Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

I didn't think about the subsidizing of lower-income grocery stores, but it does say that grocery store purchases tend to only be about 7.5% food stamp. That seems relatively minor if this saves billions.

1. That figure is for grocery stores as a whole - which includes those in rich neighborhoods that don't make a dime off of SNAP. In poorer neighborhoods, it is often thirty percent or more - in a business with razor-thin profit margins to begin with.

2. The possibility of this saving billions is extremely low. It is, in fact, virtually impossible.

[Frumple]

But I suppose I can't complain about people making bad decisions, because the government also gives people cell phones and whatnot, too, which is hardly the most effective way to spend money to improve things.

hey, missed this

It apparently needs to be stated, but a cell phone is literally one of the most cost effective things you can give a low income person in this country. It's just about one of the best damn ideas you can have in a modern economy to try to help someone support themselves. It's next to impossible to get a job without a means to call or be called by employers. Giving someone the means to find aid services (from financial assistance to, y'know, ambulances), job search, keep directions on tap, and so on (e.g. a net capable phone) is one of the biggest aids you can possibly give them, and while things like libraries and job centers exist, they also have hours and limited seating.

You're talking a sub 200 dollar investment* that is at least as valuable as friggin' transit, very much possibly significantly moreso depending on the area. Cell phones being a waste is frankly right-wing propaganda freakishly disconnected from the realities of a modern economy. The things are the exact opposite of a waste, and to a huge degree.

* Incidentally, SNAP lower/lowest allowance for a single person was 300/month a few years back, here in florida. So you're talking less than a month's worth of food for what will last months and quite possibly be the only way the person can find and keep a job, or get an education, or make sure their kid doesn't die to a medical emergency, or on, and on, and on.

[Dunamisdeos]

I didn't think about the subsidizing of lower-income grocery stores, but it does say that grocery store purchases tend to only be about 7.5% food stamp. That seems relatively minor if this saves billions.

1. That figure is for grocery stores as a whole - which includes those in rich neighborhoods that don't make a dime off of SNAP. In poorer neighborhoods, it is often thirty percent or more - in a business with razor-thin profit margins to begin with.

2. The possibility of this saving billions is extremely low. It is, in fact, virtually impossible.

Hmmm yeah I'm finding some reports that claim stamps can be up to/exceeding half of a store's profits in such areas.

What's your reasoning on the possibility of saving billions? It would obviously cost more for the state for distribution and the like, but the feds would probably save a good chunk, would they not?

But I suppose I can't complain about people making bad decisions, because the government also gives people cell phones and whatnot, too, which is hardly the most effective way to spend money to improve things.

hey, missed this

It apparently needs to be stated, but a cell phone is literally one of the most cost effective things you can give a low income person in this country.  -snip-

This is some good and very true info.

[Reelya]

Also, grocery stores are in competition, and that includes for food stamp money, and competition naturally has a downward pressure on prices.

Food stamp users naturally care about cost, because then you can get more with your food stamps. Food stamp recipients can select to spend it on imported goods, fresh local produce, or national farm produce. Trump's plan is protectionist and nationalistic and a monopoly. So recipients won't be able to choose imports or local fresh produce, even if these are better value. Thus you get market distortion.

Trump talks about this being better because "wholesale" but that misses the point. The people selling the food also get it wholesale, then they sell it retail - but retail food is an extremely competitive market. The mark-up is mainly for local labor, which improves employment in the very neighborhoods that need food stamps. When those jobs go, because of "saving money" now you have more people eligible for food stamps.

And if only national produce from big farms is allowed, then of course this will be an upward pressure on costs, since cheaper alternatives are disallowed, and you've artificially driven up demand on the class of goods that you're still allowing. That will push up prices of those same commodities for non-food stamp consumers, while lowering the price of imports (since less food stamp money will be spent on imports). This will then shift regular consumer's consumption patterns in a way that entirely negates the intentions of the protectionism.

(EDIT: there's also the danger that if you give people food that they don't want then more of it will just go uneaten. Food waste is already a thing, and that's when people buy food they want. See examples such as school dinners where vegetables don't get eaten. Forcing "eat this or else" food on welfare recipients would be the same deal).

[misko27]

EDIT: note that in this case "having the right to know" that the money is being spent as well as possible is an extremely expensive thing to monitor. It's cheaper just not to monitor it at all. Conversely, handing out pre-packaged goods means you need to continuously optimize that based on nutrition research, and you might not be taking human psychology into account. e.g. I read people complaining that some food stamps get spent on soda or snacks. However, soda and snacks are extremely cheap sources of calories, plus they break up the monotony of eating bland food all the time, so they in fact help you stay sane and feel "human". Giving people a food hamper of only "healthy" canned / preserved food would be like living on prison food for the rest of your life - bad for mental health and motivation.

It's very important to remember this point because of what it does for the burden of proof. It's not just an inefficiency: it's a lot of extra money to spend in order to monitor people, and I need no proof to argue that monitering people and/or restricting what they can buy reduce their personal freedom to live their lives. So we know the costs: what precisely are the benefits? the burden of proof is on the people arguing in favor of this. They must prove that its worth the cost, not the other way around.

[Baffler]

* Incidentally, SNAP lower/lowest allowance for a single person was 300/month a few years back, here in florida.

Is that $300/mo for a single person that they get on their EBT card? Because if so that's nearly double my monthly food budget. Maybe groceries are more expensive in FL than OH, but I could eat like lesser nobility with that much money all to myself.

[Lord Shonus]

That doesn't sound right. A check of government sources says that the maximum possible SNAP monthly benefits for a single-person household is $192. If I understand the formula correctly, getting even this much would require the person to make less than $800 a month ($9600 per year), own no vehicles or other assets, and mandate that our theoretical person works at least 20 hours a week.

[Culise]

To be fair, it changes from year to year, and it seems SNAP benefits have been dropping due ostensibly to reductions in food prices.  $300 to $192 seems a little steep, but depending on how long ago a "few years" is, that may predate the November 2013 end of the Recovery Act of 2009.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's quite enough; this asserts that the maximum benefit back in October 2013 was $200, which is still short by an even $100 dollars but may alternately be attributed to a typo.

[Frumple]

It was 300/month on the EBT card, yes. Never got around to looking up details, though, so don't ask me the hows or whys, all I know is that was the amount and I kept having to holler at family that no, I wasn't going to max it out every month by buying significantly more than I could actually eat. Quick check of time stamps on old homework places the time around the 2012-2013 range. At the time I was flat unemployed, point of applying not even attending school (going back actually caused me to lose the aid after a bit, heh).

Also yeah, never mind double the food budget, it was better than triple what I had been living off of, and even with significantly improving my diet I still had a good chunk of it left. Possible the best I've ate for a period of time in my life, ha, and that without actually using much of it.

Though I... guess it might not have been SNAP? In retrospect, I wasn't paying attention to the name beyond thinking of it as food stamps. Any case, for whatever reason they were giving a single unemployed person three hundred a month for food. Had assumed that was low end, 'cause gods know single/no income basically means you're fucked in florida so far as assistance goes, but if what y'all are looking at is the normal, apparently something odd was going on. Huh.

[martinuzz]

So it has come to light that Trump's lawyer has paid a porn-actress 130k dollars out of his own pocket to keep her quiet.
It's alleged that Trump had an affair with the porn actress in 2006. Both Trump and the lawyer have denied that, yet now it has come out that the lawyer paid her to keep quiet, making the denial a lot less credible.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/trumps-advocaat-betaalde-porno-actrice-130-duizend-dollar-uit-eigen-zak-zodat-ze-zou-zwijgen-over-vermeende-affaire~a4569545/

[nenjin]

I'm sure the faithful will find a way to rationalize it. They have every other time a Republican has been caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach.

[Jopax]

Welp, time to start stocking up on them non-perishable foodstuffs then.

[Ametsala]

So it has come to light that Trump's lawyer has paid a porn-actress 130k dollars out of his own pocket to keep her quiet.
It's alleged that Trump had an affair with the porn actress in 2006. Both Trump and the lawyer have denied that, yet now it has come out that the lawyer paid her to keep quiet, making the denial a lot less credible.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/trumps-advocaat-betaalde-porno-actrice-130-duizend-dollar-uit-eigen-zak-zodat-ze-zou-zwijgen-over-vermeende-affaire~a4569545/

Uhh... That news was fresh about a month ago. Wasn't it reported in the Netherlands until now?
Here, the Wall Street Journal article about it from January 12
And Guardian's article from January 13, which shows the BuzzFeed tweet containing the actress's statement saying there was no hanky panky and she took no hush money.

Not sure if it was discussed here, though. Personally, I don't find it relevant to his presidency who he may have hanky pankyed with in 2006, so I categorize this under People cashing in on old dirt.

[misko27]

That's sort of what i was mentioning earlier. One of the points of cutting during economic growth is you have room to spend during crises.

I've seen some people and some political opinions say that Trump's spending is the triumph of liberals under Obama, but that's quite misleading. It's quite dangerous...

[martinuzz]

So it has come to light that Trump's lawyer has paid a porn-actress 130k dollars out of his own pocket to keep her quiet.
It's alleged that Trump had an affair with the porn actress in 2006. Both Trump and the lawyer have denied that, yet now it has come out that the lawyer paid her to keep quiet, making the denial a lot less credible.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/trumps-advocaat-betaalde-porno-actrice-130-duizend-dollar-uit-eigen-zak-zodat-ze-zou-zwijgen-over-vermeende-affaire~a4569545/

Uhh... That news was fresh about a month ago. Wasn't it reported in the Netherlands until now?
Here, the Wall Street Journal article about it from January 12
And Guardian's article from January 13, which shows the BuzzFeed tweet containing the actress's statement saying there was no hanky panky and she took no hush money.

Not sure if it was discussed here, though. Personally, I don't find it relevant to his presidency who he may have hanky pankyed with in 2006, so I categorize this under People cashing in on old dirt.

Yea, I didn't read the article well, it even says that the alleged affair, and the 130k payment is old news. The new thing about it, which is why it is a new article, is that it just became known that the lawyer paid it with his own personal money.