Jump to content
43oh

Total "food stamp" recipients exceed population of 24 states combined


Recommended Posts

 

Please note- this is a "record", meaning never before in history have this many people been on food stamps. Mind you, this is the 4th year of the current administration and we're up for 4 more.

 

Say what you will about the economy getting better and the housing market being up; historically relevant numbers of people on the welfare dole is not good no matter which way you slice it... and may even be a sign of impending doom.

 

How can the economy and housing go up if ~1/6 of the population are receiving public assistance?

 

 

Of course never before have there been so many people in the US.

 

This rise has been during the worst economic downturn since the great depression

(i.e. a lot more people in economic difficulty).

 

"historically relevant numbers of people on the welfare dole is not good no matter which way you slice it"

 

How about if you look at it as these people have the ability to acquire food /housing/etc.

that they otherwise would not, thus they are able to spend, acquire farm goods that might

otherwise go to waste, allowing others in turn to purchase goods, and help boost the economy.

Hard to spend your way out of a depression when you have little or nothing to spend.

 

Why focus solely on the many who receive relatively small amounts of assistance, for balance

should present the huge payouts and assistance given to the wealthy (whether individuals or corporations) - for profit universities who make millions from failure mills, the banks who make money by controlling the fed and keeping interest rates low, etc.

 

The graph was also poorly framed - bottom of a graph should always be 0, otherwise it makes changes seem larger than they are. Starting at 2007 likewise highly suspect (i.e. what

happened before that), and not giving in context (i.e. poverty rate, amount of assistance).

 

 

All a matter of how you frame it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to laugh at the concept of "decent wage". I lived on my own, rented an apartment and such, paid my bills and "got by" on minimum wage back in the late '80s. I also noticed that as minimum wage went up, so did rent, fuel, food and such... almost "lock-step": when minimum wage was raised, the cost of everything else went up leaving me in exactly the same position I was in before, despite the promises saying increasing minimum wage would put more money in my pocket. Years later, when my education and experience permitted me to earn more than minimum wage, I found myself in the odd position of having people "promoted" to making as much as I did due to increases in minimum wage: people making minimum wage got paid more and more while my wages didn't increase.

While it's true raising the minimum wage does cause price increases, in the last few years the prices have increased drastically while the amount of money people are making has not. Adjusted for inflation people are making less now than they were in the 70's and yet many companies are having record profits (that go back to the investors) while they raise the price of goods and do not pay their employees anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all true , but this is all the more reason to become self reliant. I am in no way a "prepper". I am an outdoorsman , and a troubleshooter. I can fabricate my own tools,weapons, and just about anything necesarry for my family's survival and well being. I garden , I hunt , I am going to be starting a meat rabbit setup in the spring , and I enjoy having the knowledge that when something big happens , I dont need to depend on anyone. I see a lot of people point the finger at government and "the rich" , but they will be the first to starve when it all goes downhill. This is what all the assistance and enabling appears as to me. Its setting humanity up for a thinning of the herd. Those who cannot do and are not willing to learn , will perish.

 

 

Sorry , its late , and I dont want to take this down the "crazy" road , but all it boils down to is that everyone needs to be equal , everyone should receive the same care and options as everyone else , and that you cant depend on anyone but yourself.

 

 

Abe: I work at my job and then do side work. Even then , I dont make a hell of a lot...that's why I chuckle every time I hear "Government" and "budget" in the same article...

 

 

-hov

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course never before have there been so many people in the US.

 

This rise has been during the worst economic downturn since the great depression

(i.e. a lot more people in economic difficulty).

 

"historically relevant numbers of people on the welfare dole is not good no matter which way you slice it"

 

How about if you look at it as these people have the ability to acquire food /housing/etc.

that they otherwise would not, thus they are able to spend, acquire farm goods that might

otherwise go to waste, allowing others in turn to purchase goods, and help boost the economy.

Hard to spend your way out of a depression when you have little or nothing to spend.

 

Why focus solely on the many who receive relatively small amounts of assistance, for balance

should present the huge payouts and assistance given to the wealthy (whether individuals or corporations) - for profit universities who make millions from failure mills, the banks who make money by controlling the fed and keeping interest rates low, etc.

 

The graph was also poorly framed - bottom of a graph should always be 0, otherwise it makes changes seem larger than they are. Starting at 2007 likewise highly suspect (i.e. what

happened before that), and not giving in context (i.e. poverty rate, amount of assistance).

 

 

All a matter of how you frame it.

Let's start with the graph: it is what it is. Though the bottom may be ~25 million, the top is still ~46 million, and nearly twice the "bottom". You can, rightfully so, say there are more people here than ever before, but changing the scale of the graph does nothing to affect that.

 

And claim what you want, but it is still public assistance. It's people that otherwise should not have any reason to be taking from the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's true raising the minimum wage does cause price increases, in the last few years the prices have increased drastically while the amount of money people are making has not. Adjusted for inflation people are making less now than they were in the 70's and yet many companies are having record profits (that go back to the investors) while they raise the price of goods and do not pay their employees anymore.

I'd argue the price increases aren't as bad as you make it seem.

In the past 10 years, gasoline has approximately tripled in cost from $1.25 to $4.00, yet rent has increased approximately 50%, from $600 to $900. Minimum wage in California has increased from ~$5 to ~$8.

It's funny though, that every time minimum wage issues come up on the ballot, prices for everything go up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with the graph: it is what it is. Though the bottom may be ~25 million, the top is still ~46 million, and nearly twice the "bottom". You can, rightfully so, say there are more people here than ever before, but changing the scale of the graph does nothing to affect that.

 

 

Huh? The bottom is about 8.75%, the top is a little over 14.5% - so rather less than twice (about 2/3 or 65% rise)

Looking at the absolute numbers of participants would only be reasonable if you had a constant population.

(the absolute numbers might have increased about 77% - but part of that is more people in US in 2011 vs 2007)

Which helps point out why graph should start at 0, because the left hand and right hand scales

do not have the same 0 - looks like somebody did manipulation to try to make the lines line up.

 

Graph should be something like in this posting

 

http://tcf.org/blogs/botc/2012/01/graph-of-the-day-busting-the-myths-about-food

 

(I am not endorsing the article, have not checked source, etc. just example of a graph of the same quantity done more properly)

Starts at 0, graphs the fraction (so changes in population less significant),

presents historical data (so can see increase since 2008 pretty much a steeper continuation of the increase during

the preceding 8 years).

 

Comparing this to a graph of poverty rate over the same period (e.g. wikipedia article on poverty in the US) - they pretty much match (as one would expect).

 

http://www.xkcd.com/1138/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...