US Bishops: Save SNAP

[SamH]

Isn’t that what Bush did with the bank bailout?

Not really.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Not really.

There were a lot of banks that deserved to go under that didn’t because of it.

 

[SamH]

I guess one could say that simplistically.

In reality, though, TARP1b (the version actually implemented by Bush) was designed to unlock the inter-bank freeze-up occasioned when derivatives became so uncertain in value that no bank could possibly know whether its “fed funds” would be returned. That was a resolution of a liquidity crisis, not a bailout.

In addition, it allowed (forced in some cases) banks to borrow money from the government and call it “equity”. In most cases, it wasn’t needed and banks hurried to get rid of it. In the handful of “too big to fails”, it might have been needed if the derivatives, swaps, etc, in their portfolios were “marked to market”, since nobody knew what a reasonable “market” actually was and for a time there was no market. It additionally allowed solvent banks to acquire failing banks, which saved the FDIC from going insolvent. In that sense, it was the FDIC that was “bailed out”, not the acquiring banks.

But it was not, at that point, a “bailout” of banks except in the sense that it prevented (poorly conceived) “mark to market” rules from causing a catastrophic liquidity crisis.

I will readily agree, however, that TARP got morphed into other things that truly were “bailouts”.

The liquidity crisis could have been easily solved with a temporary suspension of the Mark to Market rule on certain assets - in the end costing the taxpayers little or nothing while enabling the economy to recover.

 

[Trader]

Or just help the poor - much less become less dependent?

There is more than one way to measure the success of an antipoverty prorgam:

Typical bureaucrat: We measure success by the number of people helped and the money spent. Unbelievably, the money spent is more important to them.

Rush Limbaugh: Measure success by the number of people who no longer need help.

I suggest higher standards: How many people who received help are now helping others?
and, are children brought up by their parents in a way that they do not require government help for basic needs?

SNAP has been expanded to unprecedented levels and has never risen beyond the first definition, and President Obama has no plan other than further expansion.

 

[Jeffrey_David]

Agreed… thats just another example of democrats takiing from the American worker/public w/o getting that much if anything back and creating an unhealthy dependence on the government.

Maybe the Bishops would do better to tell Obama to stop destroying the economy so people would not need food stamps in the first place.

Are the Bishops aware the Obama runs ads encouraging people to get on food stamps like its the thing to do? Obama is creating a food stamp nation.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Crowding out the truly poor? A person who cannot afford the treatment their illness requires is NOT poor, at least with regard to health care? A person who goes into bankruptcy due to medical bills is what, rich?

One group not being factored into the uninsured group are those who can afford coverage but choose not to for a variety of reasons.My niece and her husband chose this route,he contracted cancer,as result,they has a six figure hospital bill.They declared bankruptcy in order to get out from under the huge bills. This I am afraid is more common than necessary!

 

[ishii]

Now the question is, how do you explain the research such as Greg Mankiw's 2006 paper that suggests that tax cuts do not pay for themselves?  In Sowell's piece he does not attempt to control for other factors that influence tax revenue and Mankiw does, so why is Sowell right and Mankiw wrong?  Because obviously they both cannot be right, so if you prefer Sowell's argument over Mankiw's then you must have a reason based on economic theory, so let's have it.

Interesting about the “other factors” you speak of. In an article in NY Times, Annie Lowrey writes:

“Moreover, economists stress that tax cuts (and increases, for that matter) hardly work in a vacuum to bring about changes in receipts. Income-tax payments tend to naturally increase year-on-year because of population growth, GDP growth, and inflation. Monetary policy, government spending, and the business cycle also have a major impact. Thus, showing causation becomes a tricky exercise when it comes to taxes. Receipts often climb after tax cuts, but not necessarily because of them.”

My bold italics. Hmm, maybe the increased GDP growth came about because of the tax cut which put more money in the hands of taxpayers? In which case, it could be said that the tax cut, by increasing the GDP, also increased revenue - indirectly. Just a thought.

You should look at the facts rather that what degree's someone has, although when you were defending Thomas Sowell, you did bring up his education, so is education relevant or irrelevant?

I think Thomas Sowell’s education and accomplishments speak for themselves - and are relevant. Of course merely having an advanced degree or PhD does not make someone right - as evidenced by your posts. Nor does having served in the Bush admin.

Also when it comes to the facts, do you believe that population growth and inflation are determinants of tax revenue and if not why not?  Also, how do you determine that the biggest determinant of tax revenue is the tax rate?  You claim you are making a dispassionate argument based on the facts, well you have done nothing but a cherry picked correlation.  So if you want to prove your case you have to make a better argument.

Maybe they are. So is increased GDP (see above). Further, the admission that population growth and inflation are determinants of tax revenue does not preclude the possibility that tax cuts are not also determinants.

Actually, what I said was that they were both big government parties. They both believe in lots of government spending, which is supported by the empirical evidence. After all, the republicans did not propose to cut food stamp spending.

Not going to play the silly game, stinkcat. Your mantra has been: Democrats = Republicans. If you don’t believe me, then go back and read your posts. When asked to provide what you think are the differences between the two parties, you responded with a sarcastic joke post (which wasn’t that funny). Silly games are not what I’d expect from an “esteemed academic.”

It is my opinion because the Sowell piece has no where near the level of rigor required for publication in the JPE. Now, I am sure he never submitted it there, but if he did he be highly likely to get a desk reject. But you can cling to the fantasy that his essay is a nobel prize winning essay.

I think you mean to say that its your opinion that the Sowell piece doesn’t have the rigor required for JPE. It might well have the rigor necessary. Its your opinion that it doesn’t. Hyperbole not being my specialty, I never claimed that his essay is nobel prize material.

But both Sowell and Mankiw cannot both be right can they when they say the opposite thing?

Good one! Two people with opposite viewpoints can’t both be right. That is correct. All I said was: good for Mankiw for ***ing off the 99%'ers. That is all.

 

[white_sheep]

Food stamp benefits are far too high. It’s supposed to be SUPPLEMENTAL not steak dinner every night.

Also, what about all the people not enrolled? I think we should just hand out food instead. That way anyone can get it and we won’t have a privileged underclass.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Interesting about the “other factors” you speak of. In an article in NY Times, Annie Lowrey writes:

“Moreover, economists stress that tax cuts (and increases, for that matter) hardly work in a vacuum to bring about changes in receipts. Income-tax payments tend to naturally increase year-on-year because of population growth, GDP growth, and inflation. Monetary policy, government spending, and the business cycle also have a major impact. Thus, showing causation becomes a tricky exercise when it comes to taxes. Receipts often climb after tax cuts, but not necessarily because of them.”

My bold italics. Hmm, maybe the increased GDP growth came about because of the tax cut which put more money in the hands of taxpayers? In which case, it could be said that the tax cut, by increasing the GDP, also increased revenue - indirectly. Just a thought.

I find it funny that you use this quote to buttress your position, because as the author says, receipts often climb after tax cuts (but not always) but not necessarily because of them. Now, as to tax cuts affecting GDP growth, they can affect GDP growth and they also could not. You never answered my question on whether you assume the Ricardian Equivalence theorem holds, so are you assuming that the theory holds?

I think Thomas Sowell’s education and accomplishments speak for themselves - and are relevant. Of course merely having an advanced degree or PhD does not make someone right - as evidenced by your posts. Nor does having served in the Bush admin.

I think what you are trying to say is Sowell confirms your biases, so therefore his education is top notch. If someone dares question your beliefs then their education is suspect.

Maybe they are. So is increased GDP (see above). Further, the admission that population growth and inflation are determinants of tax revenue does not preclude the possibility that tax cuts are not also determinants.

But that is not what you said, you said that tax cuts caused higher tax revenue. So now are you changing your tune and saying that tax cuts do not cause higher revenue?

Not going to play the silly game, stinkcat. Your mantra has been: Democrats = Republicans. If you don’t believe me, then go back and read your posts. When asked to provide what you think are the differences between the two parties, you responded with a sarcastic joke post (which wasn’t that funny). Silly games are not what I’d expect from an “esteemed academic.”

What I said was that both parties were big government parties. That is something that nobody can dispute. Besides if my jokes were funny would I be an academic?

I think you mean to say that its your opinion that the Sowell piece doesn’t have the rigor required for JPE. It might well have the rigor necessary. Its your opinion that it doesn’t. Hyperbole not being my specialty, I never claimed that his essay is nobel prize material.

You have never read the JPE have you?

Good one! Two people with opposite viewpoints can’t both be right. That is correct. All I said was: good for Mankiw for ***ing off the 99%'ers. That is all.

But if you believe that Sowell is right, then you must believe that Mankiw is wrong. What is the flaw in Mankiw’s analysis? Or did you just read Sowell’s piece, find that it fit your preconceived notions and then figure you have no need to read more?

I think if you want to be committed to the truth you need to ask a few more questions and not just stop when someone tells you something you want to here.

 

[seekerz]

Food stamp benefits are far too high. It’s supposed to be SUPPLEMENTAL not steak dinner every night.

Also, what about all the people not enrolled? I think we should just hand out food instead. That way anyone can get it and we won’t have a privileged underclass.

You know someone having steak dinner every night on SNAP?

I recommend trying the SNAP challenge like Panera’s CEO just did.

 

[SamH]

You know someone having steak dinner every night on SNAP?

I recommend trying the SNAP challenge like Panera’s CEO just did.

I don’t, but then it seems most are spending their money on meth instead of food.

 

[SaintAugustine]

You know someone having steak dinner every night on SNAP?

I recommend trying the SNAP challenge like Panera’s CEO just did.

“While the average monthly benefit for one person is just $133.44 (or about $4.50 a day), the program is designed to supplement participants’ own grocery money. Indeed, about 75% of SNAP beneficiaries also tap their own funds to stock their pantries.”

When I was laid off at the beginning of 2009, my wife was able to feed our family of 6 on less than what SNAP provides, although we didn’t use SNAP. All that the CEO proved is that he isn’t a very good shopper. That happens sometimes, when you’re used to living on $14 million per year.

 

[white_sheep]

I already live the SNAP challenge. It isn’t very challenging. I don’t see how I could go over. Maybe if I just really started packing it away. I told one of my buddies today he should go on food stamps and we can have bbq fest every weekend.

 

[seekerz]

“While the average monthly benefit for one person is just $133.44 (or about $4.50 a day), the program is designed to supplement participants’ own grocery money. Indeed, about 75% of SNAP beneficiaries also tap their own funds to stock their pantries.”

When I was laid off at the beginning of 2009, my wife was able to feed our family of 6 on less than what SNAP provides, although we didn’t use SNAP. All that the CEO proved is that he isn’t a very good shopper. That happens sometimes, when you’re used to living on $14 million per year.

Did she feed you steak every night as the poster I was responding to suggests is possible with SNAP? All the CEO proved is that not everyone has a lifestyle that allows for shopping around and cooking each meal from their basic ingredients. Some people spend that time commuting between home and job, job and job, school and job…you get the drift.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Did she feed you steak every night as the poster I was responding to suggests is possible with SNAP? All the CEO proved is that not everyone has a lifestyle that allows for shopping around and cooking each meal from their basic ingredients. Some people spend that time commuting between home and job, job and job, school and job…you get the drift.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against the need for having a safety net for those in financial duress.However,what you fail to acknowledge is the lack of governmental oversight to control the flagrant misuse of these taxpayer funded programs.,what originally was intended to be a short term aid,has now evolved into a lifestyle,generation to generation.Add to that the fact that the gov’t not only does nothing to stop this they actually encourage it!
Remind me of a joke:a man checking out his purchases hands the cashier his welfare stamps.The cashier says"Sir,dog food is not covered under your welfare allowance.The man picks up the bag of dog food,retuns with a steak and say" Guess my dog will be eating this tonight" I think you get the drift…

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Maybe the Bishops would do better to tell Obama to stop destroying the economy so people would not need food stamps in the first place.

Are the Bishops aware the Obama runs ads encouraging people to get on food stamps like its the thing to do? Obama is creating a food stamp nation.

 

[white_sheep]

Did she feed you steak every night as the poster I was responding to suggests is possible with SNAP? All the CEO proved is that not everyone has a lifestyle that allows for shopping around and cooking each meal from their basic ingredients. Some people spend that time commuting between home and job, job and job, school and job…you get the drift.

If they are spending that much time working they should be able to pay for their own food.

Steak dinner every night is easily doable on the SNAP challenge. It obviously won’t be a 3 pound prime steak.

Here, we can do the math.
Breakfast- eggs and toast- 35 cents.
2nd breakfast- banana- 15 cents
Snack- granola bar 25 cents
Lunch- bologna sandwich and corn chips- 50 cents
Snack- granola bar- 25 cents
Supper- 1/2 pound select ribeye-$2 + 2 cans of vegetables- $1

Total- $4.50

Total time spent cooking-10 minutes.

We didn’t even get to the really cheap foods or stuff you have to cook.

 

[white_sheep]

I don’t think anyone is arguing against the need for having a safety net for those in financial duress.However,what you fail to acknowledge is the lack of governmental oversight to control the flagrant misuse of these taxpayer funded programs.,what originally was intended to be a short term aid,has now evolved into a lifestyle,generation to generation.Add to that the fact that the gov’t not only does nothing to stop this they actually encourage it!
Remind me of a joke:a man checking out his purchases hands the cashier his welfare stamps.The cashier says"Sir,dog food is not covered under your welfare allowance.The man picks up the bag of dog food,retuns with a steak and say" Guess my dog will be eating this tonight" I think you get the drift…

Dog food isn’t any cheaper than people food anyway. Regardless of how many congresspeople say thay constitients is so po that thay having to eat dog food.

 

[white_sheep]

Here’s an even better daily breakdown. My dad used to fry up chicken and put it in a double paper bag when we traveled and we would stop after a few hours at a picnic area and eat our chicken. We can give him credit for this one. Chicken thighs 99 cents a pound. Fry up 4.5 pounds and put in paper bag. Eat all day.

Not nutritious enough? Well just do 2 pounds of fried chicken, a fourth of a watermelon, a pan of cornbread, and 2 pounds of carrots.

We haven’t even talked about rice, beans, biscuits, or lots of other cheap things to eat.

Is that too much cooking? I don’t see why we should have government programs that give people money for being to lazy to cook their own food and pack it in tupperware to take with them.

 

[99th_Monkey]

Here’s an even better daily breakdown. My dad used to fry up chicken and put it in a double paper bag when we traveled and we would stop after a few hours at a picnic area and eat our chicken. We can give him credit for this one. Chicken thighs 99 cents a pound. Fry up 4.5 pounds and put in paper bag. Eat all day.

Not nutritious enough? Well just do 2 pounds of fried chicken, a fourth of a watermelon, a pan of cornbread, and 2 pounds of carrots.

We haven’t even talked about rice, beans, biscuits, or lots of other cheap things to eat.

Is that too much cooking? I don’t see why we should have government programs that give people money for being to lazy to cook their own food and pack it in tupperware to take with them.

Nice:blush: