I posted an article about the Congress addressing a "farm bill" a couple days ago. It turns out the farm bill will cost a trillion dollars over ten years and 75% of that money is for food stamps! $75 billion a year given away in food stamps. How much does that amount to, really? What's the arithmetic?

If there are 100 million households in the U.S. (300 million divided by an average household of 3 people), let's try to figure how many are so destitute as to qualify for food stamps. How about 5% of them, sound reasonable? If the unemployment rate is about 8-9% and people get 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, it seems like 5% of households that are truly destitute sounds reasonable.

So what do those food stamps amount to? The simple arithmetic says it's about $15,000 per household living off food stamps. Geez, that's a lot of food. Does your household spend over $1,200 a month on food? That's what he arithmetic says. Add to that some of he other "low income benefits" (of which there are lots), those "destitute" households can enjoy a pretty decent life...without lifting a finger to work! And those households don't have to pay any taxes at all!

If my arithmetic is right, now that's what you call income redistribution!

Obama's "tax the rich" proposal (the Buffett Rule) would only increase government revenues by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Nobody will argue that those asked to pay a little more in taxes will even notice it. And we all know the vitriolic, partisan hue and cry that proposal has caused from the conservative side of the aisle. But here's this "farm bill" wending it's way through Congress that will increase government spending and raise he deficit by two-thirds that amount...and nary a soundbite from the GOP.

Could it be that the reason the conservatives in Congress are silent on this legislation is that they don't want to PO the voters in all those households getting food stamp handouts? After all, those 535 jobs in Congress are pretty sweet deals.

If the GOP is serious about cutting government spending, this is a bill that should get their attention...and our attention...big time. It's totally in the control of the GOP to pass the bill, amend it, or reject it totally. Let's watch and see what happens. It'll help us all understand better what "fiscal conservatism" really means.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I posted an article about the Congress addressing a "farm bill" a couple days ago. It turns out the farm bill will cost a trillion dollars over ten years and 75% of that money is for food stamps! $75 billion a year given away in food stamps. How much does that amount to, really? What's the arithmetic?

If there are 100 million households in the U.S. (300 million divided by an average household of 3 people), let's try to figure how many are so destitute as to qualify for food stamps. How about 5% of them, sound reasonable? If the unemployment rate is about 8-9% and people get 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, it seems like 5% of households that are truly destitute sounds reasonable.

So what do those food stamps amount to? The simple arithmetic says it's about $15,000 per household living off food stamps. Geez, that's a lot of food. Does your household spend over $1,200 a month on food? That's what he arithmetic says. Add to that some of he other "low income benefits" (of which there are lots), those "destitute" households can enjoy a pretty decent life...without lifting a finger to work! And those households don't have to pay any taxes at all!

If my arithmetic is right, now that's what you call income redistribution!

Obama's "tax the rich" proposal (the Buffett Rule) would only increase government revenues by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Nobody will argue that those asked to pay a little more in taxes will even notice it. And we all know the vitriolic, partisan hue and cry that proposal has caused from the conservative side of the aisle. But here's this "farm bill" wending it's way through Congress that will increase government spending and raise he deficit by two-thirds that amount...and nary a soundbite from the GOP.

Could it be that the reason the conservatives in Congress are silent on this legislation is that they don't want to PO the voters in all those households getting food stamp handouts? After all, those 535 jobs in Congress are pretty sweet deals.

If the GOP is serious about cutting government spending, this is a bill that should get their attention...and our attention...big time. It's totally in the control of the GOP to pass the bill, amend it, or reject it totally. Let's watch and see what happens. It'll help us all understand better what "fiscal conservatism" really means.

This is the second time you have posted this about the Republicans on this bill, and as it was the last time you did, my checking finds the exact opposite of what you say. Could be me, but everywhere I turn the story is 180 degrees from yours.

"House Republicans are calling for major cuts to U.S. food stamps, presenting an obstacle to passage of a 2012 farm bill, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said.

The 2013 budget passed by the House calls for massive spending cuts in the food stamp program that would hurt the poor who use food stamps and result in farmers losing $20 billion in direct income from the program, The Hill reported Wednesday.

"That's obviously just not going to happen," he told the Washington publication in an interview this week.

He said it will be a challenge finding common ground between the proposals put forward by the Senate, the president and the House. While the Senate's and President Obama's proposals are fairly closely aligned, the House's proposed $200 billion of cuts in commodity, conservation and nutrition programs will need some work, he said."

Food stamp cuts may slow farm bill - UPI.com

What is your source for this so I can get straight on it.

My cousin just talked about how she gets $200/mo in food stamps (she just got on the program after years of underemployment).

I don't know what the 'norm' is in other places, but that what a single woman in Massachusetts gets.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I posted an article about the Congress addressing a "farm bill" a couple days ago. It turns out the farm bill will cost a trillion dollars over ten years and 75% of that money is for food stamps! $75 billion a year given away in food stamps. How much does that amount to, really? What's the arithmetic?

If there are 100 million households in the U.S. (300 million divided by an average household of 3 people), let's try to figure how many are so destitute as to qualify for food stamps. How about 5% of them, sound reasonable? If the unemployment rate is about 8-9% and people get 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, it seems like 5% of households that are truly destitute sounds reasonable.

So what do those food stamps amount to? The simple arithmetic says it's about $15,000 per household living off food stamps. Geez, that's a lot of food. Does your household spend over $1,200 a month on food? That's what he arithmetic says. Add to that some of he other "low income benefits" (of which there are lots), those "destitute" households can enjoy a pretty decent life...without lifting a finger to work! And those households don't have to pay any taxes at all!

If my arithmetic is right, now that's what you call income redistribution!

Obama's "tax the rich" proposal (the Buffett Rule) would only increase government revenues by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Nobody will argue that those asked to pay a little more in taxes will even notice it. And we all know the vitriolic, partisan hue and cry that proposal has caused from the conservative side of the aisle. But here's this "farm bill" wending it's way through Congress that will increase government spending and raise he deficit by two-thirds that amount...and nary a soundbite from the GOP.

Could it be that the reason the conservatives in Congress are silent on this legislation is that they don't want to PO the voters in all those households getting food stamp handouts? After all, those 535 jobs in Congress are pretty sweet deals.

If the GOP is serious about cutting government spending, this is a bill that should get their attention...and our attention...big time. It's totally in the control of the GOP to pass the bill, amend it, or reject it totally. Let's watch and see what happens. It'll help us all understand better what "fiscal conservatism" really means.

Actually, your assumptions are incorrect. First of all, 46 million people benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on a monthly basis. That's about 15% of a total population of 300 M. A family of four only qualifies for SNAP if their net monthly income is less than $1863 per month or $22356 per year. ("Net" allows for some minor adjustments for child/dependent care and/or medical care). In addition, they can't have more than $2000 in "countable resources" which would include a bank account and may include a vehicle (depending on state rules) but excludes a home.

The maximum monthly benefit is $688; however, 30% of their monthly income is deducted from this benefit amount. So for a family of four who qualifies at the maximum monthly income level ($1863) would be eligible for $109 in SNAP benefits per month or $1308 per year.

I don't know about you but I won't want to try to feed a family of four on $109 a month. BTW SNAP is exclusively to purchase food - paper products (like toilet paper) and cleaning supplies are excluded.

Bucco, I missed those articles. But if the GOP stands firm on cutting the "farm bill" down to size, I'll be ecstatic! Regardless of how far right some of the members of Congress might be, it's probably not reasonable to expect major reductions in the program. Personally, I wish they would put forward a bill that called for a year-to-year required reduction in expenditures for food stamps, but that might be too much to ask.

The key is to watch what really happens, as opposed to what the GOP calls for in the politicized sound bites. They are in control of this bill and whatever gets passed can only get done "on their watch".

And thanks to dpl and Rubber Bucket for correcting my rather rough arithmetic. With 15% of the population making so little that they need government assistance for survival, that raises a whole other set of questions.

Are the number of families so poor that they need government assistance to feed their families growing? If more and more families need government assistance, then WHY? Have those elected to govern us installed policies that have the effect of creating a "barbell" of income?...growth of the wealthy and poor, with a decline in the middle class?

The economists will tell us that is exactly what's happening. So what is anyone going to do about it?