Apples to apples
Reader comment on: Krugman and Obama on Infant Nutrition
in response to reader comment: What a surprise
Submitted by jwg (United States), Feb 18, 2011 14:35
A few back of the envelope calculations would demonstrate that adjusting the 2000 to 2010 for inflation, and for the increase in the number of people who qualify for WIC from 2000 to 2010 (the deepest recession in 60 years) accounts for more than 100% of the increase in WIC spending. Therefore, real per (poor) capita spending has, if anything, already gone down. Cuts to the program will reduce real spending on the poor on a per capita.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
| Title |
By |
Date |
the elephant in the room
[w/response] [95 words] | davesnot here | Feb 22, 2011 10:12 |
WIC
[w/response] [148 words] | Vince | Feb 18, 2011 23:48 |
| ↔ Why would it cost more in 2010? [64 words] | editrix | Feb 20, 2011 04:53 |
| ↔ Twice more sounds about right [66 words] | Not to sure but... | Feb 20, 2011 19:34 |
| Questions [136 words] | Andy C | Feb 18, 2011 15:57 |
| ↔ Inflation, income and abuse [152 words] | Shannon Love | Feb 18, 2011 17:14 |
| ↔ Good point [104 words] | Andy C | Feb 18, 2011 21:12 |
↔ WIC
[w/response] [112 words] | Vince | Feb 18, 2011 23:57 |
| ↔ Rich isn't numeric [98 words] | Shannon Love | Feb 19, 2011 00:28 |
| ↔ re: WIC [126 words] | Jill C | Feb 21, 2011 18:06 |
| It's hard to help without hurting [214 words] | Shannon Love | Feb 18, 2011 14:19 |
| I'm ashamed [92 words] | Brian C. | Feb 18, 2011 12:36 |
| What a surprise [17 words] | deepelemblues | Feb 18, 2011 11:22 |
| ↔ ⇒ Apples to apples [78 words] | jwg | Feb 18, 2011 14:35 |
Comment on this item
