Oh Snap! Can anyone deny, Obama Nation= Food Stamp Nation? (The Obama surge)

[Danno 1,228]

Whats funny, is, right here on this very board, some predicted that Obama would be another Jimmy Carter because neither one understood economics.

And here we are this many years later grinding along playing with numbers to suggest we are really in a recover!!!!!

Yet the hordes of people falling into poverty tells us all we need to know.

OBAMA GOALS

-Health care (THOUGH ALMOST EVERYONE HAD COVERAGE)

-Green Energy (He pledged it would bring our economy back)

-Legalizing, Illegal immigrants.

-Banning guns that look scary AND 30 ROUND MAGAZINEs

Meanwhile tens of millions of people under his watch, can't even feed themselves.

[JohnR! 5,495]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/23/why-are-47-million-americans-on-food-stamps-its-the-recession-mostly/

There's a fairly basic question at the core of the current food-stamp debate in Congress. Why has the program grown so rapidly over the past few years — to the point where 47 million Americans, one-sixth of the country, now receive food stamps?

Defenders of the program typically argue that enrollment rose because we had a horrific recession and unemployment hit the stratosphere. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is supposed to kick in to help families hit by economic distress. The program has kept 4.7 million people out of poverty. There's no problem here. And so on.

Some conservatives, meanwhile, have emphasized that a big chunk of the increase is due to policy changes by Washington. In 2008, Congress allowed states to relax their standards for who could join the program. (Jobless adults could stay in the program if they lived in high-unemployment areas, for instance.) Then, as part of the 2009 stimulus bill, Congress temporarily boosted food-stamp benefits — the average benefit was $133 per month last year, although that increase expires this November.

So which explanation is right? Most evidence suggests that food-stamp enrollment has mainly risen due to the recession — although policy changes have played a smaller role:

1) Back in April 2012, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about "20 percent of the growth in [food-stamp] spending can be attributed to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors, such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries, both of which boost benefits."

Rebecka Ortiz offers Sariah a free sample of pasta while she was using her food stamp money to stock up on groceries. On the first of every month, Woonsocket, R.I., experiences its monthly financial windfall — nearly $2 million from SNAP. (Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

2) More recently, economists Peter Ganong and Jeffrey B. Liebman took a fresh look at the question in a NBER working paper and came to similar conclusions. They looked at the historical relationship between food-stamp enrollment and the economy prior to the most recent recession. When unemployment rose, food-stamp use always did too. And the current increase in food-stamp enrollment is in line with this historical pattern.

"We find that changes in local unemployment can explain at least two-thirds of the increase in enrollment from 2007 to 2011," they write. Meanwhile, state-level changes that allowed more people to apply for the program explain about 18 percent of the increase. "Total SNAP spending today is 6 percent higher than it would be without these increases in eligibility."

(Note that Ganong and Liebman's conclusion jibes with other work done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a recent paper by economists Hilary Hoynes and Marianne Bitler. For a dissenting view, see this post by the University of Chicago's Casey Mulligan.)

3) Another question, meanwhile, is why food stamp use hasn't fallen after the recession officially ended in 2009. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently argued that this isn't such a big mystery. Unemployment in the United States is still extremely high. And there are still 47 million Americans living in poverty — the highest number in two decades, according to the Census.

What's more, the Congressional Budget Office found that "decreases in [food-stamp] participation typically lagged improvement in the economy by several years." So the current plateau isn't unusual. The Congressional Budget Office expects the number of food-stamp recipients to decline by 14 million, or 30 percent, in the next 10 years as the economy improves:

So why does any of this matter?

These numbers are relevant to the ongoing debate in Congress over food stamps. House Republicans recently passed a bill that would tighten many of those relaxed eligibility requirements. The GOP's changes would save $40 billion over 10 years and push about 3.8 million people out of the program over the coming year.

Republicans, for their part, argue that the changes will give people incentive to get back to work. For example, many states currently allow jobless adults without children to stay on food stamps if they're living in high-unemployment areas. The GOP bill would cut these adults off if they don't find work or enroll in job-training or community service. (This change alone will save $19 billion over 10 years.) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office has put out an FAQ explaining his rationale for this bill here.

Critics of the food-stamp cuts counter that these changes will only increase hardship. Robert Greenstein argues that many of these adults kicked out of the program are unlikely to find jobs anytime soon, seeing as how the economy is still weak. So, he writes, the cuts are tantamount to to "denying benefits to needy people who try to find jobs but cannot do so and who aren’t offered a work program or job training slot."

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has two longer briefs here and here arguing that food-stamp enrollment is mainly elevated because unemployment is so high, and the best way to shrink the program would be to figure out ways to improve the economy — rather than the other way around.

Further reading:

-- Here's some research showing that food stamps are particularly effective at stabilizing the economy during a downturn. And here's a paper finding that children's access to food stamps can bolster their health and economic prospects as adults:

-- For those wondering about abuse or fraud in the program, here's a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report (pdf) on "trafficking" in the food-stamp program. Between 2009 and 2011, about $858 million worth of food stamps, or just 1.3 percent of all benefits, were traded at a discount for cash.

-- Here's an in-depth narrative look by Eli Saslow at the town of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, where one-third of the population is on food stamps.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As Walmart grows and becomes the employer of more people, more people will end up on sustenance programs. This is what the race to the bottom looks like. More than 1/3 of jobs in this country do not pay a living wage. This share has been growing for decades and is set to grow further. Where do you think the ever growing corporate profits come from? Who do you think pays for them?

Edited October 28, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[decocker 7,198]

This is what the race to the bottom looks like. More than 1/3 of jobs in this country do not pay a living wage. This share has been growing for decades and is set to grow further. Where do you think the ever growing corporate profits come from? Who do you think pays for them?

zomg.

memorize this danno. this is the truth.

i know you were just trying to get in the halloween spirit with your obama oh snap fear mongering!

(he really is coming for your guns )

[Danno 1,228]

As Walmart grows and becomes the employer of more people, more people will end up on sustenance programs. This is what the race to the bottom looks like. More than 1/3 of jobs in this country do not pay a living wage. This share has been growing for decades and is set to grow further. Where do you think the ever growing corporate profits come from? Who do you think pays for them?

As we keep dividing into two classes, those in each class will follow the paths they set before them.

Class 1. Educated much more likely to be married (combined income)

Class 2. Little education more likely not married.

Society has changed, don't blame the Engineer blame the lightly skilled person with the minimum education paying child support.

The reason you can't compare wages to 4 decades ago is because we are socially a different country.

IN 1960 something like 85% of men 40 were married, today that number is in half. Most of that difference is in the mid to lower incomes.

MARRIAGE RATES ARE MUCH HIGHER FOR HIGH INCOME EARNERS.

[Danno 1,228]

[JohnR! 5,495]

Your graph put together with the divorce rate graph suggests more people get married nowadays than back in the mid 20th century...

[decocker 7,198]

that was the most amazing leap in danno logic i have ever witnessed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As we keep dividing into two classes, those in each class will follow the paths they set before them.

Class 1. Educated much more likely to be married (combined income)

Class 2. Little education more likely not married.

Society has changed, don't blame the Engineer blame the lightly skilled person with the minimum education paying child support.

The reason you can't compare wages to 4 decades ago is because we are socially a different country.

IN 1960 something like 85% of men 40 were married, today that number is in half. Most of that difference is in the mid to lower incomes.

MARRIAGE RATES ARE MUCH HIGHER FOR HIGH INCOME EARNERS.

Danno, there are not enough jobs in this country that people can actually make a living on. That has nothing to do with marriage or education, it has to do with the fact that wages have eroded while profits have soared since the 1980's. It's a long term trend. It's the race to the bottom. You can deny that all you want but the facts are what they are: the facts. One out of three jobs in this country pays less than a living wage. Naturally, there will be many people unable to sustain themselves no matter how hard they try.

[JohnR! 5,495]

that was the most amazing leap in danno logic i have ever witnessed.

Somehow your post has me thinking of expressions such as 'military intelligence', 'deafening silence', 'religious science', 'destructive creation', 'numb feeling' and others...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

that was the most amazing leap in danno logic i have ever witnessed.

"danno logic" is actually an oxymoron.

Somehow your post has me thinking of expressions such as 'military intelligence', 'deafening silence', 'religious science', 'destructive creation', 'numb feeling' and others...

beat me to it...

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

Danno, there are not enough jobs in this country that people can actually make a living on. That has nothing to do with marriage or education, it has to do with the fact that wages have eroded while profits have soared since the 1980's. It's a long term trend. It's the race to the bottom. You can deny that all you want but the facts are what they are: the facts. One out of three jobs in this country pays less than a living wage. Naturally, there will be many people unable to sustain themselves no matter how hard they try.

LOL, hard to talk logic to some people.

Corporations, particularly multinational corporations, are the most treasonous entities in America.

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

McDonald's Employee Helpline Solution: Food Stamps

Oct. 24, 2013

McDonald's today responded to a group's posting of a video that portrays the company's help line giving its employees information on how to collect food stamps because they are not paid enough to make ends meet.

A website called LowPayIsNotOk.org, which is described as a campaign of fast food workers in favor of a $15 an hour wage, features a recording of a purported McDonald's worker named Nancy, a mother of two who has worked at the fast food giant full-time for 10 years. The worker, according to the video, says she receives $8.25 an hour and has never received a raise. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.

When Nancy calls McDonald's employee "McResource" help line for assistance to support her family, a female voice tells her she will provide a number for Nancy to receive public assistance.

Read More: Why McDonald's Can't Let Go of its $1 Menu

"You can ask about things like food pantries. Are you on SNAP? SNAP is a supplemental nutritional assistance program -- food stamps. Do you have kids?"

A spokeswoman for McDonald's provided a statement, defending its McResource line and job opportunities.

"This video is not an accurate portrayal of the resource line as this is very obviously an edited video," according to the statement from McDonald's USA. "The fact is that the McResource Line is intended to be a free, confidential service to help employees and their families get answers to a variety of questions or provide resources on a variety of topics including housing, child care, transportation, grief, elder care, education and more."

McDonald's would not elaborate on what was inaccurate about the video.

In Photos: Weirdest McDonald's Menu Items Around the World

The female voice also tells Nancy she would "most likely" be eligible for SNAP benefits, and that it's a federal program. She later asks if Nancy, "Did you try to get on Medicaid?"

McDonald's says that it and its independent franchisees "provide jobs in every state to hundreds of thousands of people across the country."

"Those jobs range from entry-level part-time to full-time, from minimum wage to salaried positions, and we offer everyone the same opportunity for advancement," McDonald's says.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mcdonalds-employee-helpline-shows-workers-food-stamps/story?id=20668024

Edited October 28, 2013 by Sarah and Adnan

[Teddy B 17,252]

Oh Snap! Can anyone deny, Obama Nation= Food Stamp Nation? (The Obama surge)

Danno, shouldn't the title of this thread read:

Yo Snap bytch! Can anyone deny my nizzle, Obama Nation = Food Stamp Nation fo shizzle?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Danno, shouldn't the title of this thread read:

Yo Snap bytch! Can anyone deny my nizzle, Obama Nation = Food Stamp Nation fo shizzle?

Now that's slang. You speak it better than me, now I'm jealous