So Obama raises food stamp program from $37B to $68B, then cuts it by $2.2B to. . .

[wndycty]

. . .help pay for a school food bill and some folks want to hold this $2.2 billion cut against him?

Really?

He raises food stamps from $37 billion to $68 billion, then cuts it down to $65.8 billion, a net raise of $28.8 billion instead of $31 billion and some want to point to that as Obama throwing the poor under the bus?

Are you kidding me?

[SharonRB]

1. And that's the rest of the story!

Thanks for posting this. Something didn't smell right to me in the other threads I've seen.

[EFerrari]

39. Except, what does that increase mean in terms of

the number of people now using food stamps? It's at an all time high. I just saw a report that say demand has tripled since 2006. Tripled, not doubled.

Fine, Obama should get his due and I support the first lady's program. But this funding is robbing peter to pay paul. The Food Stamp Program seems to be barely covering people as it is and we don't hear about people who are turned away from that program, either, as I was a couple of years ago.

Why doesn't anyone ever think to go over to the Pentagon and look under their sofa cushions for the billions they "lose" over there?

[nc4bo]

43. Thanks for putting my thoughts and stray words into well said paragraph.

Too many emotions running too hot these days.

1 in 7 Americans are using food stamps - 1 in 7 and it's an all time high! It's only logical that more money would be spent on the program and let's not forget the people who could use the help but fall just above the qualification standards. Their only hope are charities and/or the kindness of strangers.

NPR has this nicely graphed out here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/12/08/131905683/a-grim-record-one-in-seven-americans-is-on-food-stamps

[EFerrari]

47. Thank you. And that graph is only of people on food stamps.

A 2009 report says food insecurity has tripled:

Report: 17 million Americans struggled to eat last year
By Liz Goodwin


By Liz Goodwin liz Goodwin – Tue Nov 16, 9:16 am ET

About 15 percent of Americans had trouble getting food on the table last year, according to a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The number of "food-insecure" homes has tripled since 2006, to encompass more than 17 million Americans. Of the 6.8 million Americans who missed meals regularly due to poverty, half a million to a million were children.

One in four households now has at least one family member enrolled in a federal feeding program like food stamps, up from one in five in 2007.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101116/us_yblog_thelookout/report-17-million-americans-struggled-to-eat-last-year

[Nordmadr]

74. Looks to me like that shows about a 3% gain in

total population using the program since Obama nearly doubled the spending. that still seems like a significant net gain. It might not be enough, but it is still certainly better. The more disturbing trend is how in just 9 years it increased 7%. Millions of people.

Do you know where the money that those 7% used to use to eat went? It went to the wealthy folks getting ready to have their tax cut extended.

It seems the only way to not contribute to the transfer of wealth to the rich is to have no wealth to transfer.

[EFerrari]

88. I keep wondering what the vultures will do when they're done picking the bones. n/t

[walldude]

71. Billions? It's up to 2 TRILLION now...

They can't account for 2 trillion dollars. But hey we're safe from the "terrorists".

[Scurrilous]

2. Welcome to the New DU.

:thumbsup:

[Rex]

3. Now that is something positive I can get behind!

Did it double this year or a gradual increase?

[Windy]

4. It is so amazing.... people are so uninformed... I often wonder if it is by choice.

What is their agenda? It certainly can't be for the good of the country.

[lamp_shade]

5. This is DU, yannow.

[tracy_winzer01]

6. i think that is good

there are so many out here without jobs and basically living homeless. I think it is a good idea to raise the food stamps. We have starving children out here.

[Still a Democrat]

19. Welcome to DU

Some will complain it hasn't tripled, I suppose.

[phleshdef]

7. It gets better. When you point these numbers out, they are all like "it needs to be even MORE!"

[EFerrari]

50. It's better unless you've been denied access to this program.

Good grief.

[phleshdef]

77. Diverting this funding for the school lunch program has NOTHING to do with who gets approved access.

We don't base who or doesn't get food stamps on how much money is in this particular fund. And different states have their own laws and programs as well.

[Lars39]

8. Bottom line: is *everyone* getting food stamps that need them

getting enough food stamps to see them through an entire month without going hungry? No.

[Pirate Smile]

23. Bottom line: Letting the Perfect be the enemy of the good.

Bashing every improvement because it isn't as good or didn't go as far as we want is a recipe for failure. Sometimes you get 80% instead of 100%. You don't blow up everything because of that final 20%. You get what you can and keep trying.

[Dawgs]

26. Or, getting good is easy. Getting something better is too hard so let's not try.

I'll give a shit when someone starts trying.

[Pirate Smile]

31. Right. Nobody is trying. We know how easy it is to get to 60 in the Senate. They even filibuster

health care for 9/11 workers. They can't be shamed.

Getting good is frequently the best we can do.

Shooting the moon and getting nothing doesn't help the people who are hungry in this country. There are a lot of arm chair philosophers here who would be perfectly happy to just wage those political battles instead of making the deals necessary to actually get legislation to help people through a dysfunctional Congress.

[Dawgs]

34. Your argument would carry more weight if we didn't see Reid/Obama give up on the Public Option.

They only need 50 votes with reconciliation and they didn't even try.

So, either Obama lied when he said he wanted a PO or he gave in because it was easy.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I think it was bargained away, secretly, in the early stages of the process.

And I don't think he should have done that.

[Lars39]

51. Half-assed measures don't mean jack if you're the one hungry.

[bobbolink]

24. Exactly. But that lands you on the "enemies" list.

:applause:

[EFerrari]

40. Exactly. The increase doesn't mean anything unless you also figure

how many people need food stamps.

Geeze.

[leftstreet]

9. Excellent! Without a Jobs Bill, we'll need a bigger Food Stamp program

:crazy:

[snooper2]

10. and they won't come into this thread...

they will be happy to spout ignorance in that "other thread"

[wndycty]

14. They will come in to unrec. . .

:kick:

Bet on it!

[Forkboy]

91. Hi wndycty....you seem to be well versed in this.

Can you tell me why my food stamps were cut from $162/month to $30/month earlier this year despite my income/bills remaining exactly the same? My case worker said it was due to cuts, but you seem to know better than her, so can you explain this to me so I can correct her? Thank you.

[EFerrari]

41. Several of us are right here, thanks.

[progressoid]

62. Actually, I came here first.

But thanks for the headsup about the "other thread"

[frazzled]

11. And to think: those cuts don't take effect until 2014

when either the economy or unemployment will be better, or the cuts can be restored.

[Dawgs]

13. "when either the economy or unemployment will be better"

:rofl:

[frazzled]

15. I guess you hope it won't be

Let's discuss it again in four years, okay?

[Dawgs]

18. Not hope, just 30 years of historical fact.

We won't need to discuss.

[EFerrari]

49. I'm not great at economics but doesn't extending Bush cuts

for the wealthy pretty much assure little job growth?

[Dawgs]

12. They'll need it with all of his efforts to increase the wealth gap.

:eyes:

[Still a Democrat]

16. You can lead a horse to water

but you can't make him stop hating Obama.

[Pab Sungenis]

17. In theory, it's a good deal.

The problem is that $68B still isn't enough.

[wndycty]

20. Will you acknlowledge that the net raise of food stampls is $28 billion. . .

. . .right?

[Still a Democrat]

21. Just 13.5% of the tax package is tax cuts for the wealthy and estate taxes

But folks don't like that factoid either.

[Dawgs]

25. Why should we?

:shrug:

[DevonRex]

22. It's been that way for a long time now. nt

[Akoto]

27. I just received my food stamp card today. I'm grateful.

While it isn't a lot of money, it's more than I would've had, especially since my only income is through SSI. I'm disabled with a chronic pain condition.

[Marr]

28. Well, he's inspired a lot of cynicism.

I can't speak to this particular subject, if you're trying to argue that Obama is some kind of champion of the working class, I think you'll have quite a bit more to explain.

[Historic NY]

29. Which means 1/2 of all food stamp users get an extra meal, in school....

thats just crazy..right. :think:

[katnapped]

30. Hey, that oughta go great

With all those states with new Republican governors just itching to eliminate the program!

[Historic NY]

44. its a federal program.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Some people are just never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever gonna be happy.

Never.

[wndycty]

33. Very true

:kick:

[Dawgs]

35. I'm happy with this and many other things Obama has done.

It doesn't change the fact that he failed on his two biggest bills.

[uponit7771]

38. +1

[progressoid]

42. Yeah, like these 108 Democratic Representatives...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/CNR%20SNAP%20letter%20Aug%202010.pdf

[progressoid]

58. And some people that can't afford food

probably aren't going to log on to their nonexistent computer to let you know how pleased they are about this.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. I have a family member on food stamps.

I think when we're complaining about a nearly doubling of the $ for the program, we've crossed into irrational temper tantrum territory, around here.

[EFerrari]

64. Except the need has tripled, not doubled.

At that point comments like yours really are in irrational temper tantrum territory.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. And Obama got a significant increase in funding.

Now, if I were in charge, we'd cut the military budget in half, legalize and tax marijuana, end the drug war and stop spending tax dollars fighting 'crimes' involving consenting adults...

and use the not insignificant savings to fund a SPHC system, fix our infrastructure, and make sure no kids in this great nation of ours go hungry, for starts.

But alas, I am not in charge.

[EFerrari]

68. Regardless of whether you are President or not

the Food Stamp Program is not covering hungry Americans and it is not irrational to obeject to cuts to an already struggling program.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. No, the number increased by 1/3.

That's a 33% increase, not a 300% increase.

[EFerrari]

89. The number of food insecure families has tripled since 2006

per the link I put in #47, which is a news item that links to a 2009 government report.

[progressoid]

70. Well, apparently your family member will get

an extra 6 cents per meal.

Assuming of course that applications for assistance don't go up. And with the economy is such a robust rebound that probably won't happen.

[uponit7771]

36. FUDr's out in full force, few DUr's take them seriously

[uponit7771]

37. FUDr's out in full force, few DUr's take them seriously

[ipaint]

45. A democratic president and democrats in congress can find nothing else

in the budget to cut but a desperately needed and underfunded program to get food to poor people. Seriously??? Nothing. On top of a tax INCREASE on the working poor which apparently Obama is completely powerless to negotiate OUT of the toxic tax deal him and repugs cooked up. A tax deal which gives an average of $70,000 taxpayer dollars in fun money to the richest americans.

The choice isn't between food stamps and a new food for children program it's between the new program and all the fucking FUN MONEY we are handing over to the rich. It's a choice between a new food program for the poor or two fucking USELESS wars.

Your framing is toxic and purposely misleading.

[wndycty]

46. So you will not acknowledge the $28.2 billion net increase?

:kick:

[EFerrari]

48. Can you acknowledge that food insecurity has tripled, not doubled,

since 2006?

The $28.2 billion sounds very good -- in a vacuum.

[wndycty]

52. Here we go a "yeah but. . ."

While I don't know the food insecurity figures I don't doubt your claim.

[EFerrari]

54. It's not really a "yeah, but" if the increase is looked at out of context.

It's a "yeah, and".

I don't think most people are trying to deprive Obama of credit out of malice or something. It's more that the food stamp program isn't really covering everyone already and that $2 billion could have come from somewhere else.

ETA: There's a couple of links 'way up thread in #43, 47.

[Renew Deal]

65. Can you back that up?

I believe you, but a link would be nice.

[EFerrari]

69. There are links in #43 and #47 -- close to the top of the thread.

I really don't like to be in the position of pointing out how many Americans don't have food security right now. :(

[ipaint]

56. What does that have to do with cutting food stamps?

Cutting food stamps is something democrats don't because they are democrats not repugs.

And if democrats can take money out of an underfunded (despite the increase) food stamp program they can certainly take money from the fabulously filthy rich who have enjoyed a massive tax windfall for a decade and counting.

How come democrats are not whittling away at that instead of cutting programs that provide people with minimal food to stay alive on.

This is literally in your face evil and wrong.
And people who are worried silly about the president's PR image seem to have no ability to put themselves in anyone else's shoes but their powerless and rich leaders in washington. Who by the way have plenty to eat. Pathetic.

[progressoid]

53. Seems you forgot about the 11.9 Billion that was previously taken.

[Codeine]

55. Watch them move the goalposts now!

It's almost breathtaking.

[EFerrari]

57. What's breathtaking is the lack of basic math skills

aka, you can do anything with numbers.

I can double my weekly grocery budget but if I need to triple it to survive, I still won't have enough.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

59. You actually expect people here to deal with facts and reading comprehension?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[EFerrari]

60. LOL. You didn't read the thread.

:)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

76. From what I saw in other threads, many people accepted the $2.2 billion cut without context.

Predictably, the comments were along the line of "Obama hates poor people!" etc. It's highly characteristic of this site that people will jump on a negative thread without realizing the full context.

[EFerrari]

86. You're right about that. But it is exactly the same thing

to accept the increase without asking about the need.

[no limit]

61. This 2.2 billion is in addition to 11 billion that was cut just a few months ago

[wndycty]

72. Monday evening kick

:kick:

[Major Hogwash]

73. When did this happen?

I didn't see it on the news tonight with all of the other Obama bashing going on.

[snooper2]

75. keeping this thread kicked because teh stoopid in that other thread

is amazing

[Scurrilous]

78. Yep. n/t

[EFerrari]

87. It's not "stoopid" in any way.

Do you know what the increase means in relation to the number of people who NEED food stamps?

They took 2 billion dollars out of a program that wasn't covering the need already.

Good grief. Kick away but it won't change the facts. Food insecurity tripled since 2006. The food stamp budget was only doubled. You do the math.

[LoZoccolo]

79. K&R!

:kick:

I'm actually pretty surprised that this one wasn't buried in unrecommends though, given the current climate.

[wndycty]

80. So far only about 18 unrecs or so. . .

. . .I'm surprised. . .but pleased.

[snooper2]

81. kicking

kickity kick

[deaniac21]

83. and there is no way that school food money is going to hit the

black market!

[snooper2]

84. time for a kick

:hi:

[snooper2]

85. kick

of course...

Other thread :eyes:

[Jakes Progress]

90. Good god, will you stop pretending

that taking $2.2 billion out of the program is a good thing. The new program sounds really good. But why is is a good thing to take the food from the tables of the poor to fund it. We have trillion dollar programs that spend that on paper clips. Couldn't that money come from somewhere else?

As for the stupid comments about what a small percentage it is, I ask you to come to a few of the centers where I volunteer. I don't see these people as percentage points or a means to score political capital. These are parents who sit at the table and cry about their fear of not being able to feed their children. Now $2.2 billions has been taken from a program that they use to feed their family. So it is going to a new program to feed other families. Maybe they will qualify, maybe not. But don't sit at your computer, nibbling on a sandwich and talk about how it just hysterics to worry about these people.

Fund the fucking program from somewhere else. Cutting some poor people to feed other poor people is hypocritical and wrong. If you don't see this, you lead a jaded and unconnected life.

[laughingliberal]

92. +1000 nt

[snooper2]

93. kick