1 in 6 Americans on food stamps

[downtown]

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.

Exactly, its a big problem. Thats why people need to be working, which is why I think this emphasis on drastic debt reduction *right this very second* is misguided.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

Food insecure—At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security.

* 14.7 percent (17.4 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2009.
* Essentially unchanged from 14.6 percent in 2008.

Low food security—These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.

* 9.0 percent (10.6 million) of U.S. households had low food security in 2009.
* Essentially unchanged from 8.9 percent in 2008.

Very low food security—In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. In reports prior to 2006, these households were described as “food insecure with hunger.” For a description of the change in food security labels, see “Definitions of Hunger and Food Security.”

* 5.7 percent (6.8 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2009.
* Unchanged from 5.7 percent in 2008.

The defining characteristic of very low food security is that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food. Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the conditions that households in this category typically report in the annual food security survey. Click here for a graph of the percentage of households reporting specific conditions.

So only 5.7% of households had to skip meals. But 9% had to substantially change their diets. And nearly 15% had to struggle to have food and would not have had food without assistance.

Yeah, in a country that can feed at least 1 1/2 times its population, it is clearly not a problem that 15% need assistance buying food and 5% goes hungry from time to time.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm a believer in Freedom From Need(Freedom From Want is too inclusive), so, by all means, expand the rolls as the economy demands. It'd be selfish, nay, foolish, to just let people go hungry.

That said, it does show that while some are prospering, many others are suffering. The recession is far from over, even if you have a hand in the stock market. You need a stable income before you can really consider investments, so the stock market's growth shall not benefit us in the least... unless the companies that compose it start hiring.

Of course, good luck getting that to happen. I'm more focused on getting by myself. I'd rather not tackle the whole economy.

 

[Rashiminos]

Food stamps and the Casey Anthony trial: Bread and circuses

Yep, that's a pretty accurate description.

 

[Zelig]

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.

What the crap kind of groceries have sugar?

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.

Expecting the average American to understand the point of insurance is far too generous, I've run into this problem on CFC before.

Exactly, its a big problem. Thats why people need to be working, which is why I think this emphasis on drastic debt reduction *right this very second* is misguided.

You mean deficit reduction?

 

[aw3524]

Yeah, in a country that can feed at least 1 1/2 times its population, it is clearly not a problem that 15% need assistance buying food and 5% goes hungry from time to time.

I'm not contesting that hunger's a problem. I was curious as to how much the statistic is attributable to, say, the recession vs. the stated policy of getting more of the eligible on the food stamp rolls (something like a half of the people eligible never claim benefits). Hunger is, and should be, a concern; the question is regarding how to handle it best. The obvious place to start is with eliminating ethanol subsidies and the stranglehold on milk, but the program in general should be left solely to the states, and eventually, private charity.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just bring back gleaning rights - problem solved.

 

[Dreadnought]

Yeah, in a country that can feed at least 1 1/2 times its population, it is clearly not a problem that 15% need assistance buying food and 5% goes hungry from time to time.

The farmers who grow the food should be the ones to decide who they sell to, not the government.

 

[JollyRoger]

The farmers who grow the food should be the ones to decide who they sell to, not the government.

Should the farmers be the ones to decide who they employ?

 

[Rashiminos]

The farmers who grow the food should be the ones to decide who they sell to, not the government.

It seems like a great idea, but then it crumbles in practice.

 

[GenMarshall]

Exactly, its a big problem. Thats why people need to be working, which is why I think this emphasis on drastic debt reduction *right this very second* is misguided.

Unless you can strong arm companies to make them hire the unemployed and stop discriminating the long termed unemployed. That idea is sadly unreachable.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not contesting that hunger's a problem. I was curious as to how much the statistic is attributable to, say, the recession vs. the stated policy of getting more of the eligible on the food stamp rolls (something like a half of the people eligible never claim benefits). Hunger is, and should be, a concern; the question is regarding how to handle it best. The obvious place to start is with eliminating ethanol subsidies and the stranglehold on milk, but the program in general should be left solely to the states, and eventually, private charity.

I'll agree with you so far as to say that the subsidies should be eliminated.

But leaving welfare to the states means that in many places it will be a failure. Because the states will not fund it enough and impose too many restrictions. And leaving it to private charities means that it will fail in all locations at all times. We know beyond dispute that charities will never have the resources to do this.

 

[Newbunkle]

Unemployment is a completely man-made situation. Free human beings with the ability to form equal partnerships or be self sufficient would never choose servitude to live. It's only by starving people of a share of their world that they're reduced to the level of servants in the first place. Then, by failing to provide enough 'opportunities' (as if servitude should be called such a thing) people are left dependent on handouts. It's all quite deliberate, and nobody wants to do anything about it because it means the overprivileged have to play fair.

Blaming the victim is a classic dodge for people with an interest in keeping things the way they are, and it also helps the victims to soothe their anxiety when they pretend people deserve what they get.

The problem will never go away because the people who could do something about it like things the way they are, and the rest like living in a fantasy world where everything works out as long as you keep your head down and behave.

 

[kochman]

So, what happened before state run welfare?

Oh, things like charity, mainly from churches...

 

[Cutlass]

So, what happened before state run welfare?

Oh, things like charity, mainly from churches...

Which was a dismal failure to the point where the government was forced to step in and take over.

 

[nonconformist]

So, what happened before state run welfare?

Oh, things like charity, mainly from churches...

There is no moral or statutory imperative for charity to take place, and religious organisations are horifically corrpt anyways, they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.


Never mind that charity actually exacerbates the problem, rather than solving it; it is in place to keep the status quo.

 

[amadeus]

Uh-huh... and how is public assistance different?

 

[nonconformist]

In effect it's not really, it doesn't address the major issue, which is the profit motive, and the capitalist framework that exists to allow the explotiation of other human beings;

the answer would be, of course, to remove the existance of such a system, which would go a long way to solving the problem.

 

[warpus]

1 in 6 of Americans on foodstamps? Wow..

I wonder how many Canadians are on foodstamps, for comparison's sake?

 

[kochman]

There is no moral or statutory imperative for charity to take place, and religious organisations are horifically corrpt anyways, they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

So, how did it happen for all those centuries?
I'm confused.
My point is, government isn't the only solution, as many people think it is.

I don't mind paying some taxes for assisting the downtrodden... it is what a country ought to do... I'm just saying, government shouldn't handle the burden alone, and more importantly, it doesn't handle the burden alone.