Calm down. First of all note that it is a short-term effect from a _temporary_ increase in food stamps. The article doesn't address the long term.
Secondly, why be surprised that giving money to those who badly need it would increase spending?
And thirdly that each spent dollar would ripple through the economy for a total value greater than a dollar? This is one of the earliest lessons in Economics 101.
What this shows is that food stamps are a relatively "frictionless" method of boosting spending. There's less overhead for food stamps than for other programs and, since the spending is unlikely to be misdirected (as in "bridge to nowhere" projects et al), you get lots of bang for your buck.
Secondly, why be surprised that giving money to those who badly need it would increase spending?
And thirdly that each spent dollar would ripple through the economy for a total value greater than a dollar? This is one of the earliest lessons in Economics 101.
What this shows is that food stamps are a relatively "frictionless" method of boosting spending. There's less overhead for food stamps than for other programs and, since the spending is unlikely to be misdirected (as in "bridge to nowhere" projects et al), you get lots of bang for your buck.