4 ms·

That doesn't discount the argument though. 1) SNAP is cyclical - so it's gonna naturally boost a struggling economy, as would most other expenditures 2) there

That doesn't discount the argument though. 1) SNAP is cyclical - so it's gonna naturally boost a struggling economy, as would most other expenditures 2) there's a natural limit - there's only so much food a family needs

cc439 10y ago
"2) there's a natural limit - there's only so much food a family needs" There's also a point where a family may demand more food but providing them with it actually harms society. The obesity epidemic is the biggest health crisis this country has ever faced and when 40% of SNAP recipients are obese (compared to ~32% of nonrecipients), we're basically paying to sentence these people to a litany of expensive, chronic medical issues. Of course, merely reducing benefits does nothing to solve this and harms the 60% of recipients who are at a healthy weight, I'm just pointing out that the natural limit of demand is far beyond the optimal level of supply for a program meant to provide a net benefit to society. Source: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/NHANES-SNAP07-10.pdf https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/NHANES-SNAP...