Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says now that a record number of households and people are on food stamps.

23,052,388 households and that's around 20% of about 115,000,000.

Far cry from the 10% in 2004 as a graph in the article shows !!!

When will they do something about this?

What's considered "Too High"? 50% ?

Will the *Only* thing that "corrects" this trend be a major financial meltdown ?

Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

A record 20% of American households, one in five, were on food stamps in 2013, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The numbers also show that there were a record number of individuals on food stamps in 2013 and that the cost of the program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was at an all-time high.

For fiscal year 2013, the USDA declared that 23,052,388 households were on food stamps, an increase of 722,675 from fiscal year 2012, when household participation stood at 22,329,713.

We need the "Brains" of the outfit to step forward please

reply to post by xuenchen


What I don't understand is why people who need public assistance continue having children.

If you can't afford to feed the children you have maybe you should use some type of birth control.

Just saying.

reply to post by xuenchen


They are going to do nothing, xuenchen.

This is the new normal.

reply to post by justreleased


You are presupposing a level of intelligence that is clearly lacking in the vast majority of this subset of the populous.

reply to post by xuenchen


I'm not sure more financial strife will cause less financially dependent individuals. Each political party has a "way" to fix it that is unique to their overall political agenda. It bothers me to hear numbers like you shared because I work hard for a living and don't look for handouts. Some people do need aid, though, and some people take advantage of the aid given to those who actually need it. I sometimes feel ignorant when it frustrates me and realize I need to learn a lot more before I put forth a position that I feel confident to stand behind. This is a tough one that lies at the heart of America.

It's pretty simple. Require employers to pay any welfare benefits that an employee receives. They either raise wages or they go out of business and go to work for someone else. Of course this would raise prices. Higher prices would mean more competition emerging, thus squeezing corporations to lower prices and their profit margins or to lose the business all together. The basic mid term effect would be to funnel additional monies into the working economy. This would raise demand and allow these companies to flourish from their new baseline bottom lines. It won't be great for the stock markets, but we do need to stop relying on markets for our economic prosperity.

How about corporate welfare? The bulk of my hard earned pay goes to subsidies to GOP-friendly big business.

rupertg
How about corporate welfare? The bulk of my hard earned pay goes to subsidies to GOP-friendly big business.

That is certainly a valid point.

Can you post some comparisons?

"Welfare to Individuals" vs. "Welfare to Corporations"

The numbers may show merits.

I totally get that many people need assistance when feeding their families, as wages have either remained stagnant or dropped, yet the inflation rate on food, utilities, gas, etc., has really gone up a lot, especially in the last several years.

I'd rather feed people than give our tax dollars away to foreign nations, but that's just me.

My concern is not so much that a large segment of the population will be on food stamps...rather, what happens if the gov't suddenly shuts down and those EBT cards no longer work (remember what happened over the summer with the EBT glitch, and people went insane?), or if there is a huge devaluation in the dollar, so that the little bit on the EBT cards barely buys enough for a week.

The more people you get dependent on Uncle Sugar, the uglier the scenario becomes when Uncle Sugar stops the assistance.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Doesn't your position presuppose those out of work on food stamps would be working if there were more jobs? There are a lot of unfilled jobs and yet a lot of unemployed. Arguably, people are picky and don't want to do certain types of jobs and, a cynic might say, prefer government aid.

How do you fix a growing level of apathy?

I've said this before on ATS, but I asked a woman I know what she was going to make for dinner a few weeks ago. It went like this:

MM: "So whatcha making for dinner? I can't decide if I want hot dogs or grilled cheese..."

Her: "I don't know, my boyfriend does the grocery shopping. He's got food stamps so he usually comes home with a bunch of junk food *laughing*"

She said that as a matter of fact, and laughed a little bit.

Now, I'm all for helping people who have unfortunate turns in their lives ... but this made my blood boil. I'M paying taxes so that her boyfriend can buy junk food. What's worse is that she didn't seem to care and thought it was almost "cute".

This is what's wrong with the foodstamp program. The program shouldn't be a "free, forever handout". I truly believe that if you're on food stamps, you should only be allowed certain items from a sanctioned "food stamp grocery store".

In my world, you wouldn't get to choose which store you went to. The store would be very plain, basic, and only carry the most inexpensive but nutritious "generic food stamp branded" items.

No to Doritos
No to Pepsi products
No to Little Debbie cakes
No to Ben and Jerry's
No to Oreo's

Yes to fresh produce
Yes to ground beef
Yes to dairy items
Yes to actual eggs
Yes to loaves of bread

And as I said, the packaging would be "MILK" or "CHEESE". No fancy packaging, no fancy marketing, just the essential staples to keep your stomach full and your body well nourished.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Fair. I don't think the founding fathers wanted to become independent from England so citizens could live off government handouts. Government aid is intended as a crutch to aid, not a robotic limb to replace and do all the work.

reply to post by xuenchen


How about this for merit. The Food Stamp program doesn't exist to feed low income people. It exists to keep the hungry people from bashing your head in and eating you. The fact is most of the people on SNAP are working Americans. Those same Americans that keep finding their old job outsourced or automated. So tell me oh Rushbot, what do you propose to fix that? Or are you here to just drop a troll post again?

It's the latest in corporate bailouts.

Companies like Wal Mart can reap billions in profits, by having 80% of their workforce on food stamps, because they refuse to pay a living wage! Thus Wal Mart rakes in the dough, while taxpayers subsidize their employee wages!

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I face this debate as I live near a grocery store where a lot of people use food stamps (can tell by the easily distinguishable debit-like card). They buy shopping carts full of junk and cartons of cigarettes.

As a devil's advocate let me throw out two points to you:

1. Junk food tends to be cheaper than healthier alternatives.
2. Who are we to say what someone eats and what is healthy/junk. Isn't the point of government aid to give people what they cannot obtain on their own. We able-bodied Americans can enjoy various garbage foods. Why give them money at all and instead deliver food to them or have a pick up where they get a certain predetermined ration.

I'm unsettled on my opinion on these issues but raise these points for discussion purposes.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


And make them feel even lower about themselves?? No way man.

I dont even like to admit i get assistance because of peoples comments like that.

That is pretty rough.

I can agree there should be limits and regulations.

But you cant demonize everyone getting assistance.

Some people like me shop for meals not forty cases of soda and chips.

Im not a child and dont need my hand held.

rupertg
How about corporate welfare? The bulk of my hard earned pay goes to subsidies to GOP-friendly big business.

Exactly. Corporate welfare and Government programs that can basically be determined to be corporate welfare (such as building unnecessary new defense systems) cost WAY more than welfare and food stamps does, and this money is going to firms that make BILLIONS.

Is it really necessary to build a new nuclear weapons system every few years, or new warplanes, new missile systems etc?

USA gives huge tax subsidies to corporations such as banks, large pharmaceutical companies, large retailers like WalMart, large farming companies like Monsanto, large oil companies, the list goes on and on and on, and NO ONE in Government ever wants to even suggest cutting off corporations that make billions from getting even more in taxpayer funds.

reply to post by justreleased


this is an ignorant thing to say. many people are in well paid job and marriages and # happens: divorce, illness, lay-offs, accidents -- life throws things at you you are not prepared for.

redmage
It's the latest in corporate bailouts.

Companies like Wal Mart can reap billions in profits, by having 80% of their workforce on food stamps, because they refuse to pay them a living wage! Thus Wal Mart rakes in the dough, while taxpayers subsidize their employee wages!

And yet not only does the US Government have to pay WalMart workers to be on food stamps, they also give WalMart Government subsidies in the form of tax breaks because of "all those great jobs" they create.

reply to post by xuenchen



Wait? You must be wrong! The current administration has created millions upon millions of jobs! .... LOL.... looks like the people who have fallen off of unemployment benefits have been taken care of just fine by the government. It seems like unemployment numbers are looking better and the number of people on food stamps is steadily growing..... correlation? I would think so.

Nice post!