Good news: $5 billion saved by cuts

[fskimospy]

This isn't a bad idea, actually. I worked in a grocery store in high school and I do remember there being some limitations to what can be bought with food stamps, but honestly I lived in a pretty high income area and it was pretty rare that I saw them. Certainly not often enough to remember much about the program.

This is not a good idea. Once you do that then you create a huge problem where the government has to verify, by product, what counts as acceptable for each kind of voucher. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

The better answer for the program overall actually is just to give people cash. When conservatives freak out over people on food stamps buying expensive food, one of the reasons is that some people are thriftier overall than others. Food stamps can't (easily) be transferred into cash, so it's a 'use it or lose it' type thing, even if the person is poor in other ways.

Cash is fungible. If we're willing to give someone $300 a month for food, we should just give them $300 a month.

 

[chucky2]

F yeah. Someone buying a Pepsi on the taxpayers dime doesn't need that cut. How's the $5k Spender sellout checks coming?

 

[nehalem256]

This is not a good idea. Once you do that then you create a huge problem where the government has to verify, by product, what counts as acceptable for each kind of voucher. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

You do realize that the government already basically has a program that gives people vouchers to buy certain foods?

The better answer for the program overall actually is just to give people cash. When conservatives freak out over people on food stamps buying expensive food, one of the reasons is that some people are thriftier overall than others.

Shouldn't everyone who is being fed by societal charity be thrifty with their food budget?

Perhaps the government should distribute some simple pamphlets to help people plan cheap nutritious meals?

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize that the government already basically has a program that gives people vouchers to buy certain foods?

This is a dumb way to do things.

Shouldn't everyone who is being fed by societal charity be thrifty with their food budget?

Perhaps the government should distribute some simple pamphlets to help people plan cheap nutritious meals?

The government already does that.

 

[madoka]

The better answer for the program overall actually is just to give people cash.

. . .

Cash is fungible. If we're willing to give someone $300 a month for food, we should just give them $300 a month.

You realize that one of the reasons many people are poor is because they do not make good financial decisions? Expect this money to be used for alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, iPhones, gambling, etc.

This comes to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m70Que_6gcQ

 

[chucky2]

Of course he knows. That's a Spender base voting demographic right there, you can't think he's going to be for a policy decision that actually makes life tough for them, right? You don't get votes by screwing over your constituency.

 

[fskimospy]

You realize that one of the reasons many people are poor is because they do not make good financial decisions? Expect this money to be used for alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, iPhones, gambling, etc.

This comes to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m70Que_6gcQ

Money is fungible. The only thing you do with food stamps is ensure that people spend at least that amount of money on food each month. Most people already spend that level or more, making it a waste of time.

Furthermore, it penalizes people who spend their food money most frugally and offers an incentive to spend more money than you need on food, which decreases its marginal benefit.

 

[BoberFett]

This is not a good idea. Once you do that then you create a huge problem where the government has to verify, by product, what counts as acceptable for each kind of voucher. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

The better answer for the program overall actually is just to give people cash. When conservatives freak out over people on food stamps buying expensive food, one of the reasons is that some people are thriftier overall than others. Food stamps can't (easily) be transferred into cash, so it's a 'use it or lose it' type thing, even if the person is poor in other ways.

Cash is fungible. If we're willing to give someone $300 a month for food, we should just give them $300 a month.

So you have no idea what people spend this money on, trying to manage what they spend their "food" stamps on is impossible, but you're confident that there's a 1.7 multiplier on this government "cheese" because... That money is tracked so closely?

Hey, let's just give the defense industry trillions. Don't bother trying to track it, it's too hard. Just give them cash and I'm sure something good will come out of it.

Why don't I get $300/mo for food? I swear I'll spend it on food.

This is why some of us think "liberals" are crazy.

 

[fskimospy]

So you have no idea what people spend this money on, trying to manage what they spend their "food" stamps on is impossible, but you're confident that there's a 1.7 multiplier on this government "cheese" because... That money is tracked so closely?

Because of economic analysis on the effectiveness of government stimulus.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Policy-Prescriptions-20110826.pdf?src=DS

Hey, let's just give the defense industry trillions. Don't bother trying to track it, it's too hard. Just give them cash and I'm sure something good will come out of it.

Let's not. The fiscal multipliers from defense spending are generally considerably lower.

 

[Doppel]

This 1.7 multiplier I read about above... Is that at the current rate? A lower one? A higher one? I am guessing we can't give somebody $10k in food stamps and turn it into $17k so there must be a reasonable limit.

 

[fskimospy]

This 1.7 multiplier I read about above... Is that at the current rate? A lower one? A higher one? I am guessing we can't give somebody $10k in food stamps and turn it into $17k so there must be a reasonable limit.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'rate'? What the multiplier is talking about is the overall economic effects of food stamp spending. ie: under current depressed economic conditions giving someone $1.00 in food stamp money will generate $1.70 in economic activity as that money is taken by the retailer and spent again, then taken by his supplier and spent again, etc.

So it's not a multiplier on a personal level, but on a societal one. That's why it makes good stimulus.

 

[BoberFett]

Because of economic analysis on the effectiveness of government stimulus.

Analysis that's meaningless if you don't know how it's spent. If you know how it's spent, why would it be difficult to manage it?

You seem to believe the government can manage healthcare. It can manage an immense tax code full of thousands of loopholes. But it's futile to determine how people spend their free food money?

"Liberals" have a screw loose.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not sure what you mean about 'rate'? What the multiplier is talking about is the overall economic effects of food stamp spending. ie: under current depressed economic conditions giving someone $1.00 in food stamp money will generate $1.70 in economic activity as that money is taken by the retailer and spent again, then taken by his supplier and spent again, etc.

So it's not a multiplier on a personal level, but on a societal one. That's why it makes good stimulus.

So defense industry employees don't spend their income?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This 1.7 multiplier I read about above... Is that at the current rate? A lower one? A higher one? I am guessing we can't give somebody $10k in food stamps and turn it into $17k so there must be a reasonable limit.

Let me explain this for you - his (retarded) point: Because tax payers that pay for these food stamps, instead of saving for things (you know - like retirement), they are instead supplying it to bottom feeders that will IMMEDIATELY spend that money, and they will immediately spend it on retailers such as Walmart so they can make their investors happy, and they will thus acheive new highs. Thus, GDP growth - all of which - is no basis for actually helping the poor get off their feet - it is simply the basis of money exchanging hands to corporate instead of sitting in a responsible person's investments.

 

[fskimospy]

Analysis that's meaningless if you don't know how it's spent. If you know how it's spent, why would it be difficult to manage it?

You seem to believe the government can manage healthcare. It can manage an immense tax code full of thousands of loopholes. But it's futile to determine how people spend their free food money?

"Liberals" have a screw loose.

Analysis that's meaningless if you don't know how it's spent why? This is what you guys always do; when presented with actual research into a topic the second it tells you something you don't like you never pause to think if you might be wrong, it's just that the analysis must be evil, useless, biased, etc.

Your post is a perfect example of the saying "people assume anything they don't understand must be easy to do".

It's not futile to determine how people spend their food money, it's just not effective. The logic is inescapable. If you give someone $300 and tell them that it can only be spent on food, they will find a way to spend that $300 on food whether they need it or not. If they are frugal with their spending they get no additional benefit. If they are smart with their assistance then they can use that extra cash to help with rent or whatever else.

Having poor people spend money on something they don't particularly want or need is not economically efficient.

 

[brandonb]

Anybody I have ever known that was on food stamps has approached me (I've been government assistant free my whole life and always have paid my own way. I'm 37 years old) and has proposed to me this scenario:

"Hey! Can I take you to the grocery store to buy food on my EBT? Can you pay me the cash for it?"

Now all these food stamp funds are being converted to cash so they can go blow it on hookers and blow.

It's not that hard to work around the food stamps to get cash.

 

[fskimospy]

So defense industry employees don't spend their income?

Defense industry employees tend to be more highly paid. The purpose of economic stimulus it to inject demand into the economy. More highly paid employees are less likely to immediately spend their stimulus money, therefore it is less effective at achieving the desired result.

Not to mention that feeding hungry people is probably a more worthwhile activity than building another tank.

 

[nehalem256]

Money is fungible. The only thing you do with food stamps is ensure that people spend at least that amount of money on food each month. Most people already spend that level or more, making it a waste of time.

Furthermore, it penalizes people who spend their food money most frugally and offers an incentive to spend more money than you need on food, which decreases its marginal benefit.

Your argument only makes sense assuming food stamps are providing drastically more money than people need for food. If I receive $100/month in food stamps and I frugally spend it all month and have $10 left on the 31st I would think that I would spend it on one nice meal.

Are you suggesting that food stamps are at such a level that I am going to end up with so much left at the end of the month I can do nothing but waste it?

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument only makes sense assuming food stamps are providing drastically more money than people need for food. If I receive $100/month in food stamps and I frugally spend it all month and have $10 left on the 31st I would think that I would spend it on one nice meal.

Are you suggesting that food stamps are at such a level that I am going to end up with so much left at the end of the month I can do nothing but waste it?

No, my point in no way depends on how much more money people need for food than what they spend. My point is that our program encourages wasteful spending by not distinguishing more frugal shoppers from less frugal shoppers.

 

[BoberFett]

Analysis that's meaningless if you don't know how it's spent why? This is what you guys always do; when presented with actual research into a topic the second it tells you something you don't like you never pause to think if you might be wrong, it's just that the analysis must be evil, useless, biased, etc.

Your post is a perfect example of the saying "people assume anything they don't understand must be easy to do".

It's not futile to determine how people spend their food money, it's just not effective. The logic is inescapable. If you give someone $300 and tell them that it can only be spent on food, they will find a way to spend that $300 on food whether they need it or not. If they are frugal with their spending they get no additional benefit. If they are smart with their assistance then they can use that extra cash to help with rent or whatever else.

Having poor people spend money on something they don't particularly want or need is not economically efficient.

You're essentially advocating a guaranteed income system. Here people, have money. Spend it on whatever you want. We don't care, because it drives the economy.

 

[rudder]

Funny how temporary increases that are scheduled to go away are called cuts and result in some kind of disaster.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Switch the program from a cash card to one that has vouchers for specific food staples, and I'll listen to complaints about cuts.

I've shopped with someone who got food stamps (I was dating her at the time) and I had to hold my tongue about some of the things she'd buy on the taxpayer dime.

Careful, Craig wished my death over suggesting such limitations.

 

[fskimospy]

You're essentially advocating a guaranteed income system. Here people, have money. Spend it on whatever you want. We don't care, because it drives the economy.

Nope, I'm sure not. (although I do support that).

What I'm saying is that if we're willing to give people $300 for food stamps both the US and those individuals would be better served by just giving those same people $300.

 

[nehalem256]

No, my point in no way depends on how much more money people need for food than what they spend. My point is that our program encourages wasteful spending by not distinguishing more frugal shoppers from less frugal shoppers.

Of course it depends on how much money they need for food.

If I were to give you $1000 to spend on food next month the only way you could possibly spend it would be to be wasteful.

If I gave you $100 to spend on food next month you would have to be frugal or you would be going hungry a lot of the month.

You have to have a certain amount of food money before you can afford to be wasteful. So unless you are arguing that food stamps is at that level you have no point.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/01/food-stamp-cuts-in-5-charts

Note how max food stamps after the cut will be at what the FDA calls the "Thrifty Spending Plan". So basically people on food stamps cannot afford to be wasteful.

 

[nixium]

More stupid budget cuts. Food stamps are estimated to have a fiscal multiplier of 1.7 or so, which makes them among the most effective forms of economic stimulus possible. If we're trying to cut the deficit in a way that doesn't hamper economic growth this is one of the worst ways possible.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

You nailed it, I hope the other idiots on this thread understand it now at least.

$5 billion is chump change, and no matter what they buy it's coming back to the economy anyway.

Republican (Tea Party) sociopathy strikes again.

Cut 5 billion from the defense budget which really isn't causing any economic activity except funeral/crematory services in the countries in which are getting bombed.