The thing about cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—whether the benefits cuts that go into effect November 1 or the $4 billion a year in further cuts that House Republicans are pushing—is that if you're a House Republican, you don't care about the people who will be left hungry. You don't care about all of the people whose employers pay them so little that government assistance is the only answer for survival. You don't care about all of the milk, broccoli, bananas, eggs, and spaghetti that people won't have to feed themselves and their kids starting this week. You don't care that half of all children get food stamps at some point during their childhood, and half of all adults get them sometime between ages 18 and 65. Because if you're a House Republican, screwing poor people—children, adults, working, unemployed—is pretty much an article of faith. So here's another argument: Food stamp cuts are bad for the economy and for small business owners, as well as for long-term health care spending:
Economists have found that every dollar of SNAP spending generates roughly $1.70 in local economic activity. The USDA has calculated that food stamps generate an even bigger bang for the buck. So pinching food stamp recipients will ripple into the broader U.S. economy. Among other effects, that could dent revenues for the nearly 250,000 groceries and supermarkets around the country that accept SNAP payments, potentially affecting everyone from store workers and truck drivers delivering food to consumers, as food sellers raise prices to offset the loss of revenue.
Meanwhile, research suggests that reducing food aid could not only increase hunger, but also undermine public health. In a six-year study, Children's HealthWatch, a nonpartisan pediatric research center, recently found that young children in families that got SNAP benefits were at significantly lower risk of being underweight, which is linked with poor nutrition, and of developmental delays. That jibes with research by Northwestern University economist Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. She has found that since food stamps were introduced in the 1960s, women in the program have seen a reduction in low-weight births and a decrease in infant mortality.
::Breaks out in bitter laughter:: I'm sorry. What was I thinking? House Republicans don't care about small business owners, either. Or the economy, except as it relates to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals. And if you don't actually care about human consequences, long-term health care spending on things like low birth-weight children is only something you worry about if you actually intend that they should be taken care of. So, again, not a House Republican concern. The rest of us should be scared, though.
Your rhetoric reminds me of a quote I know very well:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...
... by Karl Marx, the father of Soviet Communism.
Obamacare completely conforms to that creed. Completely.
...Economists have found that every dollar of SNAP spending generates roughly $1.70 in local economic activity..
WhAt nut job econ are you quoting ? Pelosi ?
Thats saying 1 dollar in taxes automatically multiplies itself by 70 percent. In fact about the same amount is removed and recycled as state and federal taxes.
Figure it out - if you have MORE people in the cart than pulling it, as you put even more people who were pulling it in the same cart- pretty soon NOONE is puling the cart and it doesn't move.
So where does it all go in a 2/3 based consumer driven economy?
Into evaporation negating the glow-ball warming inside your noggin, old fiend of mine. Or is that the other way around.
Or weren't you not responding to me neither again.
With a 2:1 multiplier, a $10B hit to the economy.
The need for the program says something about the dichotomy of the stock market's soaring to new heights while income disparity widens to Great Depression-era levels.
"Something has changed about America since the financial crisis, and the still widespread popularity of the SNAP program is emblematic of that shift," Nick Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergEx, a New York-based brokerage and investment research firm, said in a report. "The American economic record, based on the food stamp data, is still pretty lousy."
Colas said the economic hit from the food stamp cuts will be roughly $10 billion, with the numbers probably not telling the full story.
"It may not matter to the economic data on which Wall Street hangs its fedora, but it is certainly enough to spark a political response," he said. "How this plays out, I honestly have no idea. We are in uncharted waters here, as the historical record clearly shows."
There appears little appetite to reverse the cuts, however, despite the protests and worries from charity leaders and food banks whose members are panicking,"We're telling everyone to make sure that you are prepared for longer lines and more shortages"
Jesus would cut the cajone"s off of ever lyin liberal male supporter of Obama....and feed the poor whose numbers have increased 10 fold under our Fascist'n Chief. The women? He'd make them pass out the free cajone's. He was compassionate you know.