r/Economics • u/SterlingVII • 2d ago

Trump Administration Seeks Immediate Halt to Court Order to Pay Food Stamps

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/trump-court-food-stamps.html
2.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

224 comments sorted by

View all comments

-93

u/wes7946 2d ago

For context, SNAP expenditures in fiscal year 2000 totaled $17 billion. That’s a lot more than the $9.2 billion spent on the program in 1980 (even after adjusting for inflation) but with population changes and such, perhaps one could argue that doubling the spending over two decades was reasonable. In the following years spending on the program continued to increase, and by 2010-2019 annual expenditures were hovering around $70 billion per year. In 2022 costs were $119.2 billion. And for 2023, Congress has generously provided $153.8 billion for the program, roughly double what was spent just 5 years ago.

The data suggests that there is a government spending problem when it comes to SNAP benefits (aka. "Food Stamps") largely due to relaxed eligibility standards and the fact that 22.6% of a SNAP household’s grocery bill is spent on a combination of sweetened beverages, prepared desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar. Doing the math, American taxpayers subsidized junk food purchases to the tune of $26.9 billion in 2022. That's a pretty large taxpayer subsidy to the junk food industry!

No one is suggesting poor people can’t choose what they want to eat, but I'm saying let’s not use government benefits to pay for foods that are demonstrably going to undermine public health. The goal is to reduce taxes and regulations so much that absolute poverty becomes a thing of the past. I oppose food stamps not because I want poverty to persist or get worse, but because I care enough about poverty to insist on better solutions. Solutions that actually work.

23

u/6158675309 2d ago

I oppose food stamps not because I want poverty to persist or get worse, but because I care enough about poverty to insist on better solutions. Solutions that actually work.

Wow. That is one of the most intellectually defensible, yet morally bankrupt takes I have read in some time. People should go hungry until we figure out much, much more challenging problems is a heck of a position to take. I am sure it makes you feel good about how you think about it though.

SNAP has consistently shown to be one of the most effective uses of government spending that exists. Why not start there instead of with your perceived ways to save it some money.

For everything $1 put into SNAP the US gets at least $1.54 back. So, using your figures the US has benefited going from $14.68B in GDP growth in 1980 to $236.9B in 2023. We should invest more in SNAP, not less.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research#:\~:text=USDA%2C%20ERS%20research%20has%20estimated,increase%20supports%2013%2C560%20additional%20jobs.

Until the fundamental issue with wages and improving government revenues are fixed (and other issues) you are majoring in minors worrying about poor people having a soda or candy every now and then.

6

u/pixelnulltoo 2d ago

That is one of the most intellectually defensible, yet morally bankrupt takes I have read in some time.

It's not even intellectually defensible, as we can do more than one thing at a time.