Top Five Myths About Food Stamps The latest outrage du jour from the left are the draconian food stamp cuts that hit individuals and families on November 1, 2013. The media and talking heads have pointed to the Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts, which range from $11 a month to $36 a month depending on the size of the family receiving the assistance. At the outset, let me preface this post by saying that there is no doubt people are struggling to make ends meet in Obamaâs economy. However, at the same time, there are some serious myths being pushed with respect to SNAP that need to be addressed in order for folks on both sides to be capable of having educated discussions regarding the program. Below are some truths regarding SNAP which few folks point to, acknowledge, or (perhaps) are even aware of. 1. The food stamp âcutâ that took place on November 1, 2013 was put in place by Democrats and President Obama. Yes, this is true. The increased funding to SNAP was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as âThe Stimulus.â This part of the bill had a sunset provision that the increased funding ended on October 31, 2013. As a reminder, the stimulus was passed by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in 2009 (without a single Republican vote) and was passed by the Senate (with two GOP votes, both Senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins). Though the bill would have passed the Senate without Snowe and Collins, since the GOP did not have the forty votes needed to block cloture. President Obama knowingly and willingly signed the Stimulus Bill into law, which was his crowning achievement until Obamacare. So, it is entirely fair to say that â like the âPayroll Tax Cutâ â the Democrats drafted the bill with a sunset provision when they did not need to and, therefore, are totally responsible for this Food Stamp cut. 2. Food stamps are meant to be supplemental, not the primary source of nourishment for needy individuals and families. The first word in the SNAP acronym is âsupplemental.â Many on the left tend to forget this when describing SNAP. That is, the program is designed to supplement the food budgets of needy families. In an attempt to gain media attention, many on the left joined the contrived âSNAP Challengeâ to try and live on a SNAP budget for a week. The point of the âSNAP Challengeâ was to show how the amount of money provided by food stamps is paltry and how the GOP was simply evil for not immediately tripling the food stamp budget⦠or something. Because food stamps are supposed to supplement existing food budgets, the âSNAP Challengeâ was complete and utter nonsense. It ignored the fact that individuals are supposed to be committing their own money to their food budgets in addition to SNAP benefits. Whether their own money comes from public assistance, a part-time job, or whatever other source, it should be considered in order to get a full picture of how an individual or family on SNAP should be spending his, her, or their money. However, even with this in mind, it should be noted that many on the right slayed the âSNAP Challengeâ dragon with some smart and savvy shopping. Isnât coupon clipping, comparison & bulk shopping, and deal-hunting something people should be doing anyway? 3. Government makes food stamp dollars less valuable. Inflation hurts. While overall inflation has remained âtameâ according to the CPI, this measurement excludes food and fuel, which have grown in price over the years. This has been particularly true since 2009. Increases in the food CPI-U rose to a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 2.6 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012, after increasing at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 1.5 percent for the first 9 months of 2012. From December 2011 to December 2012, the index increased 1.8 percent. The 5-year annualized change in the food index from December 2007 to December 2012 was 2.6 percent. The food at home component jumped in the fourth quarter to a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 3.5 percent, after slight increases of 0.5 percent, 0.8 percent, and 0.2 percent in the first three quarters respectively. All six of the major item categories within the food at home index increased, led by a 7.9 percent increase in the index for dairy and related products, and a 5.6 percent increase in the index for fruits and vegetables. The indexes for cereal and bakery products and meats, poultry, fish, and eggs increased at more moderate paces of 3.6 percent and 3.0 percent, while the indexes for nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials and other food at home increased at near equal rates of 1.8 percent and 1.7 percent. Prices were up across the board within cereal and bakery products, led by a 9.8 percent increase in the index for white bread, with only a decrease of 1.8 percent in the price of cookies. The increase in prices for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs was led by an increase of 10.2 percent in the index for poultry, including an increase of 12.0 percent in the index for chicken. Within the dairy and related products index, the milk index jumped to 15.9 percent during the fourth quarter after a 2.2 percent increase in the third quarter and decreases in each of the first two quarters. The increase in the index for fruits and vegetables was led by a 52.8 percent increase in tomato prices and a 43.3 percent increase in the price of oranges. By admission, the Federal Reserve is attempting to stimulate the economy by âmildlyâ stoking inflation. Though what this does is drive up the prices of things that lower- and middle-class folks depend on most: food, fuel, education, and health care. In essence, when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply through QE and causes price inflation, the lower- and middle-class hurt the most. Those on SNAP get less bang for their buck, so to speak. Scott Lincicome over at The Federalist wrote an excellent post on rising beef costs which are due to Uncle Sam. I encourage you to read it. More...
Well I guess we are talking two different things. I like to use the federal budget as the total to better illustrate the point of how small welfare fraud is in relation to total expenses. My assumption of 7% fraud rates for welfare over-all was essentially correct. So it was not a faulty assumption at all. This was the post Quote from futurecurrents: I ran some numbers on it some time ago. However it did require making some guesses. The essential point is that the waste is far less in terms of the over-all budget than many presume and there is far more money being wasted on the defense budget. But of course the idea of lazy people getting supported is more offensive than that of defense contractors overcharging and politicians pushing excessive money at the MIC. That's understandable. Unfortunately it's the price of helping the majority that really need it. You responded... What is "far less"? If waste is 15%, is that far less? Probably. Acceptable? Hell no. What about 25%? There's no way in hell it's 1%. No way. Feel free to provide the "numbers you ran some time ago" so I can review. If you are correct, I will certainly bow to them.
"Standard of Living vs. Food Prices "Despite the massive increases in food prices we really donât know how much better or worse off the average family is unless we look at household income compared to how much we spend on food. In other words, percentage of income spent on food. We look at this more in depth in the article Cost of Living: How Much of Your Budget Goes to Food? and Lynn Carpenterâs Cost of Living- Real Basket of Goods but basically the BLS estimates that U.S. citizens spend approximately 14% of their household income on food (8.3% at home and 5.8% at restaurants). But it is difficult to compare that directly with 1913 because many modern households have two incomes while in 1913 the majority of households had one fulltime income, plus the wife may have only had âegg moneyâ from selling home grown produce and eggs. The average annual income in 1913 was only $800/yr. In 2012, the median household income was $44,389. and had 1.35 wage earners so if we divide $44,389 by 1.35 we get an average annual income of $32,880. Thus the average annual income increased by 4010% so even potatoes have become relatively cheaper i.e. our standard of living has increased." More>>
Yes, but you conveniently left out my original question to you about how SNAP fraud was 1%. I asked if you had numbers to support, that, to which you then replied you did "some math". SNAP fraud is 12%. Not 1%, if we are to believe gwb's data. The discussion of whether SNAP fraud is relevant should be in comparison to the SNAP budget. Not the total US budget (with military, and everything else thrown in). What kind of comparison is that? Why not compare it to world GDP or some equally worthless (and convenient) stat?
I've already presented the data from a century ago to the present. For the average household food has never been cheaper.
One thing about this 12% fraud number, that bleeding heart liberal lefties like futures current miss the point about is that the number only includes cases of actual fraud it does not include cases where someone is intentionally lazy so they decide not to get a job and rather live off the system. There is no one who is able bodied who should be able to live off welfare or food stamps for more than a couple months, yet obama, and the liberals want to make it easier for these people to get on and easy for them to stay on. To say that only 12% of the people truly could not get by on their own without the program is not even close. Also you have the other costs of these cockroaches that no one ever considers. When shaniqua pops out 13 babies without a father and 10 of them end up in and out of jails and in and out of the court system their entire life, on top of the damage they cause to their own communities 1 fucked up kid ends up costing society millions of dollars. If you turn around and do the math on what an average person pays in taxes per year, 1 persons taxes is not even enough to pick up the tab on 1 fucked up welfare baby. So now if you consider the fact that hard working people are no longer even having enough kids to replace themselves, while shaniqua the welfare mom pops out 13 kids 10 of which are going to live off the system, you can see how eventually the entire welfare state has to collapse.
Alright, look, Ricter. I work in the CPG industry. I've said this before - we make approximately 60 brands you would recognize in the food store. Our internal data shows pricing (equivalent pricing - by ounce, etc) at the highest levels since 2008 (which was the all time high). With record number of food stamp participants and high prices, or quality sacrificing, how can you possibly make the statement that food has never been cheaper?
I agree wholeheartedly. But it's hard enough to get them to admit to the actual published data. You honestly expect them to acknowledge the logic in your commentary? Best of luck!
The data I presented is cost over income. So if costs are higher... you do the math. Edit: perhaps I should have said "more affordable". As for food stamp usage, yes, I'm aware that we have too much inequality in this country.