How Many People Around You Receive Food Stamps?

[michigancat]

hmm

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27517.msg821194#msg821194

that's not inefficient, that's a tragedy of the commons.

it is most definitely both

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

[michigancat]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

[Rage Against the McKee]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

What's the criteria for "effective?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.

Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?

[8manpick]

One thing I would never want to do is take the booze and cigarettes away from the poors. They need it worse than us.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?

[steve dave]

IT'S AN OBJECTIVE STUDY OFF!

[Emo EMAW]

I hate to get in the middle of this...but please make sure any studies posted are peer reviewed.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

What's the criteria for "effective?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.

Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?

I think they're just prepaid credit cards.

[michigancat]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?

http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-and-obesity-the-facts-and-fictions-of-snap-nutrition/

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?

Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079

Still waiting for an answer on why Michelle Obama wants to take vending machines out of the schools and send notes home to parents who aren't packing a healthy lunch, but doesn't say a word about how SNAP is spent?

[Rage Against the McKee]

people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.

btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.

What's the criteria for "effective?"

efficient.  when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value.  basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.

the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.

Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?

I think they're just prepaid credit cards.

So the unspent portion just carries over to the next month?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-and-obesity-the-facts-and-fictions-of-snap-nutrition/

That study, sponsored by the same agency that administers the program, focuses only on correlation between SNAP usage and obesity. It ignores how the money is being spent, but if you read further down, you'll find:

So we want to improve SNAP nutrition—where can we begin? It isn’t as simple as just focusing on cost and health. Studies show that people will choose foods that contribute minimal nutritional value, even if those foods cost just a little bit more and are worse for your health in the long run. Eating habits are influenced by a wide variety of factors, including socio-economic and demographic characteristics, ethnic or familial traditions, convenience, advertising, and even biological triggers that make us more prone to eating foods high in sugar, salt, and fat. Thus any reforms made to the SNAP program have to take into account human behavior; changes that seem rational may not actually be effective in increasing nutrition of SNAP clients.

First of all, a report commissioned by the USDA found that simply increasing the SNAP benefits of participants—under the assumption that having more money would allow SNAP users to purchase higher cost nutrient-dense foods—did not result in an increase in the consumption of these foods. Other purchases tend to take precedence over healthy eating, unless income increases significantly. Instead, behavioral economics indicates that financial incentives for healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are more effective. Giving SNAP participants coupons or money back when they purchase produce does result in higher consumption of fruits and vegetables; but even then, SNAP participants do not consume as many fruits and vegetables as recommended by federal guidelines.

A more innovative and successful approach to reforming SNAP may involve changing how foods are purchased. SNAP users offered the option of pre-ordering food baskets (instead of taking trips to the grocery store) bought significantly more healthy foods and fewer unhealthy foods. Giving SNAP participants the option of choosing when their SNAP benefits arrive (e.g., monthly, biweekly, or weekly) can also increase the purchase of healthy foods, as perishable items can be purchased more easily. Studies show that providing SNAP clients with a “suggested” budget for their SNAP benefits (e.g., allocate $40 for leafy green vegetables) can help SNAP users spend their money more wisely. And distributing low-cost bowls and dishes with visual graphics that represent recommended portion size may be a more productive use of SNAP-Ed resources.

[michigancat]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?

Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079

$2 billion out of $75 billion in total benefits doesn't seem that bad at all.

[michigancat]

http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-and-obesity-the-facts-and-fictions-of-snap-nutrition/

That study, sponsored by the same agency that administers the program, focuses only on correlation between SNAP usage and obesity. It ignores how the money is being spent, but if you read further down, you'll find:

So we want to improve SNAP nutrition—where can we begin? It isn’t as simple as just focusing on cost and health. Studies show that people will choose foods that contribute minimal nutritional value, even if those foods cost just a little bit more and are worse for your health in the long run. Eating habits are influenced by a wide variety of factors, including socio-economic and demographic characteristics, ethnic or familial traditions, convenience, advertising, and even biological triggers that make us more prone to eating foods high in sugar, salt, and fat. Thus any reforms made to the SNAP program have to take into account human behavior; changes that seem rational may not actually be effective in increasing nutrition of SNAP clients.

First of all, a report commissioned by the USDA found that simply increasing the SNAP benefits of participants—under the assumption that having more money would allow SNAP users to purchase higher cost nutrient-dense foods—did not result in an increase in the consumption of these foods. Other purchases tend to take precedence over healthy eating, unless income increases significantly. Instead, behavioral economics indicates that financial incentives for healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are more effective. Giving SNAP participants coupons or money back when they purchase produce does result in higher consumption of fruits and vegetables; but even then, SNAP participants do not consume as many fruits and vegetables as recommended by federal guidelines.

A more innovative and successful approach to reforming SNAP may involve changing how foods are purchased. SNAP users offered the option of pre-ordering food baskets (instead of taking trips to the grocery store) bought significantly more healthy foods and fewer unhealthy foods. Giving SNAP participants the option of choosing when their SNAP benefits arrive (e.g., monthly, biweekly, or weekly) can also increase the purchase of healthy foods, as perishable items can be purchased more easily. Studies show that providing SNAP clients with a “suggested” budget for their SNAP benefits (e.g., allocate $40 for leafy green vegetables) can help SNAP users spend their money more wisely. And distributing low-cost bowls and dishes with visual graphics that represent recommended portion size may be a more productive use of SNAP-Ed resources.

yeah, it's a very nice article.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?

Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079

$2 billion out of $75 billion in total benefits doesn't seem that bad at all.

It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.

[Emo EMAW]

I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?

doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.

Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! 

do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.

Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?

Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079

$2 billion out of $75 billion in total benefits doesn't seem that bad at all.

2.6% seems like a lot.  What's the percentage difference between the budgets proposed by R's and D's? 

[michigancat]

It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.

Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You can use EBT cards at fast food restaurants in many states.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.

Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.

That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.

By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Can you explain what Michelle Obama's nutrition reforms are, K-S-U-Wildcats!, and how they've been implemented? I'm just curious if this is a real thing or just another case of some person believing the contents of a chain email.

[michigancat]

It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.

Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.

That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.

By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?

I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.

Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.

Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.

That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.

By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?

I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.

Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"?

Because that would piss off a core voting bloc.

[sys]

Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?

it's not that the recipients don't use the benefits, it's that restrictions force them to use them for stuff they don't want or need, or stuff that they want or need less than what they're allowed to use them for.  that can lead nebulous inefficiencies (e.g. someone purchases allowed cold food that they don't have want, but consume joylessly) less nebulous inefficiencies (e.g. someone purchases allowed cold food that they don't have time to prepare and end up throwing away after it rots in their refrigerator while they spend scarce cash on prepared food) or concrete inefficiencies (e.g. someone purchases allowed cold food that they sell at half price to a neighbor for cash).


i forget where i heard or saw it, but i recall one specific example of a person that used their entire food stamps benefit on canned beverages, dumped the contents out in the parking lot and immediately traded in the cans for the deposits to convert the benefit into cash, albeit at pennies on the dollar.

[06wildcat]

It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.

Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.

That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.

By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?

I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.

Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"?

Because that would piss off a core voting bloc.

Multi-national food conglomerates aren't really a voting bloc so much as a financial block. They're a much larger deterrent to SNAP reform than the peons actually receiving benefits. I'm sure Pepsi, Frito-Lay, Coke etc. have really good estimates of how much SNAP money is spent on their products.