finknottle Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Ok, we now know that 38% of househilds pay no federal income tax, or get a net payment through credits. I just learned that the number of individuals receiving foods stamps has been fairly steady at almost 10%, 28 million. That is alot higher than I thought! The reason this troubles me is that, all things considered, food is not the problem for the poor. In this country, food is amazingly cheap (as any graduate student will tell you). You can get a dozen eggs for $1.50, a loaf of bread for a buck, etc. It's not luxury, but we ae talking about poverty after all, and food is what you make of it. Housing, clothes, utilities, transportation - *those* are the real financial problems for the poor. Anybody else think a 10% rate raises alarms about the progrem being less of a focused life-saver and more of a blanket entitlement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Ok, we now know that 38% of househilds pay no federal income tax, or get a net payment through credits. I just learned that the number of individuals receiving foods stamps has been fairly steady at almost 10%, 28 million. That is alot higher than I thought! The reason this troubles me is that, all things considered, food is not the problem for the poor. In this country, food is amazingly cheap (as any graduate student will tell you). You can get a dozen eggs for $1.50, a loaf of bread for a buck, etc. It's not luxury, but we ae talking about poverty after all, and food is what you make of it. Housing, clothes, utilities, transportation - *those* are the real financial problems for the poor. Anybody else think a 10% rate raises alarms about the progrem being less of a focused life-saver and more of a blanket entitlement? True. There are so many other temptations out there now that most disadvantaged people invariably make the poorest choices. Really who needs internet? Cable? And especially cell phones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Anybody else think a 10% rate raises alarms about the progrem being less of a focused life-saver and more of a blanket entitlement? I don't think food stamps were ever intended to be a last line of defense before dumpster diving. IIRC, they are intended to provide basic nutrition (particularly for children) for persons living below the poverty line. The program's now called SNAP, BTW. At less than $25 per person per week, the U.S.'s inexpensive food doesn't go very far, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I don't think food stamps were ever intended to be a last line of defense before dumpster diving. IIRC, they are intended to provide basic nutrition (particularly for children) for persons living below the poverty line. The program's now called SNAP, BTW. At less than $25 per person per week, the U.S.'s inexpensive food doesn't go very far, either. I assume... That is Fed money... Now check out AK's numbers... How come the state can't pick up that tab? They are running a surplus and giving out rebate checks to the citizens? The welfare queens live on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 I assume... That is Fed money... Now check out AK's numbers... How come the state can't pick up that tab? They are running a surplus and giving out rebate checks to the citizens? The welfare queens live on! Should everybody get their food bills picked up by the government, should it be based on being in an income percentile, or should it be an absolute income number under which a person can not afford food? And what is the rationale for limiting it to food and not undirected assistance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Ok, we now know that 38% of househilds pay no federal income tax, or get a net payment through credits. I just learned that the number of individuals receiving foods stamps has been fairly steady at almost 10%, 28 million. That is alot higher than I thought! The reason this troubles me is that, all things considered, food is not the problem for the poor. In this country, food is amazingly cheap (as any graduate student will tell you). You can get a dozen eggs for $1.50, a loaf of bread for a buck, etc. It's not luxury, but we ae talking about poverty after all, and food is what you make of it. Housing, clothes, utilities, transportation - *those* are the real financial problems for the poor. Anybody else think a 10% rate raises alarms about the progrem being less of a focused life-saver and more of a blanket entitlement? Oh and these folks are getting rich off the food stamp program. The monthly income for eligibility according to this table: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/government/FY0...e_Standards.htm So that tells me that that many people in this country are making below these levels per month. Pretty scary. So much for the trickle down effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share Posted October 5, 2008 Oh and these folks are getting rich off the food stamp program. The monthly income for eligibility according to this table: Nobody suggested that they are getting rich. My problem is with the realization that (1) the program covers 10% of the country, and (2) purchasing food is probably the least of the problems facing most poor people. They need help with rent, utilities, and transportation, each of which is far more than their food bill. If you want to argue that the bottom ten percent of the country needs help, fine. But extending food stamps to one person in ten takes a very specific assistance program and turns it into a broad subsidy. It's the principal, not the amount of money that is the issue. Call it what it is, a generalized subsidy. Don't package it as food for the hungry when you are talking about 30 million people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Point well taken. The reason this happens this way is that it is approved by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and works to act as an artificial crop support as well. An old urban and rural link. Not I knew there were that many people receiving benefits. In the late 90s when I paid attention to it, it was funded at $28 billion. Don't know what it is now??? Looks like it has grown to between 48 and 60 billion. See conference report: http://appropriations.senate.gov/News/2008...FTOKEN=80459575 P.S. If you ever want to know how much the government is spending on something check out the conference report on the appropriations bill for what you think it would fall under. Although, sometimes things get hidden in unrelated bills. This generally is the plain language information about spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Palin has released her tax returns. They make for interesting reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 I don't think food stamps were ever intended to be a last line of defense before dumpster diving. IIRC, they are intended to provide basic nutrition (particularly for children) for persons living below the poverty line. The program's now called SNAP, BTW. At less than $25 per person per week, the U.S.'s inexpensive food doesn't go very far, either. There's also W.I.C. - The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 If you want to argue that the bottom ten percent of the country needs help, fine. OK. Glad you see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I assume... That is Fed money... Now check out AK's numbers... How come the state can't pick up that tab? They are running a surplus and giving out rebate checks to the citizens? The welfare queens live on! The rebate checks you speak of are for Oil Royalties. It's also an incentive for people to stay and live in Alaska. It's a difficult place to recruit new employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Things will not be getting better soon. Consumer spending is down. In response to the falling value of their homes and high gasoline prices, Americans have become more frugal all year. But in recent weeks, as the financial crisis reverberated from Wall Street to Washington, consumers appear to have cut back sharply. Even with the government beginning a giant bailout of the financial system, their confidence may have been too shaken for them to resume their free-spending ways any time soon. Recent figures from companies, and interviews across the country, show that automobile sales are plummeting, airline traffic is dropping, restaurant chains are struggling to fill tables, customers are sparse in stores. When the final tally is in, consumer spending for the quarter just ended will almost certainly shrink, the first quarterly decline in nearly two decades. Many economists, who began the third quarter expecting modest growth, now believe the cutbacks are so severe that the overall economy did not expand either, and they warn that a consumer-led recession could be more severe than the relatively mild one earlier this decade. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06econ.html?em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Things will not be getting better soon. Consumer spending is down. In other news Clay Aiken is gay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts