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 (31-40):
talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM

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?






talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM

47% isn't at poverty level.  

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0709.pdf

Not even close.

Quoting Naturewoman4:

Do you have facts on where you got those figures?  Because, I don't believe that 47% of Americans live at poverty level.  Also, I don't believe that 98% of Americans received some sort of Gov. support.  I also don't feel how they determine who is living at 'poverty level' is TRUE poverty level.  I mean a lot of these families have cells, internet, cable, more kids then they can afford so that's their fault.  My niece has 6 kids, never worked a paying job a day in her life.  She just kept on having them.  (which I never understood her mindset). 

 Yet, she has always had expensive cell phones (which broke & she bought another), fast internet that cost her $50/mo., cable, 3 pedigree dogs, she smokes/drinks & she also would NEVER buy things from a thrift store.  I believe here in America, there ARE A LOT of people that think this way.  It's sad. 


Quoting stormcris:

Could it be because 47% of America is poverty level?

However 96% of Americans have received some sort of government support. 

And I really do not think the 4% are represented on Cafemom.





jaxTheMomm
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Let's also remember that many states have made a concerted effort over the last few years to locate people that didn't realize they were eligible (seniors, etc) and get them signed up.

pansyprincess
by Silver Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM
1 mom liked this

I think people are on foodstamps because they need them.  We need to figure out WHY they need them, and then work on the root problem, not a result of it.

People can't find jobs.  People can afford their health insurance, so they go into debt for medical help.  People are living longers.  Companies have done away with pensions, and health insurance, etc.  Times, they are a changing, and they aren't changing in a good direction.  People can't afford this life, so they get food stamps.  We need to find a way to help people afford their homes, their families, to educate them, to make sure they can take care of themselves without gov't help.  We need to ensure that people have the means to earn a living wage. 

But we want to cut education, cut welfare programs, cut medicare, cut social security, cut cut cut.  At what point are we just going to look the other way at people dying in streets, because they haven't pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and gotten a job? 

Trollslayer
by Bronze Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM


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.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:06 PM
1 mom liked this

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

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM

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?










Trollslayer
by Bronze Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:11 PM

I really do try and stay out of F/S post, mainly because they piss me off. Not everyone on SNAP is lazy or screwing the system. As a matter of fact in the past few years it isnt as easy as it was in the past. The paper proof that is needed is insane, and unless you are permanently and totally disabled their is a requirement that you must look for work and or do community service.

   I am classified at 300% below poverty level. I have a decent place to live in a not so nice neighborhood, I pay my bills, I dont eat out, I live on a very strict budget. Our only luxury is Internet, a whopping 20 bucks a month. And if my DD didnt need that for school we wouldnt have it!  And people think I am living high on the hog with F/S added to this, a whole 120 bucks a month for 1 adult and 2 kids......I am living the high life for sure......

  You can not judge everyone under the same umbrella.....

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

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

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:18 PM

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 haven't 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?














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