FACT: Obama Administration DOUBLED Food Stamp program from $37B to $68B

[FrenchieCat]

Those are just simply the facts.

Here ----->http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/annual.htm

[aquart]

1. When does that "doubling" go into effect?

Let's have all the facts.

[TheWraith]

5. Fiscal Year 2010 started October 1, 2009. nt

[FrenchieCat]

6. Did you open the link and read it?

Because it states it there,
as long as you know how to read a table,
and the information that goes with it as footnotes.

[Pisces]

2. Facts are stubborn things.

[11 Bravo]

This is DU. We don't need no stinking facts!

[EFerrari]

13. We sure don't! We just read "he doubled it" and never ask

how many people need food stamps? And how has that number changed since the crash?

He doubled it -- that's all we need to know!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

19. People who post "he doubled it" without reference to need

don't seem to care about poor people.

Sorry.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

30. I don't blame Obama for lame posts on DU.

:)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

34. When you are on,

you are on. :toast:

[EFerrari]

37. Hey! Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or Whatever, man!

:hi:

[tekisui]

38. I'll take all of them, and the same back to you!~

:hi:

[tekisui]

31. That is a good question. How many more need food stamps?

And, more importantly why is that number going up (assuming it is)?

[EFerrari]

39. Posts # 43, 47 near the top of this thread have links to info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1518&mesg_id=1518

[Jackpine Radical]

43. It's in the table.

The number of recipients went from 26 mil to 40 mil, and expenditures went from 33 to 68 bil. Between inflation in food prices and the increase in poverty-stricken recipients, the program is more or less treading water.

[EFerrari]

46. The table describes recipients.

That means, it's not about people who aren't getting anything, right?

So, the program may be treading water but the number of Americans enduring food insecurity is outstripping the program which disallows all kinds of people.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. Yes, at best it's nothing to celebrate.

I don't know about eligibility rule changes. I do know that we have traditionally done very little for the people at the bottom of the heap, and that this has not gotten any better. While Wall Street & the EOs walk off with all the chips, people are starving under the bridges. I would gladly pay much higher taxes if they went to meet human needs rather than to create them through our endless warfare.

[EFerrari]

51. In this state, if you don't have minor children at home

if you are not disabled and if you are not a senior, you are out of luck.

So, that leads me to believe a lot of people who don't eat well are not covered. IOW, people who are out of work with none of the above.

[tekisui]

50. Thanks, I am boucing in and out.

Thanks for the numbers.

[stranger81]

57. It's just like saying we got more than the other side in the tax "compromise"

despite the fact that the other side of the aisle is splitting their spoils among a few thousand people while the amount our side bargained for while be split amongst tens if not hundreds of millions. It's sleight of hand and nothing more.

[Scurrilous]

56. LOL

:thumbsup:

[TheWraith]

3. Kicked and recommended. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Did the criteria change, or are twice as many people in need?

Big difference between those two.

Thanks in advance.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I posted a table that has all of the answers.

If you click on the link, you will get your answers.

I believe that there are 1/3 more folks using food stamps...
but that the budget for food stamps was doubled.


(I wish most folks asked that many questions and asked for proof
in everything they read, not just pro-Obama posts)

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Sorry, I don't see anything in there about eligibility changes

Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

If the eligibility criteria did not change, then the increase probably means that more people are in need. Which is probably not something to brag about.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Here.....

In 2009, ARRA (the economic recovery act) increased SNAP/Food Stamps benefits by approximately 19 percent, eased eligibility for certain jobless adults without dependents, and provided states with extra funding to administer the program. The FY 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act also provided states with additional SNAP/Food Stamps administrative funds.
http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/snapfood-stamps/historic-trends-1998-2008/

Also this.....
http://www.sccgov.org/ssa/foods/updates2010/fs10-20.upd.pdf

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Thank you. nt

[EFerrari]

42. Need tripled since 2006.

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

[no limit]

7. Fact: This is the second cut to food stamps in a matter of months.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2858

[FrenchieCat]

12. Perhaps it has something to do with this.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/dems-call-for-swift-passa_n_789922.html

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/articles/2010/09/offset-debate-clouds-house-vote-child-nutrition-bill

[cali]

16. perhaps that's not a good enough reason=-

giving big breaks to the wealthy, check. Cutting food stamp and home heating aid budgets to fund a nutrition program, check.

sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Still a Democrat]

26. lol

Now you're fitting in!

[no limit]

53. Right, because the government has absolutely no way to find 2.2 billion elsewhere

[Warren Stupidity]

54. while finding room for 900B in tax cuts

and this crap is being defended (dishonestly) by alleged Democrats who apparently think we are all idiots.

[EFerrari]

9. And the number of Americans suffering food insecurity tripled since 2006. n/t

[dflprincess]

47. "food insecurity"

I hate that term... Just a way to mask the fact that there are people in America who are hungry.

[EFerrari]

48. A term most Americans associate with third world countries.

But one that gives us more accurate measurements than the corporate media bs.

[BlueDemKev]

10. So what?

Of COURSE the number of people on food stamps, unemployment, and other social welfare programs has gone up since Obama took office...WE'RE IN A RECESSION!!! It doesn't matter who is president, when the economy is down, more people need assistance....DUH!

[jpgray]

11. Which was very good. At the same time, it is less than is needed, and further cuts are bad

It is possible to hold both of these ideas in one's head at the same time, DU posturing notwithstanding.

[w4rma]

15. And then traded that increase away. (nt)

[martymar64]

17. It would be better if he created jobs.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Maybe if he could pull them out of his ass one by one,

and hand them to each person in line, it would be wonderful.

Maybe he can just go back in a space capsule and stop whatever happened
in the past 30 years from happening again. Maybe that's the real answer! :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Or he could have put stimulus funds directly into people's hands

Like FDR did, rather than engaging in trickle-down economics.

[FrenchieCat]

27. We are DOOMED!

Cause designating money specifically to any particular program
like food stamps is not as good as sending everyone a check instead.

But then I never expect anything positive about this administration to EVER be typed on these boards by you....
ever.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. The Lilly Ledbetter Act was good

START is good.

Probably a few other things.

I guess not blocking SCHIP was good, but that would have passed even under McCain.

[leftstreet]

40. +1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. Some are suggesting that this new tax cut compromise package IS another stimulus!

[Still a Democrat]

24. Unrec'ers are frantic

Saw this on the Greatest, had two recs when I got here! :rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

22. Facts are he increased the funding 87%, not 100%.

Increase in users = 43%,

Average increase per household = 28%.

Increases scheduled to sunset around 2014.

The "cuts" reportedly speed the sunsetting up to the same amount.

You're correct that a lot of people are jerking their knee without all the facts.

OTOH, you're exaggerating a bit on the degree of increase.

[wndycty]

29. K&R

:kick:

[EFerrari]

32. That kick is so funny after you were presented with

the rest of the picture this morning on your own thread.

LOL

[Warren Stupidity]

55. what is amazing is that they think their flat out lying about the issues helps

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. This is absolutely true. I'm at HUD and working with USDA to promote SNAP

(or food stamp program) expansion opportunities for public housing residents. We're trying to find a way to coordinate programs so that public housing residents have increased access to healthy foods using SNAP/WIC programs.

Yes, it's true!

[leftstreet]

45. unRec The Democrats had TWO FUCKING YEARS to address poverty

Two years of an unprecedented voter mandate to institute single payer healthcare, create a Jobs Bill, and put stimulus monies in the hands of the working classes.

Zip. Nada. Nothing

[Scurrilous]

52. K & R

:thumbsup:

[quaker bill]

58. K&R

for facts