We all would like our fellow human beings to have enough to eat. The main issue with SNAP is certainly not money cost, since it is a very small part of our national income. The classic issue in welfare is whether society provides help in money or in kind. From an economic efficiency point of view in theory it is better to give help in the form of money and allow the recipient to decide how to spend it, but the other side of this is that the recipient may decide to spend the money in a way that society does not approve of. SNAP does not completely prevent this because money is fungible and a household that has to spend less of their other income on food can spend more of it on other things to some degree, and in particular on things the society does not approve of.
The provision of aid in kind or partially in kind runs into another problem. Unless the aid is provided universally to everyone in the society, as what economists call a "public good", some eligibility criteria are necessary to decide who can receive the benefit. These criteria almost always involve money income levels, and as a result give rise to unintended disincentives, as when a household faces the choice between an opportunity to increase its money income from other sources, but will lose eligibility for SNAP as a consequence. These effects are often called "poverty traps", since they tend to make it more difficult for households to improve their income standing in the market economy.
Full disclosure: Duncan Foley is a life long friend and award winning economist from MIT and the New School for Social Research. He raises a number of important issues: regarding SNAP benefits, should people get money or food? And should it be rationed or universal? I think the Food Stamp solution, by giving people stamps, is a compromise between giving people money and giving them food, though in theory one can imagine a black market for Food Stamps, which as far as I know hasn't been a big problem. The country has many problems, but the clamoring is for cheaper gasoline, not peanut butter. The trickle down of cheese and peanut butter was a benefit to me personally, to say nothing of one to dairy and peanut farmers, their communities, and suppliers. It also has been a negligible loss for supermarkets, don't you think?
This nation is in such debt, they're just trying to free up money to help replace their arsenal of bombs and missiles. Food on the table for "useless eaters" is a waste. It's just another fine example of doofus-cit spending. The cost of troops to protect supermarkets from looting will be much higher than a few billion bucks for SNAP. Cheaper ALDI desserts ain't gonna save us.
Not thinking clearly is a result of eating poorly, so brace for an uncertain future…or a terrifying one where votes can be bought with an executive order to declare a Big Mac and fries for all.
We all would like our fellow human beings to have enough to eat. The main issue with SNAP is certainly not money cost, since it is a very small part of our national income. The classic issue in welfare is whether society provides help in money or in kind. From an economic efficiency point of view in theory it is better to give help in the form of money and allow the recipient to decide how to spend it, but the other side of this is that the recipient may decide to spend the money in a way that society does not approve of. SNAP does not completely prevent this because money is fungible and a household that has to spend less of their other income on food can spend more of it on other things to some degree, and in particular on things the society does not approve of.
The provision of aid in kind or partially in kind runs into another problem. Unless the aid is provided universally to everyone in the society, as what economists call a "public good", some eligibility criteria are necessary to decide who can receive the benefit. These criteria almost always involve money income levels, and as a result give rise to unintended disincentives, as when a household faces the choice between an opportunity to increase its money income from other sources, but will lose eligibility for SNAP as a consequence. These effects are often called "poverty traps", since they tend to make it more difficult for households to improve their income standing in the market economy.
Full disclosure: Duncan Foley is a life long friend and award winning economist from MIT and the New School for Social Research. He raises a number of important issues: regarding SNAP benefits, should people get money or food? And should it be rationed or universal? I think the Food Stamp solution, by giving people stamps, is a compromise between giving people money and giving them food, though in theory one can imagine a black market for Food Stamps, which as far as I know hasn't been a big problem. The country has many problems, but the clamoring is for cheaper gasoline, not peanut butter. The trickle down of cheese and peanut butter was a benefit to me personally, to say nothing of one to dairy and peanut farmers, their communities, and suppliers. It also has been a negligible loss for supermarkets, don't you think?
This nation is in such debt, they're just trying to free up money to help replace their arsenal of bombs and missiles. Food on the table for "useless eaters" is a waste. It's just another fine example of doofus-cit spending. The cost of troops to protect supermarkets from looting will be much higher than a few billion bucks for SNAP. Cheaper ALDI desserts ain't gonna save us.
Not thinking clearly is a result of eating poorly, so brace for an uncertain future…or a terrifying one where votes can be bought with an executive order to declare a Big Mac and fries for all.