SNAP stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is a government program that supplements the grocery budget of many low-income American families and those of non-citizens living legally within the US. It was formerly known as food stamps, and its benefits continue to buy non-alcoholic food items from eligible retailers that are neither labeled as supplements nor hot and ready-to-eat at the time of purchase. They can also be used to purchase seeds that can grow food, but they cannot be used to buy live animals.
These benefits go to families who complete the certification process with their state, and it is meant as a short-term program that encourages people to return to work if able. Veterans and some of society’s more vulnerable groups, including, but not limited to, households with disabled or elderly members, may qualify for the program under less stringent criteria.
Historical Program Connections to the Economy
According to PEW Research, spending on SNAP and its forerunners fluctuates depending on how well the economy is doing and what the eligibility requirements for the program are at any given time. Before 2008’s recession, it reports that spending followed a predictable pattern based primarily on whether times were easy or tough economically.
However, after 2008’s recession, the money spent on funding continued to rise even as the economy recovered. Spending has not returned to its previous pattern since. Though it did briefly show signs of recovery, dependence on the program spiked again when the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
Major Changes to Food Assistance Programs in the United States
The original food stamps were a program implemented for both poverty relief and to help farmers with their excess crops, but it went away during the world wars when all excess food and labor were needed for the war effort. Afterward, the idea of a new food stamps program became very popular and was formed as the Food Stamps Program.
As times changed, the form of payment used went from stamps to coupons to Electronic Balance Transfer (EBT) cards. Currently, the cards can even be used electronically to order from eligible retailers through some sites, and companies like DoorDash offer a grocery delivery service for them – which adds a bit of cost but also more accessibility for recipients who have difficulty leaving their homes.
Near the end of 2023, Congress made changes to SNAP that increased the age at which recipients are required to work to receive benefits while exempting a few categories of people from work requirements: veterans, the homeless, and new adults who are aging out of the foster care system. When considering both sides, overall touted benefits seem to be a better system for aging out of work requirements, and overall concerns are potential increased costs for the government to pass onto the American populace and the potential struggle of those on the older end of work requirements to find a good job.
Opinions on Increasing SNAP Funding
Many terms have been used to describe SNAP, such as a “safety net” or a “welfare trap,” depending on who you ask. For supporters, the intent to help the most impoverished is valuable and should continue to be offered to give the most vulnerable residents of our country a chance. After all, if you starve to death, then you can no longer improve your lot in life. Many see short-term assistance as also allowing people to take more of the types of business and financial risks that drive innovation without fear of ruin. They also see the program as boosting the economy in general and allowing enough economic safeguards for the American people to better weather recessions.
For those with objections, many see the eligibility requirements as incentivizing SNAP recipients to remain in their economic situation, so as not to lose their benefits, thus reducing their chances of ever escaping from poverty. They see this as especially true when combined when someone could lose the benefits of other short-term assistance programs all at once, where increasing wages could lose a household more in benefits than they gain at a new level of pay. In addition to those moving up in wages and losing benefits, they point out that such individuals also move right into an income category with a higher tax rate, further decreasing how much they have available to live on.
Needless to say, both sides hold differing opinions on what it would mean for America to increase SNAP funding. To some extent, it has the same effects on the economy as any other government spending: the government needs to get the funds from somewhere, and however it does impact the economy. In other ways, SNAP and other assistance programs have effects that are unlike other ways that the government spends money, as it gives funds directly to everyday residents of the United States.
At the household level, the economic impacts of increased SNAP spending could potentially relieve poverty and/or make poverty more difficult to escape from. Given enough households and increased SNAP spending has the group of people who receive SNAP contributing to the overall picture of the US economy before considering other considerations on the broader economic impact of increasing SNAP spending: The money being spent by SNAP recipients through EBT cards at approved retailers is still money being given to that particular retailer, and money that they would have otherwise struggled to put toward food can be spent elsewhere. Between this and any means of funding SNAP, the amount of money spent on SNAP does have broad implications for the US economy, and whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing depends on who you believe. However, if Republicans are correct that the recent changes to SNAP will increase the amount spent on the program, we might all be able to observe the effects of increased SNAP funding for ourselves soon, mingled as they may be with other economic forces.
SNAP stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is a government program that supplements the grocery budget of many low-income American families and those of non-citizens living legally within the US. It was formerly known as food stamps, and its benefits continue to buy non-alcoholic food items from eligible retailers that are neither labeled as supplements nor hot and ready-to-eat at the time of purchase. They can also be used to purchase seeds that can grow food, but they cannot be used to buy live animals.
These benefits go to families who complete the certification process with their state, and it is meant as a short-term program that encourages people to return to work if able. Veterans and some of society’s more vulnerable groups, including, but not limited to, households with disabled or elderly members, may qualify for the program under less stringent criteria.
Historical Program Connections to the Economy
According to PEW Research, spending on SNAP and its forerunners fluctuates depending on how well the economy is doing and what the eligibility requirements for the program are at any given time. Before 2008’s recession, it reports that spending followed a predictable pattern based primarily on whether times were easy or tough economically.
However, after 2008’s recession, the money spent on funding continued to rise even as the economy recovered. Spending has not returned to its previous pattern since. Though it did briefly show signs of recovery, dependence on the program spiked again when the COVID-19 pandemic hit.
Major Changes to Food Assistance Programs in the United States
The original food stamps were a program implemented for both poverty relief and to help farmers with their excess crops, but it went away during the world wars when all excess food and labor were needed for the war effort. Afterward, the idea of a new food stamps program became very popular and was formed as the Food Stamps Program.
As times changed, the form of payment used went from stamps to coupons to Electronic Balance Transfer (EBT) cards. Currently, the cards can even be used electronically to order from eligible retailers through some sites, and companies like DoorDash offer a grocery delivery service for them – which adds a bit of cost but also more accessibility for recipients who have difficulty leaving their homes.
Near the end of 2023, Congress made changes to SNAP that increased the age at which recipients are required to work to receive benefits while exempting a few categories of people from work requirements: veterans, the homeless, and new adults who are aging out of the foster care system. When considering both sides, overall touted benefits seem to be a better system for aging out of work requirements, and overall concerns are potential increased costs for the government to pass onto the American populace and the potential struggle of those on the older end of work requirements to find a good job.
Opinions on Increasing SNAP Funding
Many terms have been used to describe SNAP, such as a “safety net” or a “welfare trap,” depending on who you ask. For supporters, the intent to help the most impoverished is valuable and should continue to be offered to give the most vulnerable residents of our country a chance. After all, if you starve to death, then you can no longer improve your lot in life. Many see short-term assistance as also allowing people to take more of the types of business and financial risks that drive innovation without fear of ruin. They also see the program as boosting the economy in general and allowing enough economic safeguards for the American people to better weather recessions.
For those with objections, many see the eligibility requirements as incentivizing SNAP recipients to remain in their economic situation, so as not to lose their benefits, thus reducing their chances of ever escaping from poverty. They see this as especially true when combined when someone could lose the benefits of other short-term assistance programs all at once, where increasing wages could lose a household more in benefits than they gain at a new level of pay. In addition to those moving up in wages and losing benefits, they point out that such individuals also move right into an income category with a higher tax rate, further decreasing how much they have available to live on.
Needless to say, both sides hold differing opinions on what it would mean for America to increase SNAP funding. To some extent, it has the same effects on the economy as any other government spending: the government needs to get the funds from somewhere, and however it does impact the economy. In other ways, SNAP and other assistance programs have effects that are unlike other ways that the government spends money, as it gives funds directly to everyday residents of the United States.
At the household level, the economic impacts of increased SNAP spending could potentially relieve poverty and/or make poverty more difficult to escape from. Given enough households and increased SNAP spending has the group of people who receive SNAP contributing to the overall picture of the US economy before considering other considerations on the broader economic impact of increasing SNAP spending: The money being spent by SNAP recipients through EBT cards at approved retailers is still money being given to that particular retailer, and money that they would have otherwise struggled to put toward food can be spent elsewhere. Between this and any means of funding SNAP, the amount of money spent on SNAP does have broad implications for the US economy, and whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing depends on who you believe. However, if Republicans are correct that the recent changes to SNAP will increase the amount spent on the program, we might all be able to observe the effects of increased SNAP funding for ourselves soon, mingled as they may be with other economic forces.
){kind=link}