Government wants more people on food stamps

This stuff is starting to enrage me.

The goal of all of those on the left, especially our illustrious current President, is to get as many people on the dole as they can. That is how the government gains power and triumphs over liberty.

Nothing but an ever growing power grab. Once you depend on the government for something you vote for whomever will continue providing for you.

Sad how much of a nanny state this once great country has become. Nothing but a downward slide now.

I heard it on NPR on the way back from work this week. The posts above me got it exactly right, this is a campaign to get more people reliant on government aid in a bid to continue these social services. Once you start sucking off the government teat it's difficult to wean yourself off.

I have seen a lot of assertions, but I haven't seen any cases to make points.

Obama is to the right of Jimmy Carter and is less divisive than Bill Clinton.

But the electorate- both sides- is more polarized today. People believe 35% marginal tax rates are communism while others believe 90% marginal tax rates are normal and healthy capitalism.

Let's be worthy of free speech and understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Come up with original talking points and original research, and present them.

As usual, illini is the voice of reason. Platitudes and diatribes don't make for healthy political debate, neither does rage. I'm so sick of "conservatives" on this site quoting fox news and acting like they've made the most insightful conclusions the internet has ever seen.

If my "diatribe" is false, then refute it! Notice that like-minded people tend to congregate. This isn't a political forum, but people in finance lean towards the conservative side. If you disagree that social services breed dependence and blind political loyalty, then tell me why I'm wrong.

Nobody is calling your diatribe false. We're saying it is lacking in facts, information, and substance. Ok, you're angry at Obama. We already know. So tell us something new.

The goal of food stamps is generally to keep people from going hungry. The goverrnment also has a lot of programs to get people OFF of food stamps, too. The fact that we have programs to REDUCE and MITIGATE the size of the welfare state is the reason we're not turning into Rome.

I don't even know what the fact that food stamps = dependence is debated. The budget for food stamps has far outgrown population levels or unemployment.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/27/sessions-food-stamp-programs-expl…

What I find funny is that obesity, unhealthy diets, diabetes, etc, are all growing far faster than normal in lower income families. At the same time we are rapidly expanding food stamps. Medicaid, health insurance for the poor, is growing year after year, accelerating when Obamacare gets fully implemented.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Tre…

So you have the government providing more and more food money for the poor, the poor eating more and more unhealthy and medical care for the poor increasing and increase.

Sounds like a vicious circle to me.

And lets be honest, the poor are growing as a voting block because

1) Automation and mechanization 2) We are in an information/service economy 3) Outsources labor 4) Higher than replacement rate birth rates 5) Illegal and legal immigration

So you have a fast growing, poor population, that is increasingly depending on the government for every facet of their life and one party pushing to expand these programs. I wonder why??

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/12008/exit/income.jpg

Now I 100% support the Democrats in pandering and buying votes. Republicans do the same thing. But how about we stop talking about giving a shit about these people and realize this is simply buying votes, which it is.

And buying is a misnomer since ~50% of the budget is funded through borrowing, at historic and unsustainable lows I might add.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/09/12/news/economy/federal_budget/c…

So right now we are paying ~6% of our annual budget on debt service costs. We are not decreasing our national debt, but only increasing it. As rates rise so will the interest on that debt.

And we will have to pay for this somehow, through increased borrowing or increased taxes.

Lets assume borrowing hits a wall sometime. We will have to increase taxes, which will be tough since 50% pay nothing now and I even if you jacked the top 1%'s income you can't fill the gap, so you will have to tax the middle class = lost elections. You can cut spending, which is feasible, mainly defense, but good luck with that and frankly, social programs will eventually be unfundable even if defense is a fraction of what it costs now.

2010 for example. Suppose defense was ZERO. We would still have a $766MM deficit.

So how about we talk about pure fiscal issues and stop pretending that this is about helping anyone, which it isn't.

Lol obesity is growing among the poor not because of how much food they eat but because of the type of food they eat which is mostly low-cost chemical crap. If anything capitalism is the reason for the growing obesity epidemic in the lower class (they can't afford to buy organic) so please don't attempt to imply that increased use of food stamps is the reason for the growing obesity in this nation, its the gap in cost between fresh and processed foods. I have yet to meet an individual who is happy to be on food stamps and ok with dependence, if this were the case more people would be on it and the Obama administration wouldn't have to advertise it so people could feed their kids. One thing I will say is I respect ANT's second and third response more than the garbage/platitudes he posted initially.

If the government truly cared about feeding people it would provide nutritious food to lower income people directly. Instead it throws money at them because the goal is to buy votes, not help.

Government isn't an omnipresent loving parent. It is a collection of largely white, well off men who want to be re-elected and increase power.

Its obviously not as simple as calories in/out. ANT I sympathize with your distrust of government but isn't it pretty obvious that there would be huge logistics problems with directly providing nutrition to the poor?

for adapt or die: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-the-campaign-to-st…

I just went to the grocery store and purchased whole-grain pasta, heart healthy garden combo pasta sauce, a pound of pears, a few peaches, pound of bananas, and a bag of spinach. Total cost was 10 bucks. This plenty will last approximately three meals plus a few mid-afternoon snacks. Three healthy meals for 10 dollars. A combo at McDonalds costs around 6-7 dollars. Heh. Eating well is cheap if you actually have the will to do it.