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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 (41-50):
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:26 PM
1 mom liked this

 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.

 

 

 

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:33 PM
1 mom liked this


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

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:38 PM

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?


















Citygirlk
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:47 PM

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?




brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM


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

talia-mom
by Gold Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:50 PM

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?






















hhhanna
by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Ahhh, but Obama's goal is for it to be at least twice that number.  Remember, it's not fair unless we ALL are getting the exact same amount of food, the exact same size (per person) of square footage to live in.  Profit is bad, doing useless things but getting your daily needs taken care of are good.  THAT IS OBAMA'S VERSION OF FAIR.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:54 PM


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

pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:58 PM

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.

 

 

 


 

pvtjokerus
by Platinum Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 2:02 PM

 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)



Featured