You can read it right here.

She’s arguing that the idea of increased food stamp allowances wouldn’t be a useful economic stimulus in the way a tax rebate would.  There are five reasons that she gives, and the first is

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.


The next four are, roughly, that food stamps can only be spent on food not on other things, that if the only change is to increase eligibility people won’t find out in time for it to have much effect*, that the money will be spent on things that already exist and not go towards increased manufacturing (one would assume that this is the point of a short term stimulus, but ….), and that, finally, the government has already done an awful lot of interference in the food market (via subsidies, etc.) and it would be better if they didn’t get more involved.

So, at this point it should be clear that the title above there is obvious sarcasm.   It may not be worth saying, but all of these are obviously, stupidly wrong.
She defends her suggestion in the next post by arguing that  people who point out that poor people are in fact economically constrained in what they can and can’t afford to eat and hence probably could use some extra money are forgetting the first point she made – they’re already eating too much food. She makes four points here – (1)if they cut back they could afford the healthier fruits and vegetables which often aren’t actually available in poor neighborhoods.  She also argues (2) that the prices of high quality foods (fruits and vegetables, etc.) aren’t going up, incomes of poor people aren’t going down, but the poor are getting fatter (so presumably it’s personal choice making the difference and not situational factors or poverty).  Also (3) the causality is backwards here: it isn’t that poverty is causing people to become fat, but that being fat makes you poor**.  And finally (4) that all this relies on the notion that your eating habits have something to do with your weight – the poor are probably just naturally fat, that’s all.***

There’s one final post on the issue, which I’m not going to discuss in too much depth except to excerpt this sentence:

But food stamp programs are stupid at the best of times, and in a population that has clearly reached and surpassed caloric sufficiency, they are ludicrous.

She also makes a very interesting argument right at the end, namely, that the food stamps are either entirely or not entirely fungible.  In the first case every extra dollar of food stamps frees up a dollar that the person would previously have spent on food to spend on something else, in which case it is good economic policy.  Or, that they are not entirely fungible in which case they will result in more money being spent on food (which presumably is less good as far as the stimulus goes?  it is hard to tell what the argument is here specifically – perhaps they are just both bad social policy because they’re encouraging fat people to eat more).  The fact that “food” is not a single product (that is, that one might simply buy better or at least more expensive food) is ignored, as is, somewhat mysteriously, the fact that buying food actually still counts, economically, as buying something.

Note to someone who knows who they are: this is someone you take seriously arguing this.  Those links up there?  I found them before I had my coffee, using an internet connection that only works when I put my computer up on the window sill (at eye height) and get lucky.  Someone who can, you know, sit down and use the computer at the same time has no excuse here.  They are just an idiot.

*Which would seem like good reason to assume that it won’t just be increased eligibility but also increased funds.  Also even if it is only increased eligibility (which, by the way, since food stamps are given out on a sliding scale relative to income would be nearly impossible to do without, well, increasing funds given to specific people anyway) it would still work faster than giving everyone a tax rebate on their recent earnings which is, bear in mind, the other position here.

**I’m not going to give you links on that one, you’ll have to figure out why it’s ridiculous on your own.
***Here, too.