Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.
Participation was up 0.4 percent from May and 3.3 percent higher than a year earlier and has remained greater than 46 million all year as the unemployment rate stayed higher than 8 percent. New jobless numbers will be released Sept. 7.
“Unemployment is stubbornly stuck,” making it difficult to significantly reduce the number of food-stamp recipients, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview last month. “While people are going back to work, and there are jobs being added, they aren’t being added at a clip that is as robust as anybody wants.”
Food-stamp spending, which has more than doubled in four years to a record $75.7 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2011, is the USDA’s biggest annual expense.
And at the same time, they're trying to rebrand it. They want everybody on it, but at the same time, they don't want people to have the "stigma" of being on "food stamps," so they're rebranding as "SNAP," Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Also, considering the high taxes that are running rampant, there is a much higher qualifying income that people can qualify for these now.
what do you expect......huh??????????.......while we send billions to other countries......we are in trouble....we don't take care of our own...
and many middle class who have no jobs are now on SNAP....so what......there are those who REALLY need it....while those who have raped the program
still sit on their buffs and lead an easy life.
so don't critizize this program unless you have been there........no job, no insurance, no food.......
Americans are in deep trouble.....
I have been there. I've used the programs. I've also worked and paid for the programs, so it should be there to help me as much as other people who have never worked a day in their lives. Been up, got knocked down, got back up again. Tired of paying for those who refuse to work to help themselves.
And FYI, that's why I support organizations such as the Northeast Kidney Foundation and the American Cancer Society, both of who, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING, do everything they can to help people. They do it all through donations and fundraisers. You know, neighbor helping neighbor, not neighbor paying government to help neighbor.
I have been there. I've used the programs. I've also worked and paid for the programs, so it should be there to help me as much as other people who have never worked a day in their lives. Been up, got knocked down, got back up again. Tired of paying for those who refuse to work to help themselves.
It boggles the mind to see someone who's used the system be it's biggest critic. You'd think being "knocked down" would have taught you something. I've been lucky and never used the system, but I know that it was more luck than any skill on my part.
Definition of a Republican: A Republican who loses his job, loses his home, broke and on welfare... Gets aid from his local, state and federal government... (Democrat programs) Public assistance feeds him and his family, houses him and his family... (Democrat programs) They get him job training... help him find a job, get him started on his way back to success...(Democrat programs) and he still votes Republican.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
It boggles the mind to see someone who's used the system be it's biggest critic. You'd think being "knocked down" would have taught you something. I've been lucky and never used the system, but I know that it was more luck than any skill on my part.
Definition of a Republican: A Republican who loses his job, loses his home, broke and on welfare... Gets aid from his local, state and federal government... (Democrat programs) Public assistance feeds him and his family, houses him and his family... (Democrat programs) They get him job training... help him find a job, get him started on his way back to success...(Democrat programs) and he still votes Republican.
Not only did I use it, but I used it FOR A LIMITED TIME, to help, as it was originally put in place. Did you know that Social Security, as it was, was supposed to be the same thing? The original person who received Social Security got a ONE TIME PAYMENT. It wasn't expected to be payments for life. If it had stayed what it was expected, we may be able to afford ourselves. I'm not saying I'm perfect in any way. I do my best, but when beaten down, I go to those around me for help. In this case, those around me couldn't help, but I needed to make sure my family was taken care of. Must be nice to never have to worry about issues such as that. Maybe if you HAD been in that position, then you could see what it's like to be there with the others that just expect it for nothing. I didn't walk in and say, "Give me my free $4it, I deserve it. I went in humbly and stated that I needed help. Since the day I walked in, I haven't stopped trying to make things better for myself and my family, including working 2 jobs with almost no sleep. Bet you haven't found yourself in that position, have you? Probably got a nice little house that mommy and daddy paid for before you moved in, right?
(By the way, Republicans wouldn't have started these programs with "government money" because they would have just opened up their wallets, houses, refrigerators and given the necessary items directly from there, as you might have noticed with people working last year to help clean up areas such as Rotterdam Junction after the flooding / hurricane last year, and yes, I was there helping, even when I was down on my luck at the time. The only way you would have seen a Democrat down there, out of their suit, is if they were in desparate need for votes for re-election. Notice, none of them were. I should know, I was there on a daily basis. Sometimes multiple times per day, from sun up to sun down.)
Not only did I use it, but I used it FOR A LIMITED TIME, to help, as it was originally put in place. Did you know that Social Security, as it was, was supposed to be the same thing? The original person who received Social Security got a ONE TIME PAYMENT. It wasn't expected to be payments for life. If it had stayed what it was expected, we may be able to afford ourselves. I'm not saying I'm perfect in any way. I do my best, but when beaten down, I go to those around me for help. In this case, those around me couldn't help, but I needed to make sure my family was taken care of. Must be nice to never have to worry about issues such as that. Maybe if you HAD been in that position, then you could see what it's like to be there with the others that just expect it for nothing. I didn't walk in and say, "Give me my free $4it, I deserve it. I went in humbly and stated that I needed help. Since the day I walked in, I haven't stopped trying to make things better for myself and my family, including working 2 jobs with almost no sleep. Bet you haven't found yourself in that position, have you? Probably got a nice little house that mommy and daddy paid for before you moved in, right?
(By the way, Republicans wouldn't have started these programs with "government money" because they would have just opened up their wallets, houses, refrigerators and given the necessary items directly from there, as you might have noticed with people working last year to help clean up areas such as Rotterdam Junction after the flooding / hurricane last year, and yes, I was there helping, even when I was down on my luck at the time. The only way you would have seen a Democrat down there, out of their suit, is if they were in desparate need for votes for re-election. Notice, none of them were. I should know, I was there on a daily basis. Sometimes multiple times per day, from sun up to sun down.)
"Did you know that Social Security, as it was, was supposed to be the same thing? The original person who received Social Security got a ONE TIME PAYMENT. It wasn't expected to be payments for life."
No. I didn't know that. Do you have a link to that information???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.
I would guess that since the first recipients only paid into the fund for a few months, that they got a lump sum payment. Those that followed received a lifetime payment.
It doesn't say that SS was originally DESIGNED for everyone to get a one time payment.
I'll look to see if I can find more about the original design of the plan.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I wonder what the % is in Schenectady, I think I see more people using welfare cards then I see use cash when at the market
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Here's a little bit more. I'll have to dig further to get more information. Maybe it was meant to be on-going, but that's not the way I originally took it...
Q12: Who was the first person to get Social Security benefits?
A: A fellow named Ernest Ackerman got a payment for 17 cents in January 1937. This was a one-time, lump-sum pay-out--which was the only form of benefits paid during the start-up period January 1937 through December 1939.
Logged
