I usually avoid reading Megan McArdle because, when it comes to dealing with economic realities in America, she reminds me of the apocryphal Pauline Kael quote "”How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him!”.
Why not food stamps?
1) The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not.
2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food.
3) If the increase in food stamps takes the form of expanded eligibility, rather than larger grants, the administrative issues and public outreach will delay your stimulus until well after it is no longer needed.
4) The limits on the type of goods available to food stamp consumers, and the growing season, mean that some (it's hard to say how much) of the food stamp spending will simply draw down perishable stocks rather than generating new economic activity. Eventually this will probably generate more economic activity, but probably well after your stimulus is needed.
5) The economy doesn't need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is. If you want to give money to the poor, give it to them. Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.
While I appreciate Megan's libertarian fondness for approving of recreational drug usage, I think she maybe misses the boat...okay, she walks off the dock, flounders in the water, and smacks her head against the pilings repeatedly as the tide comes in, about the difference between eating lots of food and eating food that's bad for you. It's not that Megan isn't cognizant of this fact, it's just that poor people are big fat slobby stupid people (which is why they are poor and never get invited to the Hamptons) who fry everything. No. Really:
The evidence that the poor are forced into buying potato chips rather than apples by their incomes is pretty underwhelming. As Mixner says, the food is cheaper per calorie, but that's the point--they buy things that have a lot of calories, when there are at least equally cheap foods available per serving that have fewer calories. You may have to buy chicken wings instead of breasts, but you don't have to bread and deep fry them.
Posted by Megan McArdle
Here, we'll try this:
Nutrition is paramount to health and survival, yet many individuals and families struggle to maintain a healthy diet, especially those with low incomes. Nearly 12.6 million households (11%) in the United States were "food insecure" at times during 2005, meaning they were without the resources to feed themselves enough or were unable for economic reasons to purchase healthful foods, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Most, but not all, of the world's undernourished people live outside the United States, in poor countries. According to a report by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2001 to 2003, 820 million of the 854 million undernourished people worldwide were in developing countries, 25 million in the transitional countries, and 9 million in the industrialized countries (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.htm).
In the United States, food insecurity tends to be higher among households with incomes near or below the federal poverty line, households headed by single women with children, and black and Hispanic households.
[...]
Food insecurity also has been linked to overweight and obesity, particularly among women (Townsend MS et al. J Nutr. 2001;131[6]:1738-1745; Wilde PE and Peterman JN. J Nutr. 2006;136[5]:1395-1400). This apparent paradox may be explained by the fact that high-calorie, processed foods often are less expensive than fresh, perishable foods such as fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products.
"One of the first food groups that's cut out of an impoverished person's diet is produce," explained David H. Holben, PhD, RD, of the School of Human and Consumer Sciences, at Ohio University, in Athens. "Generally speaking, they often choose high-fat, high-sugar, low-cost foods that taste good," he added. Re searchers have found that marketing can also influence consumers, who are bombarded with advertising for unhealthful food and receive inadequate nutritional information, especially in restaurants (Hayne CL et al. J Public Health Policy. 2004;25[3-4]:391-407)
[...]
Food insecurity in the United States is being addressed by a number of ongoing efforts, including federal food assistance programs such as the National School Lunch Program; the Food Stamp Program; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. While these programs have made great strides in improving diet quality, they are not able to reach all individuals in need.
"A little over half of food-insecure households get help from at least one of those programs," said Nord. The American Dietetic Association has called for a number of interventions, including providing adequate funding for the programs and increasing their use, making nutrition education a part of the programs, and promoting and supporting the economic self-sufficiency of individuals and families in the programs (Holben DH and the American Dietetic Association. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106[3]:446-458).
Wilde would like to see if delivering food stamps more frequently might have an impact—for example, twice monthly instead of once monthly. "I’d also like to see the food stamp benefit targeted towards specific categories of foods, such as fruits and vegetables and whole-grain foods," he added.
This isn't to say that poor people, or all Americans for that matter, don't make bad food decisions; I know lots of fat rich people. But , since Megan can't seem to wrap her head around this crazy little thing called "poor", perhaps she'd like to take the Food Stamp Challenge for a week or two.
That would be must read blogging.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight


Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
the funny thing is that a lot of things are actually cheaper in uptown Manhattan supermarkets than they are in the bodegas in Queens or the Bronx. It’s loss leader nirvana up there - their customers have all the choices in the world, and they don’t like spending money where it doesn’t show.
Shorter Megan McArdle: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Is there no place that will distribute low-cal gruel to these people (from the private sector, of course)?”
I work every day with a non-profit that feeds whoever comes in the door. I suppose we should heed Megan’s call to rethink the economic and nutritional theory behind what we are doing, but we are too busy cooking beans and making baloney sandwiches.
And in another example of compassionate conservatism. His commenters at least had the decency to point out that he was just a greedy bastard.
The other ironically delicious thing about consistent rightwing whining about the food stamp program is their ignorance about why it was instituted in the first place.
When WWII started, the armed services found that many potential soldiers were unfit for service due to health problems caused by malnutrition in childhood. Childhood for young men in WWII = childhood during the great depression, when large numbers of people experienced “food insecurity” and often went hungry. As a result, it became recognized that adequate nutrition was also a national security issue, and the food stamp program was instituted so that in America’s future hour of need, the health issues created by poor nutrition would not hamper the national defense.
Why does Megan McArdle hate America’s freedom and want to destroy it with malnourished troops unfit for service?
Shit, if you set out to make a nutritional argument against food stamps your moral compass really is just profoundly fucked up.
There’s a million things wrong with the state of nutrition in the US — much of it related to the massive subsidies given by the government to the massive agro-producers to crank out cheap corn to stick in our Coke. But people who, unlike Megan, do actually, you know… research before they write, have pointed out how pathetic it is that the “good” calories are a lot more expensive than the “cheap” ones.
And, really, now: you’re going to use the fact that there’s an abundance of cheap, bad food available to tell people who try to feed their family on less than 15-20K a year that they’re too fat and stupid to continue getting food stamps? That’s compassionate conservatism summed up in one, nice package right there. I hear those lazy sods like buying really expensive shoes, too, I’m sure Megan is all over that and will soon have a book out about it. Asshat.
You know, every fucking convenience store sells potato chips. Not many of them sell apples. Hell, even I don’t often buy apples at my suburban grocery store because they get picked green and rot before they get ripe due to the miracles of modern agriculture and transportation. If any of that is underwhelming as evidence, Megan needs to get out of her suburb more often.
She’s a fucking moron. And a cruel one. I’m so goddamned tired of hearing that fat is a moral failing from people who apparently think rudeness and bullying strangers are moral virtues.
Born on third and thinks she hit a triple. Modern libertarianism for you.
MM is a clueless dumbass. I’d like to see her take the Food Stamp Challenge–I lived it, myself, for awhile as a student until the food stamp people deemed me “too rich” to pay $38 for $50 worth of stamps. And then I had a food budget of $15 a week. To address just one of her idiot remarks, chicken wings are cheaper than chicken breasts because they are loaded with skin and bone, and if you discard that, the wing meat itself is much fattier per ounce than the breast meat. It also takes a lot of wings to make a serving. I’d like to see McArdle cope with a food stamp budget with hungry adolescents to feed!
One certainly can live on a food stamp allotment, but it involves being a clever and resourceful shopper and cook. How many two-job and three-job parents have the time and interest to make something zingy out of pinto beans?
One woman’s “daft government programs” are another person’s life-or-death necessity. And, of course, drugs are preferable to food, because most drugs have very little fat, and few calories of any sort, thereby combating obesity.
Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.
Christ, I missed that. I am speechless at the insanity.
On a related note, I’m not really sure what elderberries actually are, but the core concept just seems horribly, horribly wrong.
I’m not sure if this helps, but Megan also feels that Teh Poor don’t belong in museums.
She is the poster-asshole for self-proclaimed Libertarians the world over.
Tarquin: “make something zingy out of pinto beans” — hey. with a little fois gras, truffles, and some pine nuts I’m sure they could do it, if only they weren’t so fat, lazy and inclined to vote Democrat…
This “Compassionate Quick Cooking With a Rethug” tip has been brought to you by Arthur Daniels Midland™ — the one source for all your high fructose corn syrup and genetically modified soy bean needs.
People of McMegan’s (née Jane Galt) stripe think that poverty and hunger are moral failings or the result of choice. In a way they’re right. But the moral failing or poor decisionmaking is not the victim’s but that of the well-fed driveler who, in the immortal phrase, was born on third base and thinks they hit a triple.
Yes, exactly. The dearth of supermarkets in poor neighborhoods means they end up having to pay more for crappier food with a more limited selection. But that’s something even the underprivileged Megan “never went to Disneyland as a kid” McArdle doesn’t understand.
Also, you misspelled “witless”.
I hate to go “biographical” on you but I need to illustrate a point.
Three years ago, I had a heart attack and ended up with triple bypass surgery. I was placed on a “heart-healthy” diet…that is, unless I want to go through that crap again.
My wonderful spouse went on a quest to make sure that we bought only “healthy” foods ….guess what….our grocery bill shot up over 50% because “heart-healthy” foods are considered Yuppie Chow…and food manufacturers charge a premium for them…
Low fat, low cholesterol, low sodium (yeah, good luck on that one) foods are far more expensive than the high fat, high sodium crap….
Fortunately, we can afford to eat healthy…if I was on food stamps, I couldn’t…
hizzhoner
The problem with US food production is that ag subsidies go to making more corn, wheat, and cotton (which is where all that nasty cottonseed oil in junk food comes from); thus the stuff that junk food is made out of is artificially much cheaper than it would be otherwise.
It can be easily argued that US ag subsidies make Archer Daniels Midland and all the rest quite rich while they produce artificially cheap crap that is bad for anyone, regardless of their income level. Apparently it is only a sin if a poor person eats it, otherwise it is just the magic of the free market to MM even when the market is anything but free.
Without the huge ag subsidies the market would be much closer to the libertarian holy grail MM seeks, and junk food would cost considerably more. MM is too brain addled from years of thinking that Atlas Shrugged was nonfiction to actually see a truly artificially distorted market and its consequences; it is so much easier to point at poor people and say “fatty, fatty, too poor and dumb to be svelt like me!” Fucking bitch.
makeitstop: “Atlas Shrugged was nonfiction” — You’re shittin’ me, right?!? But… but…
There’s a huge world of problems in the US when you start talking about food. I know well-off “libertarian” professional yuppie types that simply *don’t know how to boil pasta*, let alone cook anything real. It doesn’t suprise me in the least that poor people missed out on those basic survival skills, as they get the short end of the education stick in so many other ways as well.
Is it unhealthy? Well, duh. Just about anything you get in fast- or preprocessed-food is going to be unhealthy unless you pay a premium. But those are the foods that are “easy”: no investment in cookware, no learning curve.
Around here (US, mid-Atl) there actually are places where you can get good, fresh, inexpensive (in season!) produce. Could the poor get better, cheaper nutrition? Sure. And it’s better for the farmers and the environment that way, I’d wager.
But I think that the problem is society-wide, it’s just that the poor suffer more as a result. And if there’s a solution, it’ll be society-wide as well, probably involving the destruction of ADM.
Regardless, even if the entire US turns agains fast-food and moves toward a better lifestyle, it’ll still take years of food-stamp support to alleviate the immediate needs. And so far, it sure looks like American’s love affair with fast-food isn’t cooling off very fast.
By and large, people in this country eat crap. Heavily-subsidized crap, as others have pointed out.
If you want a real eye-opener on your food and how it’s produced, read The Omnivore’s Dillema by Michael Pollan. Compared to a lot of people, I was eating pretty healthy before I read it…and even at that, it changed the way I look at food and what I will buy and eat.
Her “argument” illustrates why libertarians are nothing more than self-centered brats who have never grown emotionally beyond adolescence.
When you have a coterie of glibertarian fanbois to keep happy, you say some really fucking stupid things.
Isn’t it time to point to Amber Pawlik’s recipes? I think so.
pseudonymous in nc,
What, amber pawlik? that’s too cruel.
aimai
What a lot of people don’t realize is that finding good food, i.e. fresh produce, etc., is next-to-impossible in poor urban areas. I lived in Prospect Heights and East Harlem before they were gentrified (yuppies move in, and all of a sudden, there goes the neighborhood) and the supermarkets were terrible. I had to take the train if I wanted to find decent fresh veggies.
Not only should Megan be forced to live on food stamps, she should have to do her shopping in, say, Camden, New Jersey, or another poor urban area with bad supermarkets.
Maybe then she’d get the picture, though I doubt it.
Who knew there was whole blog dedicated to getting Megan McArdle fired?
And this is the woman that’s supposed to be so smart? I wish I could write stuff without worrying if it made any sense. It looks like she couldn’t be bothered to check the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which published a chart that looks at the ROI for various stim options including the food stamps that Meagan dully figures will just go to buy … more food.
Sorry - wrong link above. This is the one straight to the CBPP.
well, i sure expect such stalwart defenders of the poor as the clintons and their welfare reform to get us out of this fix
yes sir, these two are just the two to get us out of this poverty fix - they always doing the lord’s good works
In the fat, rich people category, I think Lee Raymond has no competition.
Yes, healthy food is more expensive per serving (either purchase price or cost of getting to the vendors or both); requires some knowledge that the person may or may not have (fresh green beans don’t come with cooking instructions on the package; and they don’t have advertising blazoned across them saying they have 100% of the essential nutrient that you have to have); and requires cooking equipment that the person may or may not have.
In addition, there’s just the time and difficulty element, which is non-trivial for someone who has spent all day on their feet at their job. Spending half an hour washing and trimming the green beans for your family as one dish in a healthy meal would be a problem for me. A good meal starting from nonprocessed ingredients is going to take you an hour. Every night. And then there’s clean up. In that situation, I’d eat a whole lot of processed food.
I read “The Onmivore’s Dilemma” about a year ago and walked around for weeks saying “everything is corn….it doesn’t matter what you eat, it’s all corn” and just about drove Tbogg and Casey crazy. What an eyeopener…everyone should read it. I now try to do better with local and organic (and we are also lucky in that we can afford it), but it’s not easy. Impossible in a low-income, urban setting.
MrsTbogg: Pollan’s ’shop the perimeter’ is a really good rule-of-thumb at the GroceryMart. Of course, plenty of people don’t have access to outlets with decent ‘perimeter’ shopping.
But the debate on whether to prop up Corn and HogShit, Inc. went begging, in part thanks to the necessity of pandering to BigAg in the Senate and on the primary trail. Never mind that Pollan shows how monoculture screws Iowa farmers as much as it does those whose budgets drive them to the corn-soy-HFCS aisles.
(What’s the situation like with the L&TC in Hawaii? The Great Gazoogle suggests that there’s some effort to make the islands less dependent on important foodstuffs…)
Yeah, but there’s processed food and processed food. Frozen vegetables are actually more nutritious than all but the most fresh (and least likely to be fresh in most markets) fresh vegetables, and they’re not difficult to prepare.
Unfortunately, they’re most likely to be affordable in the big bulk generic bags they sell in Costcos and suburban markets. In a bodega you get ten ounce packages for three or four bucks.
Aching stupidity, tragic ignorance, willful indifference and shocking cruelty.
She makes Marie Antoinette look like the Tooth Fairy.
Absolutely unconscionable.
For those interested in The Onmivore’s Dilemma, there is a movie “King Corn”
which follows a similar story line.
http://www.kingcorn.net/
trailer - http://www.apple.com/trailers/.....n/trailer/
You’re not kidding it’s not easy. Part of my issue is that I read it right at the end of the growing season…so access to locally grown produce is not there at the moment, and I didn’t stock up in advance. I plan to do that this summer, just buy at the farmer’s market and freeze for use later. That should not be really any more expensive than the supermarket, other than the cost of running the freezer (something a person on foodstamps isn’t likely to have - a separate deep freeze). So for now, the produce I’m getting isn’t local. I have started checking labels on everything for origin, though, and was pretty much outraged to find the Kroger premium store label frozen green beans are from China, so I don’t buy those. My biggest thing though is swearing off industrial meat, milk, eggs and poultry. The thing that grabbed me most about the book is how it’s just so ethically wrong to take a living thing and force it to live as a machine, the way we do with feedlot cows. I’ll continue to eat cows and feel no guilt about it…as long as those cows were allowed to be cows while alive.
But as others have said, these kinds of choices aren’t open to a lot of people. If I had kids even, I wouldn’t have the money to afford the luxury of being so particular about my food.
Here’s more support for adding food stamp benefits to the stimpack.
Okay, now imagine spending an hour cooking while in a wheelchair, or with acute back pain, or with nausea, or with rheumatoid arthritis… One of the things people like Megan miss is that the poor are often poor because they’re disabled in some way. Which makes the efforts needed to cook healthy meals even more out of reach.
Seems like we could get three birds with one stone with a little universal health care–teach people what eating well involves, help them be healthy enough to do some of it, and leave them more money for groceries after they pay for their meds.
Me, I eat processed food all the time. I pretty much have to, since the smell of cooking triggers migraines and nausea and by the time I’m done doing much more than microwaving a box I’m too sick to eat. You can waste a lot of food that way, and it turns out actually cheaper to buy processed food anyway. Not to mention I actually get to eat at least one meal a day. And in terms of disabilities, I’m *nothing*. If you’ve got cancer on a fixed income, you’re totally fucked. And then just to make sure your life’s just a little more unbearable, Megan comes along and calls you fat and lazy and sloppy. Nice girl, that.
Ya know, my Mom keeps dogging me to be “tolerant” to be more “understanding” about those whose opinions, philosophies and mores differ significantly from my own, and then I read this shit and it all goes out the window.
I actually used the word “motherfucker” while talking with her on the phone following the Republican debate, but she had watched it also and didn’t bat an eye after witnessing that clusterfuck of hate, warmongering and idiot pandering.
Fuck McCardle, maybe she can spare the fucking poor a goddamned martini. She’s probably a motherfucking Orangeman-(london)Derry-Prince-billy supporting fuckwad anyway.
The only people I hate more than Irish Catholics such as myself, are the fucking Irish Protestants. This bitch will probably give us a lecture on how the series of potato famines (which drove my entire clan here) were somehow the fault of poor, fat, stupid renters.
dsidhe, I think Megan is of the opinion that disability is a choice — and while she and her wealthy Bread & Circus shopping buddies chose wisely, the wheelchair bound just got it wrong…
Megan produced a passive aggressive response to the negative attention Tbogg n Atrios have so wonderfully thrown her way. She tried the Food Stamp Challenge, and still doesn’t give a shit. I hate to blogwhore, but I put up a slightly ranty take on her new post at the already mentioned Fire Megan blog, for those who prefer not to take their Megan straight.
I think Gavin pretty much nailed it here, which just leaves for the rest of us to link to it at intervals.
Ohhhhhh, well you see, poor people don’t count. See? Yeah. Anyway, let’s get back to the Hamptons and pretend to be smart!
So, wait, Megan agitates for living wages? I’m pretty sure that’s what I got from the reply Brad offered us. To which I say, kudos. Because I’d rather people have a living wage than have to get food stamps, too.
See? She’s not a heartless bully. She’s concentrating her energies on eradicating the concept of “working poor” altogether and making sure people who work full time can make a decent living at it.
Unless, of course, she’s not doing that either because she’s busy rereading Ayn Rand. Which I guess would mean she’s lazy and therefore deserves to be fat and poor.
This may seem a bit off but it describes the cluelessness of the Megan McArdles of this world.
Many years ago (1961), during a conversation, a friend, who came from a very well to do family, said that poor people were really stupid because they bought cars with borrowed money. Exact quote I remember to this day: “Don’t they know you should always pay cash for a car.” He said this while sitting in the slick new Pontiac his father bought for him.
My family had never been able to afford a new car. Every car was used and financed.
When that stuff rolled out of his mouth I was absolutely speechless. I was so stunned at his stupidity that I was physically unable to utter a word.
I’d wager that Megan McArdle comes from a similar background.
Times change, people don’t.
Bonus points to megan for actually bothering to respond. This stood out: “If peoples’ incomes are inadequate to the bare minimum needed for decency in modern America, then I am in favor of topping up their incomes.”
I think we just witnessed the birth of the concept of “conditional compassion” there. Megan evidently isn’t sure yet — and after all, how do you define “decency” in an era where 200K vets are left homeless with the complete acceptance of an administration that has repeatedly cut benefits for vets? Recall the whining we had to endure when, finally, Congress realized that the time to raise the minimum wage was long overdue. But Megan is still not sure if anybody out there really needs any help…
You gotta ask yourself, Megan: What Would Ayn Do?
Some people don’t, no. I’m very fond of the occasional asshole who explains that poor people are stupidly choosing to be poor by renting rather than buying a home. “They’re just throwing their income away! Of course they’re poor!”
Yes, and then some of them got into subprime mortgages, probably because they were told too many times that renting was throwing their money away. Now they are throwing their homes away, but not because they want to. And they’ll most likely be even poorer after the foreclosure.
For the people cal1942 and dsidhe describe, there isn’t anything a poor/homeless/anyonenotarepublicanliketheyare can do that can’t be turned into a “of course they’re poor!” example. Rent and they are “throwing their money away”, take out a mortgage that was sold to them without them knowing about the huge payment resets coming and they’ve “crushed the free market with their wanton borrowing”.
Next we’ll see the looming recession blamed entirely on poor people, followed by John Gibson and the other reichtard sadists opining that these awful poor people should be made to pay for upsetting the global markets so terribly.
“Next we’ll see the looming recession blamed entirely on poor people, followed by John Gibson and the other reichtard sadists opining that these awful poor people should be made to pay for upsetting the global markets so terribly.”
Sadly yes.
That is so over the top I am sitting here in disbelief wondering if there is supposed to be a snark tag attached to it.
Utter disbelief.
That stupid woman needs to go hungry 3 out of 4 weeks a month for a year like a lot of poor people do. The first week of the month you eat pretty good and then it’s downhill until the new month rolls around again.I would bet a hundred bucks she has never had to eat “End Of The Month Food”.
That much willful ignorance concentrated in one human is a tragedy worthy of extended and brutal public humiliation.
eat the rich
What Would Ayn Do?
Proclaim the innate moral superiority of unfettered capitalism?
Let ‘em eat the stamps.
Let’s really play the Race Card:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm
Her blog made me question how seriously I should take The Economist magazine (her employer).
She’s an English major (and a dogmatic one). I know several bright economics undergrads who could comment on the economy more knowledgeably.
After hearing that during the bipartisan negotiation the goopers said food stamps and unemployment were dealbreakers, all I could think is what fundamental brain function are they missing that human beings have?
I have to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that this is just reactionary auto-anti anything progressive. Because the alternative is that they are the most vicious, heartless pricks that walk the face of the earth.
Imbecile.
I couldn’t find that post. Did Aravois disappear it, or was your link bad?
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was the former.
Oh, but she’s more than just an English major. She’s also an MBA. From the University of Chicago, dontcha know.
She seems to think that this qualifies her to make grand pronouncements on sticky economic problems, while everyone else is quite aware of the fact that the true benefit of getting an MBA is not the knowledge gained (such that it is) in the process, but is in fact the ability to make contacts in the business world.
”Because the alternative is that they are the most vicious, heartless pricks that walk the face of the earth.”
We have a winner!
You crack me up. During my food-stamp days, I remember splurging on one ounce of pine nuts (yes, the clerk was pleased to measure out and sell me so few) to adorn my eggplant “caviar.” And some b*tch behind me in line made a high-handed remark about “people who don’t know how to shop,” and how she was paying for those pine nuts.
I told her that I was a taxpayer, too, and she stuck her rhinoplastied snout in the air.
Amber’s pizza? Hell, I’ll raise you with Cherbear’s Easter cookies!
http://www.cherbearsden.com/cookies.html
Eeeeuuw!