35 million Americans on food stamps!

[Dd714]

Well it's easy to come up with a focused conclusion to the original article post, in spite of its condensending ideological argument (wich many of you have gladly bought into). The food stamp rate is indeed a lagging indicator to wall street. You can see it in the dip in the late 90's, the rise in the recession of 2000, another dip, and the rise into the late 2000's, with food stamps slightly lagging behind an economy recover. One factor that the article ignores however is public policy over foodstamps. - personal responsiblity act of 1996 decreased the food stamp availability, farm bill act of 2002 increased availablity. Items only a writer with an agenda would ignore.

Unemployment and food stamps are otherwise related to the stock market and business success. It's not rich vs. poor. It's rich and poor that suffer. The only difference is rich, and middle class, can become poor. The poor simply stay poor. Food stamps are the safety net.

So I haven't gleamed much from the original article. Unemployment rises, thus food stamps rise, during a recession. Everyone knows that. Everyone also knows, or should know, that unemployment (and also, with everything else being equal including political policy, food stamp decreased usage) is the last thing that comes back in a recession as companies wait till the last possible moment to rehire, to invest, and to purchase inventory.

"Yet the stock market boosted by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve is only helping the top bracket of our country." Oh really? How many middle class families have a portfolio of funds? 70%? How many retired people or near retired people went on food stamps BECAUSE the stock market crashed and they were forced to resort to public aid? The article is naive and biased.

Should we be alarmed at the 2% rise in 30 years? Will food stamp usage go down in a year? That's dependent on the economy and political factors. I see no trend, from this data, of the U.S. heading into the nanny states of Europe (but it may be a future trend, that's dependent on Obama and if/when he gets voted out of office in 3 years) or the gross divisions of Brazil.

Edit - there seems to be a strange dichotomy, a logical falicy, in some of the responses I am reading. Many are complaining of the woo of the proletariat, the growing mass of poor. Wait a second, the original article, on the factual basis, only proves one single thing - the government is giving more handouts to the poor. How people can corelate that with the misery of the poor is a mystery. While the article complains about handouts to the rich, it only proves that we are giving more handouts to the poor. For the record I am against the wave of bailouts to wall street and big business as well. I am certainly for the safety nets, but I think entitlements will do only one thing - keep the poor poor, and create more poor. Some one compared this to the french revolution? The only revolution I hear about lately is against handouts for ALL - rich, poor, everyone (except for justifiable safety nets). The French Monarcy wasn't exactly handing out food stamps. Marie Antoinette stated "let them eat cake" in her contempt for the poor of France, NOT, let them eat a totally free tax-funded well-balanced daily diet indefinetly.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by azoria

This is why we have umpteen unemployment benefit extensions, increased funding to public food programs, and government buyouts of of derelict mortgages and defunct car companies.

Just enough bailout to keep the masses from rioting in the streets. That's where those programs are aimed, and so far as preventing absolute anarchy in the streets from the dispossessed and disenfranchised, they have been successful at keeping a lid on things. So far.

::Nods head in agreement::

[hindsight2020]

nevermind...