We're all feeling the sting of skyrocketing grocery bills — but families living at or below the poverty line are seeing their food stamps purchase less and less — and they're going hungry. About 1.3 million New Yorkers identify themselves as “food insecure,” concerned about their ability to keep themselves and their families adequately fed.
In the past year the price of what the government recommends as the minimal nutritional diet has risen 7.2 percent, with the prices of particular staples rising even more. Eggs alone have gone up 20 percent.
Food stamp allocations on the other hand, haven't changed since last fall — and won’t increase again until October.
The decrease in buying power of food stamps has been recognized in Washington — Congress passed a farm bill in May that would raise raise the minimum amount of food stamps families receive beginning this fall, passing despite President Bush’s veto.
The director of food assistance for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says of the difference between food stamps and cost of food, “we know food stamps are falling short $34 a month [of the monthly $576 that the government says it costs a family of four to eat nutritional meals.] The sudden price increases on top of everything else like soaring fuel and health care have meant squeeze and strain that is unprecedented since the late 1970s.”
To see how the amount spent on food compares to that spent in Iraq, read more.
The food stamp relief included in the farm bill, amounts to $5.4 billion over the next ten years, including $50 million to promote community food projects, like local vegetable gardens.
Now I'm not a spending alarmist, but I do like to know the stats and how they compare. The ten year, $5.4 billion we're spending on food stamps? It amounts to just over a week spent in Iraq. Feeding people suddenly seems like a bargain.
$720,000,000 a day. Do you feel comfortable with how US tax dollars are being spent? Is this wrongly comparing apples to armor — or we all need a much bigger deal on Miracle Whip?









DKNY
Energie
Pilgrim
I don't think it is an incorrect comparison. It just shows where our priorities are as a country. It's appalling.
1I'll bet Iowans and New Orleans residents wish we had spent that money a little more wisely.
2Considering the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in welfare programs (among many other things) I think it's astounding we're spending $5.4Billion on Food Stamps.
Additionally, is Miracle Whip really part of a balanced diet?
3Think of how many more countries we could attack if the federal government got out of education and welfare!
4Thank you for bringing some common sense in here Stephley.
523 minutes! That's pretty good time. I thought it would take at least a half hour before a conservative would decry how much money we're spending helping poor people.
Now, let's discuss how much of our money is wasted on helping foster children and the unemployed.
6Uh oh. I hear a knee jerk.
7As you are very well aware, it is a Constitutional issue.
If you want the Fed to provide welfare and education, change the Constitution.
Until you get around to changing the rules, instead of just disregarding them, it really doesn't matter where I believe is right or wrong to spend our tax money as spending it on these items is wrong Constitutionally.
8I agree 3m. If we are going to look at the supposed waste of federal tax dollars in Iraq, then let's make sure to include the billions in pork spending that need to be redirected.
9well I wondered how long it was going to take before someone brought up the notion that conservatives don't want to help poor people. I loves me some broad generalizations.
10Knee jerk? Please. Every time someone mentions welfare on this site you can count the minutes before someone chimes in with the evils of socialism or government assistance, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, ask those same people why it's okay that the government helps billionaires with tax subsidies and it grows strangely quiet.
11Do you think the national government should provide those services, or the state government? This isn't about if it should be provided, but by whom.
12Kris, if the shoe fits. The conservatives have been screaming about cutting welfare for the poorest since Roosevelt and their only solution is "private donations" which is what we had before federal programs and that didn't work so well (see: The Depression before WPA.). So until conservatives actually come up with a workable plan to assist the poor and those who need assistance in our country, why shouldn't we call it like it is?
13I rather my money go to help people, even if some don't deserve it because of (insert conservative argument here) than it go to hurting people. Though I wish the government would find to help people help themselves, get out of the war, and give our money back to us. Yeah, I'll keep dreaming.
14I talk about cutting taxes all the time. Not just for corporations (which I feel it is important to do to keep them in this country, and more importantly, to keep production in this country so that we have jobs for Americans, not for cheap over seas labor.)
I also believe it's important to keep taxes low for corporations because every time we tax a corporation all that happens is the tax is passed down to the American who is using the proudct or service? Why would this happen? That tax is a cost of doing business and corporations pass costs down to to the consumers as (and I know this part is shocking) they are looking to make a profit.
Darn Capitalists!!!!!!!!
15The entire idea of federal programs is to assist people who are in need. Such as flood victims or those who are struck by unforseen circumstances. Prolonged government assistance is simply enabling people. I believe if you cut people's subsidies they'll have incentive to make the money. As for billionaires who get tax breaks, I think a billionaire probably hires people and is therefore more likely to contribute to our society with jobs and to me has earned their tax break.
16Oh, and one the largest subsidy usually handed out to Billionaires tends to be through farm subsidies.
Yet another Un-Constitutional program enacted by our friend FDR of which I have spoken out against many, many times.
17How do we get from assisting the poor to cutting profits? We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about priorities in government spending, not increasing taxes. If we took just one third of the pentagon's budget, which won't increase our taxes at all, we could repair the entire infrastructure of our nation. Or we could help feed the 6 million starving children in America. I know it doesn't sound exciting, but how can anyone be against feeding starving American kids?
183m - not all business just pass the cost down. Some move their business out of the country.
19"How do we get from assisting the poor to cutting profits? I'm talking about priorities in government spending, not increasing taxes. " - You said whenever subsides and tax cuts for the billionaires are brought up Conservatives get quiet.
Of course this isn't true and thus here we are.
20Are you running for office, Mr. Raccoon. Using starving children is a bit histrionic, wouldn't you agree? We all want to help starving children, but we're talking about government programs that have proved ineffective in that arena and have over the years borne continual dependence.
21"I know it doesn't sound exciting, but how can anyone be against feeding starving American kids?" - It's about disregarding the Constitution.
If the Fed wants to do these items it needs to amend the Constitution, not let Supreme Court justices re-interpret the document to fit their means.
22UnDave, why would they move out of the country? Don't they realize that it's for the good of the people?
23Okay, M3, that may have been unfair. Okay, it was unfair, but my overall point was that I believe, as a social liberal, that we should help people with taxes. I should have just said that and saved us all a lot of time. But I do so much reading your responses. Living here in California it's hard to find a good conservative argument. So I thank you all.
24Correction: "I do so much enjoy reading your responses."
25"I believe, as a social liberal, that we should help people with taxes. " - I get that, but on a Federal level as long as the Constitution is written how it is, there need to be Constitutional Amends before the Federal Government has any rights or powers to move into these areas.
This is why this conversation almost always takes place on a Federal level. While I stand pretty strongly against these programs on a state level, it is legally where they are allowed to and supposed to be addressed. These powers lie with the states and as such I can disagree with them, but they are not illegal.
When it comes to the Federal level, whether you "feel" it is the right or wrong thing to do has no impact on the issue that it is Un-Constitutional.
26But does not the constitution allow for federal assistance in state matters? What about FEMA or our interstate roadways? Are you saying those are un-constitutional?
27I'm honestly not well versed on our interstate highway system or on FEMA to make official comments on their exact Constitutional basis.
I would assume that the highway system was stretched under regulating interstate commerce with FDR's New Deal (which would be a stretch that I wouldn't necessarily agree with, but I would need to read up on this further to confirm my beliefs.)
As for FEMA, I am not well versed enough to take a firm stance, but I highly doubt FEMA stands on firm ground.
28Just FYI on Food Stamps:
Households CAN use food stamp benefits to buy:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
-- breads and cereals
-- fruits and vegetables
-- meats, fish and poultry; and
-- dairy products
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.
Households CANNOT use food stamp benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
-- pet foods;
-- soaps, paper products; and
-- household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.
Food that will be eaten in the store.
Hot foods
Households may have no more than $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account ($3,000 if at least one person in the household is age 60 or older, or is disabled). Certain resources are not counted, such as a home and lot. Special rules are used to determine the resource value of vehicles owned by household members.
The gross monthly income of most households must be 130 percent or less of the Federal poverty guidelines ($1,799 per month for a family of three in most places, effective Oct. 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2007). Gross income includes all cash payments to the household, with a few exceptions specified in the law or the program regulations.
Net monthly income must be 100 percent or less of Federal poverty guidelines ($1,385 per month for a household of three in most places, effective Oct. 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2007). Net income is figured by adding all of a household's gross income, and then taking a number of approved deductions for child care, some shelter costs and other expenses. Households with an elderly or disabled member are subject only to the net income test.
Most able-bodied adult applicants must meet certain work requirements.
All household members must provide a Social Security number or apply for one
29the bigger picture: we've created a society of consumers, not citizens, consumers. the habits of these consumers have benefited a small group of very wealthy people who own the corporations (some of these people are also connected to our government). now that the economy is finally tumbling down from it's false surge due to a corrupt housing market and bubble, and a world that's growing and developing and no longer working in unison to keep OUR society fed, clothed and entertained... we're just backing away, pulling the rug out from under the feet of the poorest people in this country. when the economy's good you train people to buy buy buy, dont encourage any savings of any kind, and then when things get bad you say "oh crap, gotta run!". that's WRONG.
mymellowman: i love your argument using the constitution to defend the imbalance in spending on the war vs. real people and real problems here in our own country.
the bush administration has never paid attention to the constitution when it gets in the way of their plans (i don't even need to go into the examples there, do i), so why hold up the constitution in this situation as the rule book that everyone's supposedly following? you're either not paying attention or you are using these nuances in the constitution to hide behind rather than facing the real issue (see above).
30Hi CaterpillarGirl-thanks for posting for those who didn't know.
31I stand by my comments with the Constitution and social/welfare programs (among others.)
If you want to walk down another road, yy, let's do so, but instead of being vague, yes, you will need to give exact examples.
32Oh, and it is not the Federal Government's responsibility to tell us what we should buy, when or how we should by things. The individual needs to take responsibility to his or her own actions.
We don't live in a Socialist state, but if you want to live in one feel free to move to one of these countries. I prefer my freedom and my choices.
33im saying the current administration bends the rules in their favor just about every way they can, so choosing to funnel money into a war, ultimately benefiting a few companies (oil, defense contractors, infrastructure firms), instead of investing it in schools, domestic infrastructure, and programs that will help people get out of this mess we're in.
you're right - it's not the government's responsibility to tell us what to buy... unless the government is RUN by the corporations that are profiting from the obscene consumer culture we live in. i thought it was common knowledge that our government is in the pocket of the military-industrial complex, the food companies, and the oil and auto industries.
34I think using Constitutional grounds is quite valid in this argument...we are talking about separation of powers here which hasn't evolved much over the last century for good reason...and really..who is to decide what type of funding is most important?
35"im saying the current administration bends the rules in their favor just about every way they can" - What you said was the current administration has broken the Constitution. What I asked for was specific examples of how they broke the constitution, not generalities of "right and wrong."
"i thought it was common knowledge that our government is in the pocket of the military-industrial complex, the food companies, and the oil and auto industries." - Well, I don't argue with common knowledge, I argue with facts.
363M - where have you used an exact example to support your vision of what is Constitutional? When Raci brought up examples, you side-stepped.
Disagreeing with your interpretation does not equal advocating Socialism.
37CaterpillarGirl & bellaressa - there are many ways around those guidelines. I have seen people buy items on the approved list for people NOT on their household and then get cash back from them. Also about the income guidelines: I have also seen people pretend to be single mom's (they live in a common law marriage) and as a family make more than enough to provide for their kids, but as "single parents" benefit from food stamps, free medic care, and even free child-birth, etc. Also, people on unemployment will show up to required job interviews looking like crap and not even try to actually land a job, just because if they do they lose their benefits... FYI: I lived in Miami, FL many years, which is like the fraud capital of the US... So I have seen the system used for WRONG way TOO OFTEN. Therefore, I am against the system as is. They need to find a better way to help those WHO REALLY NEED IT. I don’t think I should pay for people's laziness...
38Darkangel-I understand there are ways around the system. There are ways around every system; however, some people do not know the guidelines or they go on information received by others and not the facts.
And on the unemployment front - you only get it for 6 months now with the increase I believe it is 3 extra months. I was on unemployment, I looked for a job and it was hard to find one. I did not show up at the interviews not dressed to impress, I have creditials and I still was not hired. There are some people that like the system and depend on it. There are also people that dread being on it, get on, and work damn hard to get off and stay off.
39Well said darkangel. I agree completely.
40this argument is pointless. there are larger philosophical issues at play -- larger even than the constitution.
41Stephley, I didn't side-step it, I said that I was not knowledgeable on those two particular areas. That's not side-stepping. I said I did not know if those two issues are exactly Constitutional issues and, as such, would not say they were or weren't.
On the topic of Social/Welfare programs, these are rights that were not granted to the Federal Government and, as such, are to remain with the states.
42Whether or not they have broken the Constitution is not a philosophical matter. It is a legal matter that should be pretty easily defined or at least argued.
I find it amusing that once I ask for an example, that this argument becomes pointless.
43bellaressa - I apologize if I offended you. I didnt mean that everyone on unemployment did this. I was just pointing out how many people get away with using the system even though they don't truly need it. Like I mentioned before, they need to fix the system, not get rid of it. I am well aware that some people DO need the help.
44You side-stepped - if you are as well-versed in the Constitution as your repeated declarations of what is and is not Constitutional suggest you think you are, you certainly should know where it comes down on interstate highways.
45well, i decided it was pointless after i wrote a page-long comment about how conservatives consider abortion a moral issue, but not helping the poor. i guess i was overtaken with the ennui that sets in when you realize you're arguing with people who will never see the world your way. it IS pointless.
BUT, since you asked. the very essence of the bush administration is that the president has unilateral, unchecked power... he wants to make the laws, enforce the laws and then make the judgments when people break the laws, too. THAT goes against the constitution. we have three branches of government... not one.
46I am not an expert on every single item of the Constitution and never have declared that I am. As I never made these claims, I never "side-stepped" Rac's question.
I made points on issues of which I am knowledgeable. In these areas, I have made points. I have not made points on issues where I am not knowledgeable.
I am also very honest about where my knowledge resides and do not claim to know more than I do. While some people might make nonfactual arguments, I do not.
As for the highway system, since you seem to now be bringing this up, which I infer means that you are an expert, please feel free to tell me how they are Constitutional.
47"well, i decided it was pointless after i wrote a page-long comment about how conservatives consider abortion a moral issue, but not helping the poor."
If you truly believe this, then you have no idea what the Conservative political philosophy is, and should probably read up on it.
48oh, and the federal highway administration oversees the interstate system, and individual states have agencies/departments of transportation (in california it's called CalTrans) that manage local highway and transportation systems. some bridges (like the golden gate) are maintained by separate agencies like a toll authority.
i doubt what funds what is a constitutional issue.
49Yesteryear, please stop with generalities and cite examples.
You can't have a discussion based upon generalities or "common knowledge," I would like a factual place or act that he has done that has broken a specific area of the Constitution.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.