Search


Subscribe to AFM


Subscribe to AllFinancialMatters
by Email

All Financial Matters

Promote Your Page Too

The American's Creed

Site Sponsors

Books I Recommend


AFM in the Media


Money Magazine May 2008

Real Simple March 2008

Blogroll (Daily Reads)

« | Main | »

Food Stamp Fraud

By JLP | June 23, 2011

Interesting opinion piece in today’s WSJ about food stamp fraud. The last paragraph pretty much sums it up:

H.L. Mencken quipped that the New Deal divided America into “those who work for a living and those who vote for a living.” The explosion in the number of food-stamp recipients tilts the political playing field in favor of big government. The more people who become government dependents, the more likely that democracy will become a conspiracy against self-reliance.

Topics: Miscellaneous | 30 Comments »


30 Responses to “Food Stamp Fraud”

  1. Jack Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 10:07 am

    That IS the modus operandi of the left — Take from the Few, Give to the Many, and the Many will Vote for You.

  2. Ben Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Who is john Galt

  3. BG Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Nice Jack:

    “But the Obama administration doesn’t deserve all the blame. Food-stamp enrollment surged before Mr. Obama took office. The number of food-stamp recipients on George W. Bush’s watch rose by more than 50%, even before the recession hit in 2007. As Slate reporter Annie Lowrey wrote for the online magazine last December, President Bush and his food-stamp chief Eric Bost “went on a quiet crusade to expand eligibility, increase enrollment, and reduce stigma around nutrition aid.”

  4. JLP Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    BG,

    Bush wasn’t really on the right on a lot of things like housing, medicare, and food stamps.

  5. Jack Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Could you give us the source of that quote, BG?

  6. JLP Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    It’s in the opinion piece I linked to, Jack.

  7. Jack Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    I meant the figures, not the quote.

    It seems the acceleration has been considerable since the Democrats too over Congress: graph

  8. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Notice how the dramatic increase coincides with the meltdown of the economy and layoffs. Amazing how people can’t figure this stuff out.

  9. Jack Says:
    June 23rd, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Amazing how the meltdown coincided with Demonrats’ taking control of Congress and raising the minimum wage. As soon as that went into effect, the layoffs started.

  10. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Jack you have an amazing ability not to grasp the obvious. Don’t you remember that the reason the Democrats took office was because of the economic meltdown…Oh yeah!!!

  11. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    The election was in 2006. The meltdown started in 2007 — AFTER the demonrats took Congress.

  12. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Maybe you should look at your graph again. According to it, food stamp issuance dropped from 2006 to 2007.

  13. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Exactly, Retired. Then the demonrats’ policies went into effect toward the end of 2007, crashed the economy, and the food stamp program took off like a rocket.

  14. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I see. So the fact that the Dems were elected with no real power resulted in an instant economic meltdown brought on by an increase in the minimum wage? I have to give you credit. I haven’t heard that one before.

  15. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Holding both the House and Senate is “no real power”? That’s a laugh.

    If you look at the unemployment numbers, you will see that they bottomed out just before the first minimum wage increase went into effect (July 2007). As the minimum wage went up, so did unemployment. Now that the minimum wage has stabilized (July 2009) at a higher level, unemployment has also stabilized at a higher level.

    It is not rocket science (and I am a rocket scientist). If you artificially raise the price of a commodity, fewer units will be purchased at the higher price. Some people’s work is simply not worth $7.25/hr. Those whose work is worth less than that were laid off, and the work that they had been doing is no longer part of our GDP.

  16. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    A rocket scientist? Wow. I’m shocked. You are clearly out of your field when discussing economics.

  17. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Hardly. The key is being able to understand the mathematics and see the relationships. Economics is trivially easy in comparison is Aerospace Engineering. (BTW, we also had to take Economics courses in Engineering School, so that we could properly evaluate engineering trade-offs, buy-vs-rent questions, and repair-vs-replace questions.)

  18. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Do some research on confirmation bias. You are a case study.

  19. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Yeah, yeah. You’re a riot.

    Now, do you actually have any arguments against what I have said?

  20. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Minimum wage increases causing the economic collapse. I’m not going to waste my time on such lightweight stuff.

    Seriously, Jack. I’m not even going to be nice to you anymore. For a person as intelligent as you are to be confused as a complete moron is an embarrassment. You write the single dumbest comments on this blog consistently. They are written at a moron level. Try harder, man.

    Economics as its taught in college is trivially easy. That’s got nothing to do with reality. Economics is actually one of mankind’s great mysteries. There isn’t anyone that really knows how it works. It’s all just theory mostly based on ideological philosophy.

  21. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    >> [Do] you actually have any arguments against what I have said?

    > I’m not going to waste my time on such lightweight stuff.

    In other words, no, you do not.

    Thanks for playing.

  22. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    You’re welcome. Better luck next time.

  23. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    With any luck, I’ll get an opponent who has the dates and facts correct, and knows how to piece them together into a logical argument. But then, it is unlikely that I would be in disagreement with such a person.

  24. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    You’d better hope not.

  25. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    I guess you know how it feels.

  26. Retired at 40 Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    He, he

  27. BG Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Jack: The economy collapsed because the credit bubbles finally burst (which housing was just one of many of).

    I agree with Retired@40: blaming minimum wage increases for the massive number of layoffs is ridiculous. But of course: if you can provide some statistics showing that the layoffs were concentrated at the minimum wage paying jobs…

    Take a look at the real value of minimum wage over time. Back in the 60s, minimum wage would be equivalent to $10/hr today.

  28. Jack Says:
    June 24th, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Ask and ye shall receive:

    The study reported that people who made $12,499 or less as well as those who belonged to the group whose wages range from $12,500 to $20,000 make up the majority of those who were unemployed in 2009.

    Likewise, the same group of low income earners account for 20.7 percent and 17.2 percent of those who were underemployed.

    theWearyWorker

  29. Stacey Says:
    June 25th, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Perhaps as people tightened their belts eating out, lattes, and other cheap joys fell by the wayside, thus directly affecting industries whose labor pool consisted of minimum wage employees.

  30. Jack Says:
    June 27th, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Perhaps, Stacey. Even the upper-income people who did not lose their jobs were tightening their belts and cutting their debt. It is a natural response to uncertain economic times.

    The mortgage crisis itself was and is concentrated in the sub-prime market, which is mostly low-income borrowers. Since the unemployment is concentrated there, and they have the least flexibility, as they lost their jobs, that market collapsed.

Comments