Food Stamp Participation Reaches Lowest Level in Nearly a Decade

[Swordsmyth]

Participation in the nation’s food stamp program has sunk to an all-time low, reaching its lowest level in nearly a decade, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The most recent USDA data reveals that 38,845,997 Americans took part in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal government program responsible for administering food stamps, in August 2018.
The last time American participation in the food stamp program dipped this low was nine years ago, when 38,184,306 Americans received food stamps, according to the data.
The most up-to-date numbers also show enrollment in food stamps has declined for ten straight months.

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...nearly-decade/

[Swordsmyth]

Before zippy tries to give O'Bummer credit:

The enrollment drop under Trump can mainly be attributed both to the Trump administration’s efforts to reform the nation’s food stamp program and the improving economy.

But the reforms that spurred the overall decline in enrollment since 2013 began at the state level, when state legislatures passed bills requiring food stamp recipients to work, participate in job training, or volunteer 20 hours per week to receive benefits.

These individual states, such as Maine, began implementing or reinstating work requirements to participate in SNAP during the Obama administration’s second term— when enrollment in the welfare program reached its highest level since its inception.

[angelatc]

[The last time American participation in the food stamp program dipped this low was nine years ago, when 38,184,306 Americans received food stamps, according to the data.

That doesn't seem right. The economy crashed in 2008 - why would food stamps be lower in 2010 than last quarter?

[Swordsmyth]

That doesn't seem right. The economy crashed in 2008 - why would food stamps be lower in 2010 than last quarter?

Because we haven't reduced them far enough yet.

[Origanalist]

Because we haven't reduced them far enough yet.

Not really an answer.

[Swordsmyth]

Not really an answer.

The answer is that the "recovery" wasn't a recovery, there may be many other factors like people who hadn't thought to get them before the crash deciding to stay on them after the crash.

We also imported millions more communist immigrants and illegals since then.

[Origanalist]

The answer is that the "recovery" wasn't a recovery, there may be many other factors like people who hadn't thought to get them before the crash deciding to stay on them after the crash.

We also imported millions more communist immigrants and illegals since then.

Do you have anything to back that up? (not that I disagree about the recovery not being a recovery)

[Swordsmyth]

Do you have anything to back that up? (not that I disagree about the recovery not being a recovery)

Just statistics like these and the widening wealth gap that leaves ordinary Americans poor and struggling while the elite and their camp followers get rich on stolen wealth and the 2nd and 3rd hand falling crumbs.

Trump is just beginning to start a possible recovery of the real economy but unless Q turns out to be real he isn't going to be able to do it for at least 2 more years now that the Dems took the house.

[DamianTV]

They're just kicking people off to dick with the stats. Just like they kick people out of the Workforce by changing the definition of Long Term Unemployed from two years to one year. It doesnt necessarily mean things are getting better, they are just getting better at manipulating statistics.

[Origanalist]

Just statistics like these and the widening wealth gap that leaves ordinary Americans poor and struggling while the elite and their camp followers get rich on stolen wealth and the 2nd and 3rd hand falling crumbs.

Trump is just beginning to start a possible recovery of the real economy but unless Q turns out to be real he isn't going to be able to do it for at least 2 more years now that the Dems took the house.

So, if the republicans win back the house and Trump gets re-elected we'll see a "possible recovery of the real economy".

Sweet.

[gaazn]

Limit everyone's exposure to high healthcare costs, and you can expect that they can pay for their own food.

[Zippyjuan]

Congress determines spending on programs like Food Stamps. Obama did sign a bill which would reduce funds for it but Congress wrote that law. The Republican controlled Senate removed new restrictions on the Farm Bill that Trump signed so no changes in the program so far under him. He did request such changes though.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/w...lion/?agreed=1

President Obama signed the 2014 Farm Bill today, locking in more than $8 billion in cuts to the nation's food stamp program. As many as 850,000 households will see their benefits drop by an average $90 per month when the law goes into effect.

Obama's signature comes with votes from both sides of the aisle, including support from 89 Democrats in the House and 46 in the Senate. But the cuts themselves will not be felt equally. Of the $8.7 billion in food stamps that the Farm Bill cuts, virtually every dollar comes from just fifteen states and the District of Columbia. As much as 30 percent of the cuts would come from New York State alone.

The reason is something called “heat and eat”—a policy that has allowed states to streamline social services by extending food stamp benefits to people who already receive support for their heating and cooling bills under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). In recent years, some states have taken advantage of that policy to award low-income households token LIHEAP benefits—sometimes as little as one dollar—so they can qualify for additional food stamps. The 2014 Farm Bill will end that policy, resulting in substantial benefit cuts for low-income households.

[Swordsmyth]

So, if the republicans win back the house and Trump gets re-elected we'll see a "possible recovery of the real economy".

Sweet.

We'll have a better chance than if those don't happen.

[Swordsmyth]

Congress determines spending on programs like Food Stamps. Obama did sign a bill which would reduce funds for it but Congress wrote that law. The Republican controlled Senate removed new restrictions on the Farm Bill that Trump signed so no changes in the program so far under him. He did request such changes though.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/w...lion/?agreed=1

Before zippy tries to give O'Bummer credit:

The enrollment drop under Trump can mainly be attributed both to the Trump administration’s efforts to reform the nation’s food stamp program and the improving economy.

But the reforms that spurred the overall decline in enrollment since 2013 began at the state level, when state legislatures passed bills requiring food stamp recipients to work, participate in job training, or volunteer 20 hours per week to receive benefits.

These individual states, such as Maine, began implementing or reinstating work requirements to participate in SNAP during the Obama administration’s second term— when enrollment in the welfare program reached its highest level since its inception.

...

[DamianTV]

So, if the republicans win back the house and Trump gets re-elected we'll see a "possible recovery of the real economy".

Sweet.

The ONLY "Real Recovery" is to End the Fed, and Income Tax.

We are very very far down the path, and we might not be redeemable. Anything short of Ending the Fed is a False Recovery. Thing is, Trump has got some focus placed squarely on the Fed already, which means he might take a swing at bringing them down. Highly unlikely, but he is the first to do anything to even so much as barely challenge the Fed.

[Zippyjuan]

The ONLY "Real Recovery" is to End the Fed, and Income Tax.

We are very very far down the path, and we might not be redeemable. Anything short of Ending the Fed is a False Recovery. Thing is, Trump has got some focus placed squarely on the Fed already, which means he might take a swing at bringing them down. Highly unlikely, but he is the first to do anything to even so much as barely challenge the Fed.

He just wants the money supply inflated faster.

[DamianTV]

He just wants the money supply inflated faster.

I dont trust him any more than I trust you Zippy.

[Madison320]

Participation in the nation’s food stamp program has sunk to an all-time low, reaching its lowest level in nearly a decade, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

One small problem. It's costing us over a trillion a year to make these numbers look good.

[Madison320]

He just wants the money supply inflated faster.

So? According to you there's no downside to that.

[Swordsmyth]

So? According to you there's no downside to that.

You can't expect consistency out of zippy, he just says whatever is in the best interests of the DNC today.

[Madison320]

You can't expect consistency out of zippy, he just says whatever is in the best interests of the DNC today.

Yeah, I meant to say "According to Zippy there's no downside to inflating the money supply ... when a democrat resides in the WH."

Actually when you factor in political party Zippy is very consistent.

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah, I meant to say "According to Zippy there's no downside to inflating the money supply ... when a democrat resides in the WH."

Actually when you factor in political party Zippy is very consistent.

Downside depends on how quickly the money supply changes. If it grows as fast as the economy, there should not be monetary caused price inflation. If it grows faster, then there could be. During the economic crisis, the money supply did not rapidly inflate- QE ended up in bank excess reserves- not in circulation. Money needs to circulate to have any effect on the economy or prices. The money supply has grown fairly steadily.

[Madison320]

Downside depends on how quickly the money supply changes. If it grows as fast as the economy, there should not be monetary caused price inflation. If it grows faster, then there could be. During the economic crisis, the money supply did not rapidly inflate- QE ended up in bank excess reserves- not in circulation. Money needs to circulate to have any effect on the economy or prices. The money supply has grown fairly steadily.

So far about a third of the QE got into the economy and that drove up home prices and stock prices, as intended. Eventually the banks are going to have to use that currency sitting in reserve, and eventually it's all going to make its way into main street prices. It's basic math.

[oyarde]

Food stamps should be eliminated .

[Zippyjuan]

So far about a third of the QE got into the economy and that drove up home prices and stock prices, as intended. Eventually the banks are going to have to use that currency sitting in reserve, and eventually it's all going to make its way into main street prices. It's basic math.

Depends on how quickly the banks reduce those reserves. All at once? That could be inflationary. Slowly? Little if any impact. And they have been reducing them slowly. The economy has been growing more than fast enough to absorb the money.

[TheTexan]

Participation in the nation’s food stamp program has sunk to an all-time low, reaching its lowest level in nearly a decade

More stamps for me then

[Madison320]

Depends on how quickly the banks reduce those reserves. All at once? That could be inflationary. Slowly? Little if any impact. And they have been reducing them slowly. The economy has been growing more than fast enough to absorb the money.

You might be right if we never had another recession. The problem is that as soon as we go into recession two things will happen. One is that the banks will suddenly need all of that money on reserve so that money will go right into the economy. The second is that the Fed is going to do more QE.

[Zippyjuan]

You might be right if we never had another recession. The problem is that as soon as we go into recession two things will happen. One is that the banks will suddenly need all of that money on reserve so that money will go right into the economy. The second is that the Fed is going to do more QE.

One major reason that the QE ended up in reserves is that the demand for money dried up- individuals and corporations stopped borrowing money which meant less money flowing through the economy. (the Fed also encouraged them to keep the money in reserves by offering to pay interest on reserves- 0.25% at the time). They problem was demand for money- not the supply. They money won't leave reserves during a recession (or will do so at a slower rate).