1 in 6 Americans on food stamps

[JollyRoger]

I don't see why the rationalizations used to justify nationalizing the health care system are any more or less flimsy when applied to something even more basic, like food.

Don't you think that it's morally wrong that food is subjected to the profit motive? Don't you think that the government should guarantee access to groceries for everyone, perhaps even establish its own line of grocery stores in impoverished areas so as to provide greater access to food for the poor? Of course, "everyone can still keep their own private grocery stores," it's just that the public option grocery store will be cheaper because the government can tax and subsidize it.

The market dynamics for food are a bit differeent. You do not need years of education to be a grocer and the average American can pay out of pocket to meettheir food needs. An uninsured American will likely not have enough to meet the cost of medical procedures that insurance is designed to cover.

 

[kochman]

There's a trend there, all right. So, are we having a game of "guess when it'll hit 1 in 5" or what?

When Obama gets a 2nd term... I win!

 

[Mr. Dictator]

When Obama gets a 2nd term... I win!

Like either party would be able to fix this.

 

[FriendlyFire]

It rings a lot of alarm bells for me, but the alarm is about the absurdity of government policy. Let's take one item as an example: sugar. The federal government has an import quota/tariff regime on sugar which causes sugar prices to rise, meaning it takes more money for consumers to buy their groceries. So in response, the government issues SNAP cards to people so that they can buy the groceries at prices artificially inflated by the government.

On top of that, the government also establishes mandates for corn ethanol usage in energy production. While noble in its intent, it actually consumes more energy to produce the ethanol than it would just to sell the gas used in its production directly to the consumers. So all of that wasted corn again drives up the price of groceries.

On the municipal level, you've also got city councils that refuse to allow low-price retailers from entering the market. That means people either need to use more resources to get to the store or pay inflated prices at mom-and-pop shops.

Remove those restrictions and a great number of people probably wouldn't need to be on the program anymore.

You want to remove government control of all things food related except for government farm subsistaries which significantly reduces the market price of food ?

 

[Quackers]

More evidence Americans cannot look after themselves and need to be absorbed back into the great British Empire!

minus all the undesirables

 

[kochman]

Like either party would be able to fix this.

Haha, the repubs will at least stabilize it, while the dems will "expand" existing programs.

As Nancy Pelosi says, regarding food stamps, 6 October 2010:

"If you want to create jobs, the quickest way to do it is to provide more food stamps".

Because, we all know, those are free! Free money that is just injected into the economy!!! Hurray!!!

So, really, this is a good thing, and the dems expanding food stamps is part of the stimulus spending the left thinks is required to get us out of the economic quagmire we are currently in.

So, sign up for your food stamps today, because people out there need jobs!

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

If the wealth was spread around, 1 in 6 americans wouldn't be so poor they needed food stamps.

What's more worrisome about the growing number is how is a smaller and smaller number of (net) taxpayers going to pay for a larger and larger number of beneficiaries? At some point there won't be enough people to tax.

 

[Cutlass]

What's more worrisome about the growing number is how is a smaller and smaller number of (net) taxpayers going to pay for a larger and larger number of beneficiaries? At some point there won't be enough people to tax.

So the alternatives are to put people back to work, so they can pay in instead of taking out, or to shift the tax burden upwards to those who can afford it. The best alternative is people working at high enough wages so that they don't need any form of transfer payments.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't see why the rationalizations used to justify nationalizing the health care system are any more or less flimsy when applied to something even more basic, like food.

Don't you think that it's morally wrong that food is subjected to the profit motive? Don't you think that the government should guarantee access to groceries for everyone, perhaps even establish its own line of grocery stores in impoverished areas so as to provide greater access to food for the poor? Of course, "everyone can still keep their own private grocery stores," it's just that the public option grocery store will be cheaper because the government can tax and subsidize it.

I'd prefer cooperatives, but, sure, why not? I may not particularly trust the state, but I don't exactly trust WalMart, either.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

So the alternatives are to put people back to work, so they can pay in instead of taking out, or to shift the tax burden upwards to those who can afford it. The best alternative is people working at high enough wages so that they don't need any form of transfer payments.

Best alternative is to abandon policies that drive up the cost of living, so people can afford things now and save for the possibility of lean times in the future.

"Shifting the tax burden up" stops working at some point. The more food stamp people there are, the fewer rich there are to soak.

 

[Cutlass]

Best alternative is to abandon policies that drive up the cost of living, so people can afford things now and save for the possibility of lean times in the future.

"Shifting the tax burden up" stops working at some point. The more food stamp people there are, the fewer rich there are to soak.

And what polices are driving up the cost of living? That's pretty much happening on its own.

So if shifting the tax burden stops working, the alternative is to not make so many poor that the rich can't feed them, but rather to pursue polices where they can afford to feed themselves.

 

[Newbunkle]

Another man-made disaster.

 

[countrygrl]

So the alternatives are to put people back to work, so they can pay in instead of taking out, or to shift the tax burden upwards to those who can afford it. The best alternative is people working at high enough wages so that they don't need any form of transfer payments.

Put people back to work to how exactly? You can't make one person hire another. Your alternative is tax people "who can afford it," what happens when they decide the tax rate isn't worth the work of operating businesses and stop hiring people?

I agree that the best alternative is to pay high enough wages so that they don't need a transfer, but you're not going to do that with 25% drop out rates and a workforce where 40% of the people are unskilled and low skilled.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

And what polices are driving up the cost of living? That's pretty much happening on its own.

Amadeus listed a few examples. Add in reckless fiscal and monetary policies that weaken the dollar, thereby making everything more expensive. Healthcare costs spiraling out of control because of the ever-increasing role of bureaucratic, inefficient third party payers. Payroll taxes which increase labor costs without the benefits going to the workers. Propping up the housing market instead of letting prices correct (if you want to be fair to people who have to sell at a loss, let them write that off over 5-10 years instead).

 

[Cutlass]

Put people back to work to how exactly? You can't make one person hire another. Your alternative is tax people "who can afford it," what happens when they decide the tax rate isn't worth the work of operating businesses and stop hiring people?

I agree that the best alternative is to pay high enough wages so that they don't need a transfer, but you're not going to do that with 25% drop out rates and a workforce where 40% of the people are unskilled and low skilled.

There are many jobs that pay well enough that don't require that much education. (Though in the longer run it would certainly be better to fix the education system.) What is needed is capital investment. Under current circumstances, the private sector isn't going to provide it. The government can. There are many overdue projects. And capital is dirt cheap right now, making it the perfect time to work on them.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Food stamps and the Casey Anthony trial: Bread and circuses

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Haha, the repubs will at least stabilize it, while the dems will "expand" existing programs.

Dude, they're the same party.

 

[aw3524]

I wonder how much of this is a result of hardcore campaigning to get more people on the program. Still, when only 5.7% of U.S. households had "very low food security" (basically defined as going hungry) at least once during 2009, it seems a little silly to have remotely near 1 in 6 people on stamps.

 

[Ajidica]

You can have people on food stamps without them going hungry. In fact, that is why we have food stamps.

 

[pi-r8]

Put people back to work to how exactly? You can't make one person hire another.

Sure you can
(but, there are nicer methods to put people back to work)