Food insecurity has expanded over the last few months, with recent census data showing that, as of late July, 12.1 percent of American households didn't have enough to eat at some point during the previous week, compared to 9.8 percent in May, according to the Wall Street Journal. The statistics, based on weekly surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, become more grim when one takes children into account: The same data indicated that almost 20 percent of Americans with children at home couldn’t afford to give them enough food, up from almost 17 percent in early June.

The Journal noted that these numbers are likely to increase in time, as the $600 a week supplemental unemployment benefits ended at the end of last month, with no hope of a new deal in sight, since Democrats and Republicans are far from reaching agreement on a new aid package. Bloomberg said that the parties' respective conventions are taking up more of their attention at this point; with each passing day, it becomes less and less likely that the literally tens of millions of people who are currently unemployed will see any sort of relief until September at the soonest.

This will likely have cascading economic impacts beyond just Americans' ability to get food. A recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that cutting the federal supplements to state unemployment insurance payments sharply reduces spending, which is bad news for the businesses that they would have otherwise patronized. The researchers found that, in general, when the government gives unemployed people money, they will spend it, and if it takes that money away, they won't. Specifically, the paper says cutting the supplement from $600 to $400 would serve to reduce local spending by 12 percent; cutting it to $200 would reduce local spending by 28 percent; and getting rid of the supplement entirely would reduce local spending by 44 percent.

A recent survey of economists found them not very concerned about unemployment payments deterring people from going back to work, while conceding that such payments had that effect, and more interested in the benefits that the payments produced in terms of stimulating the economy. Overall, 82 percent said that the positive impact of the latter outweighs the drawbacks of the former.