food stamps because the money used by congress belongs the people. Basically, instead of lowering taxes, you're only giving money to the less fortunate so they can eat and the money is only spent on food. I think people have the right not to starve and it helps the food and agriculture industries. I hope neither party takes me out of context by thinking I'm a socialist or suggesting something I'm not.

Hey, that's actually really reasonable. I apologize for my earlier comment, and applaud yours.

And come join us so-called "socialists", the water's fine over here!

[krazen1211]

BTW, I fixed krazen's broken link in the quote below:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021413860_foodstampsxml.html

$526 on food spent on 3 people in 2 weeks. $12 per person per day.


These food stampers must be eating like kings.

Somehow, I doubt that all the food they eat is consumed on the last day that food is purchased.  If like most people, they make weekly shopping trips, then that $526 dollars is lasting three weeks, not two.

But even $12 a day is not eating like a king.  If you think that is the case, you must not be the one who does the grocery shopping in your household.  At $8/day (over three weeks if one takes a reasonable inference from the story of how long she makes the benefit last instead of your hyperbolic one) or $6/day (over four weeks, which the person in the article says she could do if she didn't include items like fresh veggies in her family's diet) the resulting diet is even less kingly.  As noted in the article, she doesn't have full access to a kitchen of her own, so even if she had the time, cooking every meal from scratch isn't an option.

I have the space to buy food on sale for later use and the time and facilities to cook it myself and yet despite living in area that has a lower cost of living than both Tacoma and where you live krazen, I doubt I could fix myself a healthy diet on $6/day.  I could make it stretch if I dumped things like fruit and veggies from my diet and subsisted on 88¢ Banquet frozen dinners every supper. (As an occasional small meal, they're acceptable, but I shudder to think about anyone forced to eat one of them or the equivalent every day.  The sodium alone would likely kill them and if not that, then the fat would.) [Note: 88¢ is the sale price on them.  Usually they're in the $1 to $1.25 range depending on the store.]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

It is astonishing and highly amusing to claim that 3 unemployed adult or near adult women cannot boil $1 pasta + $1 sauce for a $2 meal for 3 folks. If not 4.

The safeway in question is .4 miles away from Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood.

For the record, eating highly expensive frozen dinners is what they are doing with the taxpayer's dollars. How nice of them. Shame those types aren't so uncomfortable with dumping taxpayer funds in a foolish manner.

[krazen1211]

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021413860_foodstampsxml.html

$526 on food spent on 3 people in 2 weeks. $12 per person per day.


These food stampers must be eating like kings.



Amazing how the taxpayer is expected to shell out $80 billion for a fatso who is, err, too, uncomfortable to cook.

I wouldn't call it eating like kings. $12 a day will keep you from starving, but it's not going to buy a feast for every meal. People can be very bad with their money, but my point is $12 a day for food isn't eating like a king.

The US government allocates  $57 per week, or $8 a day, for the moderate cost plan. $36 a week or $5 a day for the thrifty plan, per person. $12 per person per day is even in excess of the liberal plan.

It's curious to think a $12 per person sloth can't afford a 3% cut in food stamp allocation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Hasn't it been rather conclusively shown that by stimulating spending food stamps ultimately make money for the government -- that is to say, more tax revenue as a result of food stamps comes in than is spent on food stamps? Or am I confusing this with something else?

That doesn't sound right. The only way I can think of that would be the case is by food stamps giving people the energy they need to go out and get jobs - which is possible, but not something you could measure.  Reductions in spending in areas affected by malnourishment is also possible - but again, I don't see any way to measure this.

[barfbag]

BTW, I fixed krazen's broken link in the quote below:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021413860_foodstampsxml.html

$526 on food spent on 3 people in 2 weeks. $12 per person per day.


These food stampers must be eating like kings.

Somehow, I doubt that all the food they eat is consumed on the last day that food is purchased.  If like most people, they make weekly shopping trips, then that $526 dollars is lasting three weeks, not two.

But even $12 a day is not eating like a king.  If you think that is the case, you must not be the one who does the grocery shopping in your household.  At $8/day (over three weeks if one takes a reasonable inference from the story of how long she makes the benefit last instead of your hyperbolic one) or $6/day (over four weeks, which the person in the article says she could do if she didn't include items like fresh veggies in her family's diet) the resulting diet is even less kingly.  As noted in the article, she doesn't have full access to a kitchen of her own, so even if she had the time, cooking every meal from scratch isn't an option.

I have the space to buy food on sale for later use and the time and facilities to cook it myself and yet despite living in area that has a lower cost of living than both Tacoma and where you live krazen, I doubt I could fix myself a healthy diet on $6/day.  I could make it stretch if I dumped things like fruit and veggies from my diet and subsisted on 88¢ Banquet frozen dinners every supper. (As an occasional small meal, they're acceptable, but I shudder to think about anyone forced to eat one of them or the equivalent every day.  The sodium alone would likely kill them and if not that, then the fat would.) [Note: 88¢ is the sale price on them.  Usually they're in the $1 to $1.25 range depending on the store.]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

It is astonishing and highly amusing to claim that 3 unemployed adult or near adult women cannot boil $1 pasta + $1 sauce for a $2 meal for 3 folks. If not 4.

The safeway in question is .4 miles away from Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood.

For the record, eating highly expensive frozen dinners is what they are doing with the taxpayer's dollars. How nice of them. Shame those types aren't so uncomfortable with dumping taxpayer funds in a foolish manner.

Not everyone in a household might qualify though. Let's say the husband has been laid off and works part time while the wife also works part time. The husband collects unemployment which is enough to pay for the mortgage and therefore can't collect food stamps while the wife qualifies and uses the money to pay for food for both of them. Or what if they have kids? If it were a single adult living on their own, then I could see $12 a day from the government being a little high, but it's not always the case.

[barfbag]

Hasn't it been rather conclusively shown that by stimulating spending food stamps ultimately make money for the government -- that is to say, more tax revenue as a result of food stamps comes in than is spent on food stamps? Or am I confusing this with something else?

It's a similar concept to tax cuts. If people have more money in their pockets, then more money is spent on the economy which creates jobs and makes things better for the average person. The difference is that we don't actually borrow money or even use money that we have to pay for food stamps because the money used by congress belongs the people. Basically, instead of lowering taxes, you're only giving money to the less fortunate so they can eat and the money is only spent on food. I think people have the right not to starve and it helps the food and agriculture industries. I hope neither party takes me out of context by thinking I'm a socialist or suggesting something I'm not.

Hey, that's actually really reasonable. I apologize for my earlier comment, and applaud yours.

And come join us so-called "socialists", the water's fine over here!

I tend to take the middle ground on welfare and poverty issues. I'm not saying the government should provide people with free pizza delivery or three Thanksgiving dinners a day, but enough to eat a modest and healthy diet.

[barfbag]

BTW, I fixed krazen's broken link in the quote below:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021413860_foodstampsxml.html

$526 on food spent on 3 people in 2 weeks. $12 per person per day.


These food stampers must be eating like kings.

Somehow, I doubt that all the food they eat is consumed on the last day that food is purchased.  If like most people, they make weekly shopping trips, then that $526 dollars is lasting three weeks, not two.

But even $12 a day is not eating like a king.  If you think that is the case, you must not be the one who does the grocery shopping in your household.  At $8/day (over three weeks if one takes a reasonable inference from the story of how long she makes the benefit last instead of your hyperbolic one) or $6/day (over four weeks, which the person in the article says she could do if she didn't include items like fresh veggies in her family's diet) the resulting diet is even less kingly.  As noted in the article, she doesn't have full access to a kitchen of her own, so even if she had the time, cooking every meal from scratch isn't an option.

I have the space to buy food on sale for later use and the time and facilities to cook it myself and yet despite living in area that has a lower cost of living than both Tacoma and where you live krazen, I doubt I could fix myself a healthy diet on $6/day.  I could make it stretch if I dumped things like fruit and veggies from my diet and subsisted on 88¢ Banquet frozen dinners every supper. (As an occasional small meal, they're acceptable, but I shudder to think about anyone forced to eat one of them or the equivalent every day.  The sodium alone would likely kill them and if not that, then the fat would.) [Note: 88¢ is the sale price on them.  Usually they're in the $1 to $1.25 range depending on the store.]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

It is astonishing and highly amusing to claim that 3 unemployed adult or near adult women cannot boil $1 pasta + $1 sauce for a $2 meal for 3 folks. If not 4.

The safeway in question is .4 miles away from Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood.

For the record, eating highly expensive frozen dinners is what they are doing with the taxpayer's dollars. How nice of them. Shame those types aren't so uncomfortable with dumping taxpayer funds in a foolish manner.

Some people do abuse food stamps and I know because I work in a grocery store and know several people who are on food stamps. If people buy bigger brands and spend more with their food stamps though, then corporations such as Tyson, Banquet, Michaellina's, Marie Callendar, Smuckers, Totino's, and Minute Maid benefit which helps the food and grocery industry leading to job growth. Then those who are unemployed or underemployed can be hired when jobs are created.

[Sbane]

Actually eliminate food stamp, then create a program where the government provides everyone who would need them with large bags of rice and beans. Probably saves a ton and gives those using them actual healthy food.

Replaces electronic distribution of money with manual distribution of goods. Infinitely more expensive.

And an invitation for corruption. The lowest quality food would go to these people. The way food stamps are set up right now is the way to go.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hasn't it been rather conclusively shown that by stimulating spending food stamps ultimately make money for the government -- that is to say, more tax revenue as a result of food stamps comes in than is spent on food stamps? Or am I confusing this with something else?

Not quite that, though it's still a positive that you're thinking of. What's been backed up by numerous studies by economists pretty much across the board is that food stamps are the most stimulative program the government has, as for every dollar spend on the program, significantly more than a dollar is generated in economic activity. Not related to taxes, but still, it seems pretty much inarguably dumb to gut the program, either from a business' perspective, a government perspective, or an individual perspective.

[pbrower2a]

Actually eliminate food stamp, then create a program where the government provides everyone who would need them with large bags of rice and beans. Probably saves a ton and gives those using them actual healthy food.

Replaces electronic distribution of money with manual distribution of goods. Infinitely more expensive.

Those electronic transfers are used to buy goods that already have the cost of manual distribution in their price - though I agree a government-run centrally distributed operation is likely to be highly inefficient and wasteful.

Choice is a good idea, as it is a principle of our economic system. Food stamps or their electronic equivalent allow people to make choices reflecting such conditions as diabetes, allergies, religious sensibilities, and lactose intolerance. Although I would prefer that such items as candies and sodas be removed from the list of available foods as empty calories... and highly-processed foods (make your own lasagna, cake, and chop suey from scratch!), but the latter might be excused due to a handicap.

One of the desirable features of food stamps is that they have a constituency other than recipients -- like merchants. I'm not convinced that centralized distribution is better. Food aid might as well take advantage of the efficient  food-supply infrastructure that already exists -- as in Wal*Mart, Kroger, Safeway, Albertson's, Meijer, Lucky, etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This will never pass in the Senate, right?

[Maxwell]

This is an issue where I hope Democrats halt the bill to get more cuts to the farm subsidies I know they will bluff, but will they actually do the right thing here?

As for Food Stamps, why isn't it its own bill?

[dead0man]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

It is astonishing and highly amusing to claim that 3 unemployed adult or near adult women cannot boil $1 pasta + $1 sauce for a $2 meal for 3 folks. If not 4.

The safeway in question is .4 miles away from Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood.

For the record, eating highly expensive frozen dinners is what they are doing with the taxpayer's dollars. How nice of them. Shame those types aren't so uncomfortable with dumping taxpayer funds in a foolish manner.

I was told the jobless don't have time to prepare proper meals and that a proper meal took more than 20 minutes to prepare.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

And what fruit or other sides are you including to make it a balanced breakfast?  Or do you think because fruit grows on trees, it is free?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is astonishing and highly amusing is your pretense that a balanced diet does not include fresh fruits and vegetables.  But perhaps you think that because they are poor they should be relegated to malnutrition?  You also have conveniently ignored my point that last shopping day does not equal last eating day and the fact that her current living situation does not afford her the chance for proper kitchen facilities.  Or are you in favor of seeing to it that she is assured of an adequate place to live that would enable her to spend less on food?  That is indeed one of the tragedies of poverty.  Inadequacies of one resource often leads to inefficient usage of other resources.

I was told the jobless don't have time to prepare proper meals and that a proper meal took more than 20 minutes to prepare.

Well, if all the woman in question was doing was sitting around her rented rooms with her two kids, she'd have the time, but I doubt you or krazen want her to be doing just that. She certainly doesn't.  And you try fixing something more nutritious than pasta and sauce from scratch in under 20 minutes, including prep time and cleanup.

[krazen1211]

BTW, I fixed krazen's broken link in the quote below:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021413860_foodstampsxml.html

$526 on food spent on 3 people in 2 weeks. $12 per person per day.


These food stampers must be eating like kings.

Somehow, I doubt that all the food they eat is consumed on the last day that food is purchased.  If like most people, they make weekly shopping trips, then that $526 dollars is lasting three weeks, not two.

But even $12 a day is not eating like a king.  If you think that is the case, you must not be the one who does the grocery shopping in your household.  At $8/day (over three weeks if one takes a reasonable inference from the story of how long she makes the benefit last instead of your hyperbolic one) or $6/day (over four weeks, which the person in the article says she could do if she didn't include items like fresh veggies in her family's diet) the resulting diet is even less kingly.  As noted in the article, she doesn't have full access to a kitchen of her own, so even if she had the time, cooking every meal from scratch isn't an option.

I have the space to buy food on sale for later use and the time and facilities to cook it myself and yet despite living in area that has a lower cost of living than both Tacoma and where you live krazen, I doubt I could fix myself a healthy diet on $6/day.  I could make it stretch if I dumped things like fruit and veggies from my diet and subsisted on 88¢ Banquet frozen dinners every supper. (As an occasional small meal, they're acceptable, but I shudder to think about anyone forced to eat one of them or the equivalent every day.  The sodium alone would likely kill them and if not that, then the fat would.) [Note: 88¢ is the sale price on them.  Usually they're in the $1 to $1.25 range depending on the store.]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

It is astonishing and highly amusing to claim that 3 unemployed adult or near adult women cannot boil $1 pasta + $1 sauce for a $2 meal for 3 folks. If not 4.

The safeway in question is .4 miles away from Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood.

For the record, eating highly expensive frozen dinners is what they are doing with the taxpayer's dollars. How nice of them. Shame those types aren't so uncomfortable with dumping taxpayer funds in a foolish manner.

Not everyone in a household might qualify though. Let's say the husband has been laid off and works part time while the wife also works part time. The husband collects unemployment which is enough to pay for the mortgage and therefore can't collect food stamps while the wife qualifies and uses the money to pay for food for both of them. Or what if they have kids? If it were a single adult living on their own, then I could see $12 a day from the government being a little high, but it's not always the case.

$12 is per person. The unemployed person in question is spending $36 per day.

The so called children in this case are old enough to work.

[krazen1211]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

And what fruit or other sides are you including to make it a balanced breakfast?  Or do you think because fruit grows on trees, it is free?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is astonishing and highly amusing is your pretense that a balanced diet does not include fresh fruits and vegetables.  But perhaps you think that because they are poor they should be relegated to malnutrition?  You also have conveniently ignored my point that last shopping day does not equal last eating day and the fact that her current living situation does not afford her the chance for proper kitchen facilities.  Or are you in favor of seeing to it that she is assured of an adequate place to live that would enable her to spend less on food?  That is indeed one of the tragedies of poverty.  Inadequacies of one resource often leads to inefficient usage of other resources.

I was told the jobless don't have time to prepare proper meals and that a proper meal took more than 20 minutes to prepare.

Well, if all the woman in question was doing was sitting around her rented rooms with her two kids, she'd have the time, but I doubt you or krazen want her to be doing just that. She certainly doesn't.  And you try fixing something more nutritious than pasta and sauce from scratch in under 20 minutes, including prep time and cleanup.

Fresh fruits are $1.79 per pound. Bread is $1.49 a loaf. Chicken is $1.29 a pound.


The article in question states that she has at the minimum a microwave and a freezer, and that said individual is 'uncomfortable' cooking food like normal americans do, not that she doesn't have whatever you deem to be a proper kitchen. In order for your point to be accurate, the individual in question must be able to store excess food in some pantry like apparatus, which of course implies you do have something resembling a kitchen.

Of course, the individual in question has a secondary supply of food from those food banks and still churns through $526 in 2 weeks.

You'd be hard pressed to churn through such sums at safeway unless you are buying ribeye steak.

[barfbag]

Food at the local Tacoma safeway costs far less than $12 a day for anyone who isn't a 400 lb hog. Cereal + milk costs roughly $.33 per serving according to the posted prices.

And what fruit or other sides are you including to make it a balanced breakfast?  Or do you think because fruit grows on trees, it is free?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is astonishing and highly amusing is your pretense that a balanced diet does not include fresh fruits and vegetables.  But perhaps you think that because they are poor they should be relegated to malnutrition?  You also have conveniently ignored my point that last shopping day does not equal last eating day and the fact that her current living situation does not afford her the chance for proper kitchen facilities.  Or are you in favor of seeing to it that she is assured of an adequate place to live that would enable her to spend less on food?  That is indeed one of the tragedies of poverty.  Inadequacies of one resource often leads to inefficient usage of other resources.

I was told the jobless don't have time to prepare proper meals and that a proper meal took more than 20 minutes to prepare.

Well, if all the woman in question was doing was sitting around her rented rooms with her two kids, she'd have the time, but I doubt you or krazen want her to be doing just that. She certainly doesn't.  And you try fixing something more nutritious than pasta and sauce from scratch in under 20 minutes, including prep time and cleanup.

Fresh fruits are $1.79 per pound. Bread is $1.49 a loaf. Chicken is $1.29 a pound.


The article in question states that she has at the minimum a microwave and a freezer, and that said individual is 'uncomfortable' cooking food like normal americans do, not that she doesn't have whatever you deem to be a proper kitchen. In order for your point to be accurate, the individual in question must be able to store excess food in some pantry like apparatus, which of course implies you do have something resembling a kitchen.

Of course, the individual in question has a secondary supply of food from those food banks and still churns through $526 in 2 weeks.

You'd be hard pressed to churn through such sums at safeway unless you are buying ribeye steak.

In the article you mentioned, there might be a problem with what they're receiving. However, a good point was made about how poor people may not be able to afford what's necessary to cook with so they are trapped into buying prepared foods which cost $7.99/lb. Also, if corporations are benefiting from food stamps, then there's a higher chance those who are part of the program now will find jobs at places that sell, serve, distribute, or package foods. The food industry is pretty important. Articles such as the one you provided shouldn't be taken lightly either. I've worked in different grocery stores for several years and I've seen people use their food stamp card to buy groceries and then break a $100 bill to buy a case of beer, candy items from the checkout lines, and those spinning wheels that glow in the dark. America has problems with financial responsibility and I'm sure no one on this forum is perfect with money either.

[tpfkaw]

I will mention that I've worked in the supermarket industry and you would not believe how many people pay with an EBT card and then walk to their brand-new car.  Several people had Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs, Cadillacs etc.

[barfbag]

I will mention that I've worked in the supermarket industry and you would not believe how many people pay with an EBT card and then walk to their brand-new car.  Several people had Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs, Cadillacs etc.

Or have a $200 outfit on.

[Brittain33]

I will mention that I've worked in the supermarket industry and you would not believe how many people pay with an EBT card and then walk to their brand-new car.  Several people had Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs, Cadillacs etc.

You're right, I wouldn't believe it.

I've never been to a supermarket where the cashier was free to see what my car looks like.

[Brittain33]

I will mention that I've worked in the supermarket industry and you would not believe how many people pay with an EBT card and then walk to their brand-new car.  Several people had Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs, Cadillacs etc.

Or have a $200 outfit on.

Tell us more about how you evaluate the clothing costs of SNAP recipients.

[Person Man]

I will mention that I've worked in the supermarket industry and you would not believe how many people pay with an EBT card and then walk to their brand-new car.  Several people had Mercedes-Benzes, BMWs, Cadillacs etc.

Or have a $200 outfit on.

Tell us more about how you evaluate the clothing costs of SNAP recipients.

Indeed. Are they intentionally being offensive today?

[Marokai Backbeat]

But perhaps you think that because they are poor they should be relegated to malnutrition?

This is exactly the underlying philosophy at work in much of Krazen's sentiments as well as everywhere else they are shared. The poor are so by their own fault. They should live in squalor, they shouldn't have any luxuries at all, they should live on sh**y food, they should have terrible means of transportation, they not allowed have good clothes, because they're obviously fundamentally less capable and deserving if they remain poor for extended periods of time. As such, they should feel ashamed, until they learn their lesson. Anyone on public assistance? The qualification should be utter misery.

To people like Krazen, the chronically poor are practically sub-human.

[Torie]

As this rather sad thread segues off into the pit of alleged personal anecdotal "evidence," what are we talking about here? That there is fraud in the system? If so, wouldn't it be better to look at real stats on that rather than anecdotal evidence, and what the price tag is (and discuss what the fixes might be to reduce it)? Or is the claim that the standards for who is in SNAP are too loose? What are the standards? Or do some folks think the poor should just get cash (the idea being with SNAP that some of the assistance should be used to buy food, and not other items, particularly for your kids (unfed kids can actually impair their health and mental development - who knew?)? Or is the idea that it is a bad idea to feed those who would otherwise be hungry, because it encourages parasitical behavior, and F the collateral damage to stamp it out - misery breeds character.

If one wants to make their case, one needs to be clear as to what their exact issue is, and what is the better alternative course of action and why. Otherwise, we get, well, kind of what we got here - something less than an outstanding and edifying thread.

Make sense?