Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Food Stamp Rolls in America Now Surpass the Population of Spain

Posted by   + Show Post

Food Stamp Rolls in America Now Surpass the Population of Spain

February 11, 2013

food stamps

(AP Image)

(CNSNews.com) – Since taking office in 2009, food stamp rolls under President Barack Obama have risen to more than 47 million people in America, exceeding the population of Spain.

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity,” said Obama during his first joint session address to Congress on Feb. 24, 2009.

Since then, the number of participants enrolled in food stamps, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has risen substantially.

When Obama entered office in January 2009 there were 31,939,110 Americans receiving food stamps. As of November 2012—the most recent data available—there were 47,692,896 Americans enrolled, an increase of 49.3 percent.

According to the 2011 census, Spain had a population of 46,815,916.

Furthermore, between January 2009 and November 2012 the food stamp program added approximately an average 11,269 recipients per day.

President Obama will deliver his fourth State of the Union address Tuesday evening. Obama is expected to focus on jobs and the economy.

by on Feb. 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Replies (51-60):
12hellokitty
by Ruby Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM
1 mom liked this

       Welfare is welfare regardless of it's it's an individual or cooperation the intended result is government dependency.


Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did I suggest that companies should never get money from the government to save them? Or did I suggest that companies that make Billions and 100's of Millions shouldn't be given Government subsidies?

Talk about making up statements that were never made.

When someone suggest that Food Stamps is awful because more people are using it. Pointing out that some people would starve without it is a good point.

If you were trying to suggest an alternative to the Food Stamp program or a way to improve it and her response was, "Children will starve!" Then you might have a point. But if someone is slamming Food Stamps for just existing and having members. It's a perfectly adequate response.


sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM

 FACE PALM

1) way to not catch the sarcasm wrapped in the truth that everytime the republicans lie and pretend they care about small business they are really saying let the big guys pay less

2) you can't produce facts so you slam Carter? lol...

Quoting pvtjokerus:

First of all based on what you wrote below.....are you saying that Walmart and Apple are small businesses or that loop holes were left open for them?  Because the way you wrote it means that WM and A are small businesses.

Do you really want me to go over Carter's legacy?  Carter was weak, weak, weak and he is known as being weak.  But hey, if you need a reminder, let me know. 

And last, you will not get me to answer any of your questions until you answer my first one.  You do this all of the time.

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 This is so stupid, Jimmy Carter?

Reagan, Bush and Bush  and you are still blaming Carter? lol

Prove Obama's policies added those folks to the welfare/food stamp rolls

you cannot. We were hemorrhaging so many jobs in 2008 that McCain "suspended" his campaign...remember?

It's REPUBLICAN policies that deregulate wall street and bring worker salaries down, while keeping tax loopholes open for "struggling" small business owners, like WalMart and Apple....

Quoting pvtjokerus:

Prove it your first sentence because the stats are not showing it.

Yes, Jimmy Carter has turned over his welfare crown over to Obama and yes, Obama will go down in history has the welfare King.

Obama is crushing the middle class with his taxes, keeping corp taxes high and supporting the Unions that help keep the cost of living high. 

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Majority of the people added to the rolls were added due to the recession that STARTED in 2007 and exploded at the end of 2008...we are STILL recovering.

blaming that on Obama is assanine.

On another note, republicans REFUSE to deal with one important issue regarding food stamps and that is PAY

We should not have people working full time and making BELOW the poverty line. CEO's and the TOP have seen their salaries EXPLODE while lower workers (middle & lower class workers) have stagnated and in some cases declined....all while the cost of living has increased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Which is being giving money they didn't earn.


you really don't read in your obsessive need to demonize anyone not leftist or any corporation, do you?


Quoting brookiecookie87:



Quote:

A subsidy is assistance to a business or economic sector or producers. Most subsidies are set in place by the government for producers or are distributed as subventions in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry (e.g., as a result of continuous unprofitable operations) or an increase in the prices of its products or simply to encourage it to hire more labor (as in the case of a wage subsidy). Examples are subsidies to encourage the sale of exports; subsidies on some foods to keep down the cost of living, especially in urban areas; and subsidies to encourage the expansion of farm production and achieve self-reliance in food production.[1] Subsidy has been used by economists with different meanings and connotations in different contexts. The dictionary [Concise Oxford] defines it as "money granted by state, public body, etc., to keep down the prices of commodities, etc.”. Environmental economists define subsidies as uncompensated environmental damage arising from any flow of goods and services. In a budgetary context, it may be defined as “unrecovered costs in the public provision of private goods”.[2]

Subsidies are often regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.[3] Financial assistance in the form of a subsidy may come from one's government, but the term subsidy may also refer to assistance granted by others, such as individuals or non-governmental institutions.

Examples of industries or sectors where subsidies are often found include utilities, gasoline in the United States, welfare, farm subsidies, and (in some countries) certain aspects of student loans.


I am not talking about Tax Deductions. I am talking about Corporate Welfare. And I am not talking about Industries that need it but industries that make Billions or 100's of Millions in profits.



Quoting talia-mom:

For me, welfare is being given something by the government you didn't earn.

The only way i can see where there is corporate welfare is if they get money they didn't earn.


Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did I suggest that companies should never get money from the government to save them? Or did I suggest that companies that make Billions and 100's of Millions shouldn't be given Government subsidies?

Talk about making up statements that were never made.

When someone suggest that Food Stamps is awful because more people are using it. Pointing out that some people would starve without it is a good point.

If you were trying to suggest an alternative to the Food Stamp program or a way to improve it and her response was, "Children will starve!" Then you might have a point. But if someone is slamming Food Stamps for just existing and having members. It's a perfectly adequate response.

Quoting talia-mom:

I brought it up hoping to have a discussion on reforming it.  We have someone making a claim 47% of the population is below poverty.   Completely not true.

I asked why use the starving children question because many of them wouldn't.   Reform it to get them off and these other kids would never starve.   Not that people starve from lack of access to food in 2013 America, but you argue that as well.

Companies should never be given money by the government to save them.  Is that better?

However, not taking their money if the tax code allows the deduction is not welfare.   Their money is not the government's money until it is taxed and paid.


Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did you read the article?

It wasn't trying to open up a discussion about how to solve a spending problem. It was comparing Food Stamps in America to the population of Spain.

No one implied that no one abused the system. If you were not trying to use that to refute the claim that some people would starve without it. Why did you bring it up? Verbal diarrhea?

I think everyone would agree if there was a way to stop people from abusing the system we should do that.

But it seems when it comes to stopping corporate welfare everyone is silent.

Quoting talia-mom:

I cannot help what you infer.

I specifically said not all kids.  I never said all kids.

you jumped, like you regularly do, to argue statements that have been made.

And saying kids will starve does nothing to promote discussion on the program.   I never saw anyone saying get rid of the whole thing.  So can you please bump that post because that is the only reason to use the emotional arguments instead of discussing the realities of our situation.

We have a major spending problem in this country and nothing should be sacred from a 10-15% at a minimum cut.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

I agreed with your statement. Not all kids on Food Stamps would starve without them.

Some people tend to think this is a great argument to end the food stamp program all together. If that wasn't what you were implying my apologies.

The alternative to the Food Stamp program is starving children. Will some of them not starve? Of course. Will some starve? Absolutely. Pointing out that some won't starve doesn't refute the claim that the alternative to not having the program is people starving (Not all of them. But some of them).

Quoting talia-mom:

It's amazing your ability to find statements that aren't there and have never been  implied.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/28/us/20091128-foodstamps.html


The majority of Food stamp recipients are Children. The highest % is for children across the board. This is without even including the elderly in the mix.

I agree that some kids use the system in place of a better Budget. I am not on food stamps. But I know after I had my first kid and I started budgeting I started saving on average of 600 dollars a month. It's crazy how much you save when budget.

But your generalization that some how all of them are doing it in place of a budget, or because it is easier is far fetched and there is nothing to support that.

Do a few people do that? Of course. Should we stop people from abusing the system? Absolutely. Because a few people abuse the system should we let all the children/edlerly people that actually need it starve, or lose their house/apartment, or lose their electricity, or whatever else they might have to cut back on if they decide to eat instead of paying bills?

I hope not.

Before we start making people choose between starving and having a house maybe we should make it harder to abuse the system? Maybe we should go after Corporate Welfare? After the companies who make Billions or 100's of Millions in Profits and still get government subsidies?

Quoting talia-mom:

That doesn't answer my question.

Not all kids on food stamps would starve without them.   They are on them because it is easier to use them than to budget.  And yes, I do have experience with this before you tell me I am wrong.


Quoting LucyMom08:

Nearly 70% of food stamp recipients are children, elderly or disabled. What am I exaggerating about when I say without food stamps, children will be starving?

Quoting talia-mom:

Why is that always the question instead of asking what they think needs to happen?


Is the emotional hyperbole really necessary for a legitimate discussion?



Quoting LucyMom08:

So starving children is a preferable alternative to you?


























brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 2:26 PM

What are you rambling about?

You tried to imply that I was talking about any time that government gives money to a business to save them or about tax codes.

I pointed out that wasn't what I was talking about and then you still seemed to be confused about what I was talking about when I mentioned subsidies. So I explained it to you.

Apparently you don't read either. I don't demonize "any" corporation. I will demonize a corporation that makes Billions, or 100's of millions and still request government subsidies. The same way I would demonize someone who would abuse the Food Stamp program.

Quoting talia-mom:

Which is being giving money they didn't earn.


you really don't read in your obsessive need to demonize anyone not leftist or any corporation, do you?


Quoting brookiecookie87:



Quote:

A subsidy is assistance to a business or economic sector or producers. Most subsidies are set in place by the government for producers or are distributed as subventions in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry (e.g., as a result of continuous unprofitable operations) or an increase in the prices of its products or simply to encourage it to hire more labor (as in the case of a wage subsidy). Examples are subsidies to encourage the sale of exports; subsidies on some foods to keep down the cost of living, especially in urban areas; and subsidies to encourage the expansion of farm production and achieve self-reliance in food production.[1] Subsidy has been used by economists with different meanings and connotations in different contexts. The dictionary [Concise Oxford] defines it as "money granted by state, public body, etc., to keep down the prices of commodities, etc.”. Environmental economists define subsidies as uncompensated environmental damage arising from any flow of goods and services. In a budgetary context, it may be defined as “unrecovered costs in the public provision of private goods”.[2]

Subsidies are often regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.[3] Financial assistance in the form of a subsidy may come from one's government, but the term subsidy may also refer to assistance granted by others, such as individuals or non-governmental institutions.

Examples of industries or sectors where subsidies are often found include utilities, gasoline in the United States, welfare, farm subsidies, and (in some countries) certain aspects of student loans.


I am not talking about Tax Deductions. I am talking about Corporate Welfare. And I am not talking about Industries that need it but industries that make Billions or 100's of Millions in profits.



Quoting talia-mom:

For me, welfare is being given something by the government you didn't earn.

The only way i can see where there is corporate welfare is if they get money they didn't earn.


Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did I suggest that companies should never get money from the government to save them? Or did I suggest that companies that make Billions and 100's of Millions shouldn't be given Government subsidies?

Talk about making up statements that were never made.

When someone suggest that Food Stamps is awful because more people are using it. Pointing out that some people would starve without it is a good point.

If you were trying to suggest an alternative to the Food Stamp program or a way to improve it and her response was, "Children will starve!" Then you might have a point. But if someone is slamming Food Stamps for just existing and having members. It's a perfectly adequate response.

Quoting talia-mom:

I brought it up hoping to have a discussion on reforming it.  We have someone making a claim 47% of the population is below poverty.   Completely not true.

I asked why use the starving children question because many of them wouldn't.   Reform it to get them off and these other kids would never starve.   Not that people starve from lack of access to food in 2013 America, but you argue that as well.

Companies should never be given money by the government to save them.  Is that better?

However, not taking their money if the tax code allows the deduction is not welfare.   Their money is not the government's money until it is taxed and paid.


Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did you read the article?

It wasn't trying to open up a discussion about how to solve a spending problem. It was comparing Food Stamps in America to the population of Spain.

No one implied that no one abused the system. If you were not trying to use that to refute the claim that some people would starve without it. Why did you bring it up? Verbal diarrhea?

I think everyone would agree if there was a way to stop people from abusing the system we should do that.

But it seems when it comes to stopping corporate welfare everyone is silent.

Quoting talia-mom:

I cannot help what you infer.

I specifically said not all kids.  I never said all kids.

you jumped, like you regularly do, to argue statements that have been made.

And saying kids will starve does nothing to promote discussion on the program.   I never saw anyone saying get rid of the whole thing.  So can you please bump that post because that is the only reason to use the emotional arguments instead of discussing the realities of our situation.

We have a major spending problem in this country and nothing should be sacred from a 10-15% at a minimum cut.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

I agreed with your statement. Not all kids on Food Stamps would starve without them.

Some people tend to think this is a great argument to end the food stamp program all together. If that wasn't what you were implying my apologies.

The alternative to the Food Stamp program is starving children. Will some of them not starve? Of course. Will some starve? Absolutely. Pointing out that some won't starve doesn't refute the claim that the alternative to not having the program is people starving (Not all of them. But some of them).

Quoting talia-mom:

It's amazing your ability to find statements that aren't there and have never been  implied.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/28/us/20091128-foodstamps.html


The majority of Food stamp recipients are Children. The highest % is for children across the board. This is without even including the elderly in the mix.

I agree that some kids use the system in place of a better Budget. I am not on food stamps. But I know after I had my first kid and I started budgeting I started saving on average of 600 dollars a month. It's crazy how much you save when budget.

But your generalization that some how all of them are doing it in place of a budget, or because it is easier is far fetched and there is nothing to support that.

Do a few people do that? Of course. Should we stop people from abusing the system? Absolutely. Because a few people abuse the system should we let all the children/edlerly people that actually need it starve, or lose their house/apartment, or lose their electricity, or whatever else they might have to cut back on if they decide to eat instead of paying bills?

I hope not.

Before we start making people choose between starving and having a house maybe we should make it harder to abuse the system? Maybe we should go after Corporate Welfare? After the companies who make Billions or 100's of Millions in Profits and still get government subsidies?

Quoting talia-mom:

That doesn't answer my question.

Not all kids on food stamps would starve without them.   They are on them because it is easier to use them than to budget.  And yes, I do have experience with this before you tell me I am wrong.


Quoting LucyMom08:

Nearly 70% of food stamp recipients are children, elderly or disabled. What am I exaggerating about when I say without food stamps, children will be starving?

Quoting talia-mom:

Why is that always the question instead of asking what they think needs to happen?


Is the emotional hyperbole really necessary for a legitimate discussion?



Quoting LucyMom08:

So starving children is a preferable alternative to you?




























Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

romanceparty4u
by Bronze Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 2:27 PM
1 mom liked this

sigh....and yet, I've never qualified for one damn red cent from the govt.

shimmifairy
by Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM
1 mom liked this
Thank you...


Quoting Trollslayer:


Quoting shimmifairy:

Well, there are about to be 4 more on the rolls...my husband is currently in CICU because of a heart attack ans 6 way bypass...I work as a paralegal but do contingency fee cases where I get 3% of the attorneys pay out...it's going to be months -if ever- before he can go back to work...how about telling ME how entitled,lazy,useless to society we are...how about explaining to ME how my children shouldn't eat....



I am so sorry about your Husband.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
abecee
by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Almost everyone I know is struggling to make ends meet these days. Many have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They have gone through all their savings and in some cases have even had to cash out their 401K's/retirement plans.  They have no health insurance and one trip to the doctor impacts, and even depletes, their food budget for the month. 
Are there people on food stamps abusing the system?  Absolutely.
Should the food stamp program end because of those people?  Absolutely NOT

Citygirlk
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM
1 mom liked this

Mexican citizens or Mexican citizens with American children.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

 But is it really? 

 Did you know that the democratic party paid for radio announcements in the southern states offering Mexicans citizens food stamps?  They were "Novella" commercials (or however you spell it).  They were actually quite ridiculous and humorous at the same time. 


Quoting Citygirlk:

But that's a very small percentage everyone shouldn't be punished because of the actions a few.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

 Do you take into account that there are many that are on the welfare gravy train that does not belong there? Heck, I know several myself that shouldn't be on food stamps that are enjoying steaks off the ole' government.  There needs to be more oversight and there needs to be an investigation on who is getting what.  This has nothing to do with taking kids of welfare.  This is about making the government accountable and making sure that they are doing their job completely.  For as some of us know, the government is a slow moving, lazy machine that does not do it due diligence when it comes to handing out money.....


Quoting Luv.My.Kidz:

Okay so what people are saying "Let's take away this program that feeds kids and families who don't normally have the means to feed their family?" 

I swear some of you ladies never cease to amaze me with your "Take from the poor and give to the rich" mentalities. 

47million plus people are on the program.... oh well... and just as quick as people are getting on it... there are people getting off of it who don't need it anymore.

There are also a lot more eldery today than there were in 2009, more babies, and companies are folding, closing, cutting positions, etc. Really? Do you people not take that into account?







LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Feb. 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Do you want to qualify for govt assistance?

Quoting romanceparty4u:

sigh....and yet, I've never qualified for one damn red cent from the govt.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Feb. 19, 2013 at 6:36 AM

The target this summer was Mex Citizens.   The radio ads were supposed to have stopped but the demos pushed them this past summer before the elections.  The "SNAP" plan started under Bush but has gotten out of hand under Obama:

 

The Obama administration met with Mexican officials and held other events to discuss enrollment in food stamps and similar programs roughly 30 times since President Obama took office, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack revealed in a recent letter to Congress.

They were among 151 documented meetings and events held since 2004, when the United States and Mexico first started partnering on food-stamp awareness. That partnership, though, has raised alarm with Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is concerned the collaboration amounts to a vehicle for the USDA to pressure people onto the food-stamp rolls -- in this case, noncitizen immigrants from Mexico.

Vilsack released the information in response to Sessions’ request this summer for more details about the U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Nutrition Assistance initiative, which educates Mexican immigrants about food stamps and other assistance.

The initiative is one of several the agency has “to promote awareness of nutrition assistance among those who need benefits and meet all program requirements under current law,” Vilsack told Sessions in the 24-page letter, dated Sept. 12.

However, his letter indicates the number of legal, noncitizens participating in the program -- now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- has increased from 425,000 to 1.23 million between 2001 and 2010. And a Republican Budget Committee staffer told The Daily Caller, which first reported the Vilsack letter, the estimated number of legal, noncitizens in the food stamp program is now roughly 1.63 million — more than double the number who participated in 2008.

Session, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, raised concerns in July about the initiative being intended to increase food stamp enrollment among citizens and non-citizens immigrants, and about it perhaps ignoring the “sound principle” of U.S. immigration policy -- that people coming into the United States should not have to rely on U.S. government support.

This summer, the Agriculture Department removed from its website a series of Spanish-language radio ads that featured one character being pressured to go on food stamps. The agency said the public-service announcements were posted roughly four years ago and some of the content failed to meet the standards of “appropriate outreach.”

In his letter to Sessions, Vilsack said none of the meetings he described with Mexican officials "were intended to pressure any eligible person to accept benefits" or to increase the number of people enrolled. "Their purpose was to help eligible people in need make informed decisions about whether or not to seek assistance," he wrote.

There have been an estimated 151 activities or meetings between U.S. and Mexican officials related to the initiative since it began in 2004 under the administration on then-President George W. Bush.

Among them were roughly 91 meetings between U.S. and Mexico embassy and consulate staff; 29 health fair events; and 31 roundtable discussions, conferences and forums in 20 cities.

Twenty percent of the meetings and activities occurred since 2008, according to Vilsack’s letter.

Those eligible for the program include Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in the United States.

Vilsack wrote that illegal immigrants are not eligible for food stamps, there is no attempt to bolster the program’s rolls and people are not pressured to enroll.

Meanwhile, overall participation in SNAP this summer reached a record high -- 46.7 million people.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/01/vilvilsack-reacts-to-republican-concerns-about-mexican-nutrition-awareness/#ixzz2LLMyMc4p


Quoting Citygirlk:

Mexican citizens or Mexican citizens with American children.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

 But is it really? 

 Did you know that the democratic party paid for radio announcements in the southern states offering Mexicans citizens food stamps?  They were "Novella" commercials (or however you spell it).  They were actually quite ridiculous and humorous at the same time. 

 

Quoting Citygirlk:

But that's a very small percentage everyone shouldn't be punished because of the actions a few.

Quoting pvtjokerus:

 Do you take into account that there are many that are on the welfare gravy train that does not belong there? Heck, I know several myself that shouldn't be on food stamps that are enjoying steaks off the ole' government.  There needs to be more oversight and there needs to be an investigation on who is getting what.  This has nothing to do with taking kids of welfare.  This is about making the government accountable and making sure that they are doing their job completely.  For as some of us know, the government is a slow moving, lazy machine that does not do it due diligence when it comes to handing out money.....

 

Quoting Luv.My.Kidz:

Okay so what people are saying "Let's take away this program that feeds kids and families who don't normally have the means to feed their family?" 

I swear some of you ladies never cease to amaze me with your "Take from the poor and give to the rich" mentalities. 

47million plus people are on the program.... oh well... and just as quick as people are getting on it... there are people getting off of it who don't need it anymore.

There are also a lot more eldery today than there were in 2009, more babies, and companies are folding, closing, cutting positions, etc. Really? Do you people not take that into account?

 

 


 

 



 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN