Is this correct in the days of anybody can receive food stamps? It seems that
there must be more to the story.
what you fail to mention is the percentage of Americans has not changed since
the war on poverty began in the 1960;2. We've spent 15 Trillion dollars
over the last 50 years and not made any headway. If anything, it's gotten
worse int he last 10 years. The government is not the solution, it's part
of the problem.
So which is it -- do we have an obesity epidemic, or are 50% of Americans
hungry? IT CANNOT BE BOTH.These hunger statistics are the most
bogus I've ever seen. Look around America. Yes there are hungry people,
but only a small fraction of what these "studies" claim.
The amount of money cut from food stamps (5 billion a year) is equal to the
entirety of all food banks in the nation. Republicans wanted to cut 40 billion a
year from food stamps. It's said that a decline in welfare would be
balanced out by people increasing charity. That would not happen.
A great man once said " If ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye
do it unto me" I wonder what he is thinking now.
@thinkin man First of all it is 15% not 50% please at least try to
get the facts straight. and the obesity rate is approximately 37% which equals a
total of 52 % so please explain why "IT CANNOT BE BOTH?" Please think
about what you are saying.
@high school fan seem to be making to erroneous assumptions, one
that anyone can get food stamps and two that the amount of food stamps actually
is enough to by enough food for a month to meet basic nutritional food
requirements. We still base the amount of food stamp assistance on the 1939
calculations that have been shown that even at the time were significantly under
as a point of clarification to my last post the calculations were of the number
of calories necessary to meet the very most basic nutritional needs to sustain
an individual and the amount of such calories from different food sources. This
information was used to set the first calculations for the monitory amount to
meet those needs and the basis for which we have accounted for inflation over
@lkm55actually even after a decade of economic depression according
the the bureau of vital statistics the rate of poverty is currently 7.4% lower
then it was in 1960.
Those questioning why we have so many obesity problems if there's a hunger
problem should research the obesity-poverty paradox. The gist is that lower
income families spend their money on inexpensive foods, which are largely
unhealthy. The issue isn't just food poverty, but a lack of nutritious
foods. The result is the seeming paradox of the obese not having enough to eat.
SNAP (foodstamp) benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of
economic stimulus because they get money into the economy quickly.
Moody’s Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in
SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. Similarly, the
Congressional Budget Office rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two
most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting
growth and jobs in a weak economy.(Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities)Food stamp use declined in the 90's and began rising
in 2001, with a sharp increase around the economic crisis.Food stamp
use tracks poverty rates.
We have spent a couple trillion or more on the war on poverty LBJ instituted
with no change in poverty. Maybe we ought to try something different. Seems to
me helping our economy grow would put a lot of people into jobs thus reducing
welfare requirements. The inexorable growth of red tape is strangling the goose
that lays the golden egg. Business and industry and wicked capitalists are not
the problem. Government is. The funny thing is if taxes were lowered tax
revenue would surge.
Re:WhatinTucket?"The funny thing is if taxes were lowered tax
revenue would surge."That is a myth which has been thoroughly
debunked.The Treasury Department simulated the economic effects of
extending the Bush tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have
modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at
most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions,
Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic
growth.Capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing
numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the CBO
concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes
in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from
additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase
large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why
CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management
and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent
would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years.(CBPP)
If we have hungry people in America.If we have children who go to
bed hungry at night.Perhaps we ought to stop the practice of
borrowing money to give it away in the form of foreign aid to other countries so
they can buy our military equipment.
'Perhaps we ought to stop the practice of borrowing money to give it away
in the form of foreign aid to other countries so they can buy our military
equipment.' I agree. 'U.S. suspending $800
million in Pakistan aid' - By Douglas Birch - AP - Published by DSNews -
07/10/11 'WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's
decision to suspend $800 million in aid to the Pakistan's military signals
a tougher U.S. line with a critical but sometimes unreliable partner in the
fight against terrorism.' $4 trillion dollars spent in Iraq.
How about three billion plus each year to Israel in the form of military aid.It is nothing more than corporate welfare to our defense contractors.