Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Report Shows Increase In Food Stamp Use

Report Shows Increase In Food Stamp Use
PHOTOS.COM

WASHINGTON (UPI) — Almost 1 million U.S. households with incomes above 130 percent of the poverty level were receiving food stamps in 2011, the latest report shows.

POLITICO, analyzing data from the Food and Nutrition Service in the Department of Agriculture, reported the number had risen to 980,000 last year from 290,000 in 2008, more than tripling. The percentage of food stamp recipients with relatively high incomes doubled from 2.3 percent in 2008 to 4.7 percent in 2011, but far more people are enrolled in the program after three years of a struggling economy.

Republicans blamed President Barack Obama during the campaign for the increase. POLITICO suggests a major reason is that Governors relaxed the rules to help State residents through hard times without further straining their own budgets.

The dollar cost of benefits to those with incomes above the 130 percent of poverty level has risen even more from $171 million in 2008 to about $1 billion in 2011, POLITICO said.

The food stamp program will be an issue as Congress and the president deal with deficit reduction and in debates on a new agriculture bill, POLITICO said. Representative Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, has proposed setting eligibility at 135 percent of the poverty level.

Peterson also wants to eliminate a minimum $16 in monthly food stamps paid to those who do not qualify for more aid. He argues that $16 a month is not going to be of any great help to anyone while administering the tiny payouts adds enormously to government expenses.

UPI - United Press International, Inc.

Since 1907, United Press International (UPI) has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers worldwide.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Report Shows Increase In Food Stamp Use”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • eddie47d

    Food stamps can be a crutch so the percentage threshold should be increased to the suggested 135% or maybe even higher. The more a person receives in food stamps the bigger the obligation in working for what they receive. Make them clean up a local park,a country road or a city block. If their food stamps equal a days wages or a weeks wages make them work accordingly. We could have some really clean cities or river-ways in America if folks earn what they receive. If a person is on food stamps long term them send them out to the nearest farmers field to work. The same with welfare or any other government program.

    • Hedgehog

      Eddie, you’re beginning to sound like a conservative. What’s more you are going to get yourself in trouble with some unions, for stealing their jobs.

    • Ken Bosch

      Amen Eddie47D,

      It’s called Workfare! The ACLU and liberal dem’s calls it unconstitutional…….

      Watch your taxes soar skyward!

    • eddie47d

      The jobs I mentioned are not union jobs and done mostly by volunteers within the cities so there wouldn’t be any conflict of interest. If they happen to be long term users they would be replacing illegals out at the farms. I do believe in workfare and American jobs for Americans first.

      • Mikey

        Eddie, I’m proud of you. You are learning.

    • phyllis47

      I like your way of thinking!

    • Dad

      … and don’t forget to get them to “pee in the jar.”
      The rampant abuse demonstrates the inadequacy of the public union employees… and the conflict of interest in having them administer any giveaway programs. Growth of wasting taxpayer money works to expand welfare thus ensuring votes for the liberal candidates… who raise clerks salaries beyond any resonable value… and expand benefits such as pensions so that the taxpayer can work until 70++ (in the name of fairness), to enable commie unions to retire with full bennies at 55.
      Not only are the ‘gubment’ employees wasteful and ineffficient, they are detrimental to the well being of the country. I wouldm’t mind having some of the welfare folks working as clerks… however, administration of money progams needs to be outsourced… period.

      • http://midcontent brand inspecter

        Dad, name one damn gobrmint program that isn’t a snafu. Voting records shows generational dead azzes and “minorites” vote for more trough time, since they are to stupid and brain washed to do something else but squeal like hogs at feeding of more swill.from the socialist dems.

    • SJJolly

      Ameircan business keeps outsoucing and automating American jobs, with far too few replacements, and business leaders will be demanding some kind of government payments to American citizens, to keep their American markets from collapsing. People without income can’t buy the goods and services American business wants to sell them. Maybe some combination of workfare (lots of public service works need done), Welfare, Citizen’s Dole, and Citizen’s Mutual Fund.

    • http://www.facebook.com/pweiters9 Preston Weiters Jr.

      11/26/12, eddie, that’s one thing I gave Clinton credit for: to require welfare recipients make an effort to find work. The “food stamp prez,” in his quest to buy off the takers, however, overturned this stipulation. It worked.

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      eddie, the majority of those who receive food stamps already work, they just don’t make enough to feed their household, or are either disabled or the elderly. They are not able do the jobs that you have recommended.

      The people who could do those jobs are the able bodied who are not working already. But they, also, need to be able to look for work at the same time.

  • Mikey

    par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt] noun
    1. An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment, often to the detriment of the host.
    2. A person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

    • SJJolly

      Do you exclude children, the sick, and aged parents from your defination of parasites? Disabled military veterans? Accident victims requiring extended recovery? Theoretical scientists and mathematicians? Nuns and monks in clostered orders?

      • Mikey

        Ok, if you insist, I’ll exclude the 1% of “takers” who actually have no way to take care of themselves.
        It’s the other 99% who are sucking the taxpayer dry that I am opposed to.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    “Hope and Change”? I think what our illustrious leader meant to say was; “Hope and Food-Stamps”!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Jay,
      I already flushed your toilet on the exact same comment on another site. Why don’t you go away and leave the folks here alone?. They’re having a good but small “tussle”. Eddie and a couple of others against an equal number of folks who are reasonably sane—-nobody’s really calling anyone names. Go do your OINK-OINK somewhere else.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Only 13 responses to this article. A sad commentary on the folks who frequent this site that they don’t consider it worth discussing. Of course a few “bashers” have found it and spewed their nonsense, WTS(Jay) being the leader in inanity.

    50 million people utilize food stamps and someone wants to take the last $16 away from some of them?

    And we talk about “The percentage of food stamp recipients with relatively high incomes”? Nice word, “relatively”. One need only look at the latest income figures to see why more and more “wealthy” folks are tapping in. The middle class lost 1.6%, the top 20% GAINED about the same and the top 1% gained NEARLY 6%. ‘Nuf said.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.