“We Want Our Entitlements”: In November, Food Stamp
Money Will Run Out For 42 Million Very Angry Americans'
by Michael Snyder
"What do you think is going to happen when tens of millions of impoverished Americans suddenly stop getting their food stamp money from the government? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a lot of them will be extremely angry. Unfortunately, if the current government shutdown stretches into the month of November, we really will be facing a nightmare scenario. Vast numbers of extraordinarily frustrated people will be demanding their money, and if they don’t get it I have a feeling that we could see rioting and violence.
I haven’t written much about the government shutdown because I was hoping that it would be resolved quickly. Sadly, that has not happened. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are budging, and House Speaker Mike Johnson is warning that we are potentially facing
“one of the longest shutdowns in American history”…"House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday the country is “barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history.”
As the funding crisis hits the two-week mark, lawmakers still don’t appear any closer to a compromise. The longest shutdown happened during President Trump’s first term and was largely related to disputes over a southern border wall. It lasted for 35 days. The pain that is caused by this shutdown will only increase the longer that it persists.
For example, Axios
is reporting that there won’t be enough money to pay food stamp benefits if the shutdown continues past the end of this month…"The Trump administration is warning states that there will be “insufficient funds” to pay full
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits if the government shutdown extends past October, Axios has learned."
So for now, people are still getting their food stamp money. But a letter
has already gone out that clearly warns state agencies that “there will be insufficient funds to pay full November SNAP benefits”…“As stated in our lapse of appropriation correspondence dated October 1, 2025, SNAP has funding available for benefits and operations through the month of October,” Ronald Ward, the acting associate administrator of SNAP, said in a letter to state agencies viewed by Axios. “However, if the current lapse in appropriations continues, there will be insufficient funds to pay full November SNAP benefits for approximately 42 million individuals across the Nation.”
Considering how tense things already are in our nation, what will happen if 42 million poor people suddenly no longer have enough money for food? I hope that we don’t find out.
If the government did try to find money to pay food stamp benefits in November,
that could actually violate federal law…“Considering the operational issues and constraints that exist in automated systems, and in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are forced to direct States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State EBT vendors,” the letter says.
A person familiar with the matter told Axios that, if the cards were loaded up, it could violate the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. So I think that we are facing a very hard deadline.
And that is really bad news for tens of millions of Americans that are deeply dependent on government assistance. One of those individuals is a young mother in Minnesota
named Barbie Anderson…"Barbie Anderson is trying to conserve the milk her three young children drink in case she doesn’t get her WIC benefits on October 15 as scheduled. Though Anderson and her husband both work, they have depended on the federal food assistance program to stretch out their grocery budget since their older son was born nine years ago. The money is especially important because the prices are very high at the closest supermarket to their rural northern Minnesota home, with a gallon of milk costing more than $5." If the money dries up, what is she supposed to tell her children? What would you tell your children?
For a moment, let’s assume that there is a miracle and our politicians in Washington are able to come to an agreement to end the shutdown. Even if that is the case, millions of Americans will still lose their food stamp benefits in the months ahead due to major changes to the program that were made by the “Big, Beautiful Bill”. In fact, hundreds of thousands of people will lose their food stamp benefits
in the state of New York alone…
In July, President Donald Trump signed his “Big, Beautiful Bill” into law, enacting over $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps). Drastic changes to snap were expected to roll out starting next year, including expanded work requirements projected to cause hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to lose eligibility.
On October 3, the federal agency that oversees SNAP announced it would hasten that timeline by terminating waivers that have allowed dozens of states, including New York, to largely suspend work requirements. Those requirements limit recipients to three months of snap benefits over a three-year period, unless they continually certify they have worked, volunteered, or studied in school at least 80 hours per month. New York’s waiver was set to expire at the end of February, allowing officials to delay the implementation of work rules until March; it is now set to be cancelled in the first few days of November."
So one way or another, large numbers of Americans are about to lose their food stamp benefits. Many of those impoverished individuals will turn to our nation’s food banks, and right now those food banks
are bracing for the worst…"Across the country, food banks are stocking up on provisions and community service organizations are telling at-risk clients to warn their lenders of the potential for missed payments, leaders of the groups told The Washington Post. Small-business owners are keeping a close eye on their foot traffic. Federal workers are preparing their families for some financial belt-tightening."
Unfortunately, food banks all over the country have already been dealing with record high demand. One food bank executive in Philadelphia
told the Washington Post that he has “never seen our warehouse as empty as it has been in the last three months”…"In Philadelphia, serving the hungry has gotten more difficult for one of the region’s largest food banks, said George Matysik, the executive director of Share Food Program. Before the shutdown, demand for Share’s services had already gone up by 120 percent, Matysik said, as the nonprofit saw $8.5 million worth of federal resources vanish under the Trump administration’s cuts to federal spending. “I have never seen our warehouse as empty as it has been in the last three months,” Matysik said. “And on top of all this, we’re now layering a shutdown.”
I don’t think that I could overstate the gravity of the crisis that we are facing. Homelessness in the U.S. is at the highest level ever, demand at food banks is at the highest level ever, and hunger is exploding all around us. And now food stamp benefits are about to be cut off for 42 million Americans. If all of this sounds eerily similar
to what I have been warning about, that is because it really is eerily similar to what I have been warning about. I wish that this wasn’t true, but our society simply would not be able to handle an extended government shutdown. When people get hungry, they get angry. And we do not want to see millions of very hungry people take to the streets."
o
“Nine Meals from Anarchy”
by Jeff Thomas
“In 1906, Alfred Henry Lewis stated, “There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.” Since then, his observation has been echoed by people as disparate as Robert Heinlein and Leon Trotsky. The key here is that, unlike all other commodities, food is the one essential that cannot be postponed. If there were a shortage of, say, shoes, we could make do for months or even years. A shortage of gasoline would be worse, but we could survive it, through mass transport, or even walking, if necessary.
But food is different. If there were an interruption in the supply of food, fear would set in immediately. And, if the resumption of the food supply were uncertain, the fear would become pronounced. After only nine missed meals, it’s not unlikely that we’d panic and be prepared to commit a crime to acquire food. If we were to see our neighbor with a loaf of bread, and we owned a gun, we might well say, “I’m sorry, you’re a good neighbor and we’ve been friends for years, but my children haven’t eaten today – I have to have that bread – even if I have to shoot you.”
So, let’s have a closer look at the actual food distribution industry, compare it to the present direction of the economy and see whether there might be reason for concern.
The food industry typically operates on very small margins – often below 2%. Traditionally wholesalers and retailers have relied on a two-week turnaround of supply and anywhere up to a 30-day payment plan. But an increasing tightening of the economic system for the last eight years has resulted in a turnaround time of just three days for both supply and payment for many in the industry. This is a system that’s already under sever pressure, and has no further wiggle room should it take significant further hits.
If there were a month where significant inflation took place (say, 3%), all profits would be lost for the month, for both suppliers and retailers, but goods could still be replaced and sold for a higher price next month. But, if there were three or more consecutive months of inflation, the industry would be unable to bridge the gap, even if better conditions were expected to develop in future months. A failure to pay in full for several months would mean smaller orders by those who could not pay. That would mean fewer goods on the shelves. The longer the inflationary trend continued, the more quickly prices would rise to hopefully offset the inflation. And ever-fewer items on the shelves.
From Germany in 1922, to Argentina in 2000, to Venezuela in 2016, this has been the pattern, whenever inflation has become systemic, rather than sporadic. Each month, some stores close, beginning with those that are the most poorly-capitalized. In good economic times, this would mean more business for those stores that were still solvent, but, in an inflationary situation, they would be in no position to take on more unprofitable business. The result is that the volume of food on offer at retailers would decrease at a pace with the severity of the inflation.
However, the demand for food would not decrease by a single loaf of bread. Store closings would be felt most immediately in inner cities, when one closing would send customers to the next neighborhood, seeking food. The real danger would come when that store had also closed and both neighborhoods descended on a third store in yet another neighborhood. That’s when one loaf of bread for every three potential purchasers would become worth killing over. Virtually no one would long tolerate seeing his children go without food because others had “invaded” his local supermarket.
In addition to retailers, the entire industry would be impacted and, as retailers disappeared, so would suppliers, and so on, up the food chain. This would not occur in an orderly fashion, or in one specific area. The problem would be a national one. Closures would be all over the map, seemingly at random, affecting all areas. Food riots would take place, first in the inner cities, then spread to other communities. Buyers, fearful of shortages, would clean out the shelves.
Importantly, it’s the very unpredictability of food delivery that increases fear, creating panic and violence. And, again, none of the above is speculation; it’s an historical pattern – a reaction based upon human nature whenever systemic inflation occurs.
Then… unfortunately… the cavalry arrives. At that point it would be very likely that the central government would step in and issue controls to the food industry that served political needs, rather than business needs, greatly exacerbating the problem. Suppliers would be ordered to deliver to those neighborhoods where the riots were the worst, even if those retailers were unable to pay. This would increase the number of closings of suppliers. Along the way, truckers would begin to refuse to enter troubled neighborhoods and the military might well be brought in to force deliveries to take place.
So what would it take for the above to occur? Well, historically, it has always begun with excessive debt. We know that the debt level is now the highest it has ever been in world history. In addition, the stock and bond markets are in bubbles of historic proportions. They are most certainly popping.
With a crash in the markets, deflation always follows, as people try to unload assets to cover for their losses. The Federal Reserve (and other central banks) has stated that it will unquestionably print as much money as it takes to counter deflation. Unfortunately, inflation has a far greater effect on the price of commodities than assets. Therefore, the prices of commodities will rise dramatically, further squeezing the purchasing power of the consumer, thereby decreasing the likelihood that he will buy assets, even if they’re bargain-priced. Therefore, asset-holders will drop their prices repeatedly, as they become more desperate. The Fed then prints more to counter the deeper deflation and we enter a period when deflation and inflation are increasing concurrently.
Historically, when this point has been reached, no government has ever done the right thing. They have, instead, done the very opposite – keep printing. Food still exists, but retailers shut down because they cannot pay for goods. Suppliers shut down because they’re not receiving payments from retailers. Producers cut production because sales are plummeting.
In every country that has passed through such a period, the government has eventually gotten out of the way, and the free market has prevailed, re-energizing the industry and creating a return to normal. The question is not whether civilization will come to an end. (It will not.) The question is the liveability of a society that is experiencing a food crisis, as even the best of people are likely to panic and become a potential threat to anyone who is known to store a case of soup in his cellar.
Fear of starvation is fundamentally different from other fears of shortages. Even good people panic. In such times, it’s advantageous to be living in a rural setting, as far from the centre of panic as possible. It’s also advantageous to store food in advance that will last for several months, if necessary. However, even these measures are no guarantee, as, today, modern highways and efficient cars make it easy for anyone to travel quickly to where the goods are. The ideal is to be prepared to sit out the crisis in a country that will be less likely to be impacted by dramatic inflation – where the likelihood of a food crisis is low and basic safety is more assured.”
