Are Republicans at war with the poor? The facts on food stamps make it seem that way.

[Billy000]

Can anyone on the right give a valid argument why this program needed to be cut?

Read the whole article if you actually want to be informed about the SNAP program. I put important points in this article in bold, including the ONLY valid complaints republicans have about the program:

We are entering a divisive debate on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps. Unless facts drive the debate, it will be destructive as well.

Here are the basic facts: Food stamps reach their intended targets—poor and near-poor Americans. Over the past two decades, the program's overpayment rate has been cut by more than half to 3%, according to the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service. The large increase in the program's cost over the past decade mostly reflects worsening economic conditions rather than looser eligibility standards, increased benefits, or more waste, fraud and abuse. As the economy improves over the next decade, the number of beneficiaries will fall sharply.

About 47.6 million individuals receive food stamps; 47% are children, and an additional 26% are adults living with those children. Income for the typical family with children on food stamps stands at 57% of the poverty line—about $10,875 for three-person family. Although the share of households getting food stamps with incomes above the poverty line has risen to about 17% today from 12% in 2007, 91% of benefits in dollar terms go to households living in poverty.

The food-stamp program's costs have soared since 2000, and especially since 2007. Here's why.

First, there are many more poor people than there were at the end of the Clinton administration. Since 2000, the number of individuals in poverty has risen to 46.5 million from 31.6 million—to 15% of the total population from 11.3%. During the same period, the number of households with annual incomes under $25,000 rose to 30.2 million (24.7% of total households) from 21.9 million (21.2%).

Critics complain that beneficiaries and costs have continued to rise, even though the Great Recession officially ended in 2009. They're right, but the number of poor people and low-income households has continued to rise as well.

According to the Census Bureau, there are 2.9 million more poor individuals today than in 2009, and three million more households with incomes under $25,000. The economic recovery, such as it is, has not yet reached low-income Americans.

In addition to an expanding pool of individuals and households eligible for food stamps, participation in the program has risen. Between 1994 and 2002, which included the broad-based economic expansion of the mid- and late 1990s, participation fell to 54% of eligible persons from 75%. Over the past decade, that downward trend was reversed, and participation once again stands at about 75%. Hard times have motivated people to sign up, and program administrators have intensified their outreach efforts, including advertising.

Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, macroeconomic trends account for 65% of the increased spending in the food stamp program. A combination of higher food prices and lower beneficiary incomes accounts for an additional 15%. The temporary increase in benefits included in the 2009 stimulus bill accounts for the remaining 20%, and that increase ended as of Nov. 1. Over the next decade, according to CBO economic projections, the number of food-stamp beneficiaries will fall by about 30%, to 34.3 million. Annual outlays will fall by $10 billion in current dollars, and much more when inflation is taken into account.

So what is the fight about? Congressional and other critics of the program complain that standards are lax and that only individuals at or below the poverty line should be eligible. Even if this argument were accepted, CBO calculates, outlays would fall by only 4%. Second, say the critics, too many individuals become eligible "categorically" through their participation in other programs rather than through income tests. This is another distinction that doesn't make much of a practical difference: Eliminating categorical eligibility outright would reduce the number of beneficiaries by only 4% and outlays by only 2%.

Third, say the critics, the number of able-bodied adults without dependents receiving benefits under the food-stamp program has risen to nearly 5.5 million from under two million since 2008 even as work requirements for these individuals have been relaxed. Here the critics have a case: The federal government should reconsider the waivers of current requirements it has extended to 44 states and the District of Columbia, and it should consider toughening those standards.

The final complaint is the broadest: Food stamps are welfare, and welfare increases dependency. But the most rigorous research (summarized in a 2011 NBER paper, "An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States") has found SNAP's effects on work effort to be "small," "statistically insignificant," or "zero."

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the current attacks on the food stamp program are motivated far more by budget-cutting zeal and anti-government ideology than by the defects of the program—and that the real disagreement is about the extent of our collective obligation to the least fortunate Americans.

William Galston: In Defense of Food Stamps - WSJ.com

 

[Quantumhead]

I think they certainly believe that being poor is a person's own fault, as if getting rich is simply a matter of hard work. I find the biggest problem with Republicans (I mean apart form the fact that fifty percent of them are legally recognised as retarded) is that they are staticists. They live in a constantly changing universe, a constantly changing technological and social landscape, yet never seem to want to change anything.

And why would they? It suits them just fine to stay rich while the rest of society squabbles and fights for their leftovers.

 

[Meathead]

Because poor Americans are too fat.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Because poor Americans are too fat.

Because poor americans sell their EBT cards on craigslist. Hell, how long EXACTLY do we have to care for the people that will NOT take care of themselves!?!?!

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder.......................how hard did the Koch brothers work for THEIR money?

How about Grover Norquist?

 

[theHawk]

Clearly increasing the SNAP program is the way to go since it has helped lower poverty levels.....oh wait...

If people can't afford to feed their children, maybe they should stop having so many? They all had access to condoms, or to get an abortion, but since they chose to have a child we all have to pay for it now?

People like having a big juicy tit to suck on. Supplying more teats isn't going to ween them off.

 

[Billy000]

Clearly increasing the SNAP program is the way to go since it has helped lower poverty levels.....oh wait...

If people can't afford to feed their children, maybe they should stop having so many? They all had access to condoms, or to get an abortion, but since they chose to have a child we all have to pay for it now?

People like having a big juicy tit to suck on. Supplying more teats isn't going to ween them off.

You know no one has kids for the hell of it. You are also not understanding the point of poor parents getting welfare. IT'S NOT FOR THEM. It's for the kids. Is that so hard to understand?

No, they really don't. The research says otherwise as you will notice in the article I posted.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Clearly increasing the SNAP program is the way to go since it has helped lower poverty levels.....oh wait...

If people can't afford to feed their children, maybe they should stop having so many? They all had access to condoms, or to get an abortion, but since they chose to have a child we all have to pay for it now?

People like having a big juicy tit to suck on. Supplying more teats isn't going to ween them off.

Quick question...........................if that is true, then why are so many Republicans against birth control and abortion?

I mean.........................if they could stop having children via birth control (or even abortion, which is a dirty word in the GOP), wouldn't the reasons for people going on SNAP be reduced?

You're right, if they can't afford to feed them, they shouldn't breed them, but in the case of what the GOP says, what choice do they have?

Some people choose to have no children (via birth control), or choose to not bring another life into this world (via abortion) because it's a lot cheaper to not have a child than to bring them to this world.

Sorry....................but you can't stop sex.....................it's in the American psyche because sex sells, and almost every business tends to use it to sell their products.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no cut to SNAP. IT is rolling back what was supposed to be a temporary increase. One again Billy proves to be among the most clueless posters here.
The truth is Dems hate poor people and want them to stay that way. The GOP wants poor people to join the middle class, heck even become rich.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly increasing the SNAP program is the way to go since it has helped lower poverty levels.....oh wait...

If people can't afford to feed their children, maybe they should stop having so many? They all had access to condoms, or to get an abortion, but since they chose to have a child we all have to pay for it now?

People like having a big juicy tit to suck on. Supplying more teats isn't going to ween them off.

Quick question...........................if that is true, then why are so many Republicans against birth control and abortion?

I mean.........................if they could stop having children via birth control (or even abortion, which is a dirty word in the GOP), wouldn't the reasons for people going on SNAP be reduced?

You're right, if they can't afford to feed them, they shouldn't breed them, but in the case of what the GOP says, what choice do they have?

Some people choose to have no children (via birth control), or choose to not bring another life into this world (via abortion) because it's a lot cheaper to not have a child than to bring them to this world.

Sorry....................but you can't stop sex.....................it's in the American psyche because sex sells, and almost every business tends to use it to sell their products.

How many Republicans are against birth control?
Oh yeah none.
Another winner from the grease gun enema cowboy and military faker.

 

[Billy000]

There is no cut to SNAP. IT is rolling back what was supposed to be a temporary increase. One again Billy proves to be among the most clueless posters here.
The truth is Dems hate poor people and want them to stay that way. The GOP wants poor people to join the middle class, heck even become rich.

Hm and rolling back does nothing but hurt the poor. Republicans are stupid.

The GOP wants people to be rich? Right. Because of their policies, the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting more poor.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no cut to SNAP. IT is rolling back what was supposed to be a temporary increase. One again Billy proves to be among the most clueless posters here.
The truth is Dems hate poor people and want them to stay that way. The GOP wants poor people to join the middle class, heck even become rich.

Hm and rolling back does nothing but hurt the poor. Republicans are stupid.

The GOP wants people to be rich? Right. Because of their policies, the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting more poor.

OK, so you agree there is no cut. That's progress.
Hey, dummy. the middle class has done worse under Obama and the Democrats than under Bush. Obama's recovery is worse than Bush's recession.

 

[Politico]

No. The Democrats definitely are though.

 

[Billy000]

There is no cut to SNAP. IT is rolling back what was supposed to be a temporary increase. One again Billy proves to be among the most clueless posters here.
The truth is Dems hate poor people and want them to stay that way. The GOP wants poor people to join the middle class, heck even become rich.

Hm and rolling back does nothing but hurt the poor. Republicans are stupid.

The GOP wants people to be rich? Right. Because of their policies, the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting more poor.

OK, so you agree there is no cut. That's progress.
Hey, dummy. the middle class has done worse under Obama and the Democrats than under Bush. Obama's recovery is worse than Bush's recession.

Um are you dumb? The economy crashed under Bush's watch. At the end of his second term! Obviously people under Obama would still he feeling the effects of a bad economy. Shit got worse under Bush. We have had private sector growth and a decline in the public sector under Obama. It's completley ridiculous you won't give him any credit for it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hm and rolling back does nothing but hurt the poor. Republicans are stupid.

The GOP wants people to be rich? Right. Because of their policies, the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting more poor.

OK, so you agree there is no cut. That's progress.
Hey, dummy. the middle class has done worse under Obama and the Democrats than under Bush. Obama's recovery is worse than Bush's recession.

Um are you dumb? The economy crashed under Bush's watch. At the end of his second term! Obviously people under Obama would still he feeling the effects of a bad economy. Shit got worse under Bush. We have had steady private sector growth and a decline in the public sector. It's completley ridiculous you won't give him any credit for it.

Idjit.
Household income is lower than when Obama took office
Household wealth is lower than when Obama took office
Food stamp recipients are higher than when Obama took office
Disability recipients are higher than when Obama took office
U6 unemployment is higher than when Obama took office.

Wake up!

 

[Meathead]

Hm and rolling back does nothing but hurt the poor. Republicans are stupid.

The GOP wants people to be rich? Right. Because of their policies, the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting more poor.

OK, so you agree there is no cut. That's progress.
Hey, dummy. the middle class has done worse under Obama and the Democrats than under Bush. Obama's recovery is worse than Bush's recession.

Um are you dumb? The economy crashed under Bush's watch. At the end of his second term! Obviously people under Obama would still he feeling the effects of a bad economy. Shit got worse under Bush. We have had steady private sector growth and a decline in the public sector. It's completley ridiculous you won't give him any credit for it.

He gets no credit on the economy unless one's expectations are incredibly low. He gets credit for Obamacare though!

 

[Sallow]

Clearly increasing the SNAP program is the way to go since it has helped lower poverty levels.....oh wait...

If people can't afford to feed their children, maybe they should stop having so many? They all had access to condoms, or to get an abortion, but since they chose to have a child we all have to pay for it now?

People like having a big juicy tit to suck on. Supplying more teats isn't going to ween them off.

After this post?

Really? Does the question need to be asked?

Of course Conservatives are at war with the poor.

 

[Meathead]

Swallow, you're a hack and a moron. Even the Democrats did not try to keep the extra food stamp funding. From the beloved Huffpost:

In order to help pay for a series of high-priority spending bills in 2010, congressional Democrats raided future funding for food stamps, promising to put the money back before any cuts took effect.

Now that the cuts are around the corner, Democrats aren't talking about replacing the money. Instead, they're talking about more cuts. The big farm bill that passed the Senate on Thursday will reduce the deficit by $23.6 billion. Part of the savings comes from cutting an additional $4.5 billion from food stamps.

Democrats Not Trying To Prevent Food Stamp Cuts, Breaking Promise

 

[Spiderman]

The average reduction is $9 a week.

Sorry folks but no one is going to starve to death because of a $9 a week reduction in food stamps.

 

[DaGoose]

Clearly increasing the SNAP program is the way to go since it has helped lower poverty levels.....oh wait...

If people can't afford to feed their children, maybe they should stop having so many? They all had access to condoms, or to get an abortion, but since they chose to have a child we all have to pay for it now?

People like having a big juicy tit to suck on. Supplying more teats isn't going to ween them off.

Quick question...........................if that is true, then why are so many Republicans against birth control and abortion?

I mean.........................if they could stop having children via birth control (or even abortion, which is a dirty word in the GOP), wouldn't the reasons for people going on SNAP be reduced?

You're right, if they can't afford to feed them, they shouldn't breed them, but in the case of what the GOP says, what choice do they have?

Some people choose to have no children (via birth control), or choose to not bring another life into this world (via abortion) because it's a lot cheaper to not have a child than to bring them to this world.

Sorry....................but you can't stop sex.....................it's in the American psyche because sex sells, and almost every business tends to use it to sell their products.

Because today's Neo-Cons are the true party of "big gubmint".

They want "big gubmint" to control peoples private lives in regard to abortion.

They want "big gubmint" to control peoples private lives in regard to who can get married.

They want "big gubmint" to control peoples private lives in regard to euthanasia.

They want "big gubmint" to control peoples private lives and decide for the family on whether a plug gets pulled in a comatose loved one.

They want "big gubmint" to control peoples private lives in regard to cancer treatment.

So as you see today's Neo-Cons stand for Totalitarianism, plain and simple.

.