OT: Record Number Of US Households On Foodstamps

Page 1 of 2  
Foodstamps.
What a quaint idea - for a third-world country...
======================== http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-number-us-households-foodstamps
Last month, when the USDA released the latest foodstamps numbers for the month of February, there was some hope that following a third month of declines, we may just have seen the peak of US foodstamp usage and going forward we would only see the number decline.
Sadly, the latest numbers refutes this: in March a total of 46,405,204 persons were at or below poverty level and thus eligible for foodstamps, a 79K increase in the month.
Yet while many individuals have learned to game the system, and this numbers at the peak may fluctuate, when it comes to the far more comprehensive and difficult to fudge "households on foodstamps" number, there was no confusion: at 22,257,647, the number of US households receiving the "SNAP treatment" rose to an all time high, even as the benefit per household dropped to the second lowest ever.
At least all these impoverished believers in hope and change have FeceBook IPO profits to look forward to. Oh wait.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2012 6:04 PM, Home Guy wrote:

Obama is called the food stamp president. One of the mechanisms the unemployed have learned so they don't have to work. Bet, if you lived in US, you'd vote for him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank wrote:

I'd vote for Ron Paul.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2012 7:35 PM, Home Guy wrote:

Now that you mention it, I would put you in the fruitcake crowd ;)
You do know that the second choice of Ron Paul's voters is Obama?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank wrote:

My second choice would be - none of the above.
Unless
Is Ralf Nader running again this election?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...
How infuriating listening to you right wingers when the president submitted a second stimulus program that the House laughed at.
First stimulus, things started to get better.
Then the country put the Repubs back in power and as a result there are no laws passed, things go to hell, and the right wingers sit there pointing fingers.
Up until Obama was elected, every right winger knew that the only way to get out of an economic slow down was to stimulate the economy.
Now the only plan we hear is cut taxes some more and everything will be fine. Oh, yeah, cut off medical care for old people too.
Well, we're f*d good and proper and I think we should let Mitt preside over the final collapse.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The number one priority of Republicans was to defeat Obama, not to help the economy. If they could make the economy suck (something they are good at) then people will become frustrated with Obama and vote Republican again. So, make the initial stimulus as small as possible and block any more. Then, obscure the positive effect of the initial stimulus by lumping it together with the bank bailout.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The premise of the "stimulus" was flawed. Taking money from people by force, and giving to other people, isn't going to help the economy. To help the economy, the govt needs to spend less, and live within its means. Also needs to reduce the burdensome regulations.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
The number one priority of Republicans was to defeat Obama, not to help the economy. If they could make the economy suck (something they are good at) then people will become frustrated with Obama and vote Republican again. So, make the initial stimulus as small as possible and block any more. Then, obscure the positive effect of the initial stimulus by lumping it together with the bank bailout.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, every time GWB did it, you were against it. You just forgot to tell us about it at the time.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exactly when did GWB have a stimulus bill?
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How soon we forget.
First thing was the massive tax cut. A stimulus that put money in everyone's pocket and of course, raised the deficit.
Then there were the checks mailed to everyone.
As late as 2008:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/08/republicans_stimulus.html http://tinyurl.com/4yfunx2
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This whole discussion is ludicrous. The high number of ppl on food stamps is directly attributable to the high number of ppl without jobs. DUH! The lack of work is due to big business exporting jobs off shore. Dbl DUH!! It matters not who is in the white house or who controls the congress, it's big business that flips the burgers and neither the pubs nor the dems are gonna do a damn thing to endanger the status quo cuz they both get the pockets greased from the same skillet.
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The main reason jobs leave is because they can be done better and/or cheaper elsewhere. That is a very multi-faceted issue that both sides try to boil down to either inherent evilness of the corporations (Dems) or the inherent evilness of the government (taxes and regulations). The other part is the illusion that these were some how jobs owned or owed to Americans which is yet another conceit and never part of reality .
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/5/2012 11:30 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

That's right. I believe over taxation is less of a problem than over regulation.
I also believe if people are starving they should get food stamps but most that get them should not as they have houses and cars and all modern electronic conveniences yet will not work because they don't have to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yer talking about hugely profitable businesses that get near infinite tax deferments, and without oversight and/or regulation, destroy lives, nay, entire communities and towns in their quest for profits. Yer talking about American businesses that have machine gunned women and children in their homes. Sure, pal. Don't regulate business. They are caring benevolent institutions that have, by their very nature, your welfare and life formost in their mind.
You jes keep on believing such nonsense. They depend on fools.
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Boehner had the nerve to go on television multiple times and claim that the original stimulus created ZERO jobs.
Yeah, I'm sure it's possible to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and not employee anyone.
In BIZZARO world.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Net jobs is very possible. Government can also destroy jobs in a number of ways.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not by spending hundreds of billions it can't.
It's not very possible or even remotely possible.
That money flowed throughout the US economy like any other money. Look at the jobs numbers.
Stimulus, more jobs. Stimulus runs out, no more jobs.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Of course it can. NOt only by crowding out other borrowing (admittedly not a lot of probolems with that now), but by regulation (how many jobs were lost to closing down the oil rigs? How many by others?

Most studies show that the multiplier effect of government spending to be less than private spending.

Actually if you look at the time the jobs fell off a cliff, it was right around the time the health reform act went through. Most of this was likely related to the lag time between passage and release of the regulations... private sector can't make many decisions until it has a good idea of what a job will cost them. Only in the bizarro world of the Democrats can you add a few thousand to the cost of a job and not have anything happen.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stimulus = short term jobs
Only a fool imagines that you can keep taking money from the people and and stick a portion of it back into the economy with any long-term results
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.