It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Agriculture Report Shows More Americans Struggling to Eat, So Republicans Cut Foodstamps!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 07:14 PM
This should make "compassionate" conservatives happy.

Republicans are finally doing something about our $8 trillion dollar debt, since we've got that $9 billion dollar a month war going on in Iraq.

They're cutting foodstamps!

Reuters Photo: Hurricane Katrina evacuees wait in line for food stamps at Camp Edwards in Bourne, Massachusetts.

Just hours after the US Department of Agriculture releases a new report showing..

38.2 million Americans-including 13.8 million children-are food insecure. With an increase of more than 2 million people reported food insecure in 2004 compared to 2003.

...Republicans get to work and cut $844 million in US hunger aid for next year, or about 67.2 hours worth of "aid" to Iraq, a nation they have no problem rebuilding, feeding, and supplying with healthcare.

US House panel votes $844 mln cut in food stamps

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On a party-line vote, a Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new U.S. Agriculture Department report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.

About 300,000 Americans would lose benefits due to tighter eligibility rules for food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, under the House plan.

That seems to be where the food stamp "cuts" come from since "the Senate's budget reduction plan would not touch food stamps, but would cut $3 billion from other USDA programs." As more go hungry, just make less less eligible to eat. Brilliant!

Now for the "gutting" of our trillions in the hole, the omnibus budget-cutting bill targets $3.7 billion of actual fat, also known as Red State America.

The House plan would also cut U.S. crop supports by $1 billion, land stewardship by $760 million, research by $620 million and rural development by $446 million.

So mixed day for conservatives. Less Americans eat. Always good. Iraq continues to suck us dry. Super. But all those things that make "self reliant, personal responsibility" red state America run like a well oiled handout hog just got cut. Well, not all. Blue staters still subsidize much of your existence.

Which, just to be clear, this hillbilly supports. I like the light, road and talking machine just fine. Thanks.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:15 PM
Of course.

Cut programs for people that have no say, the ones that cant backlash.

The House plan would also cut U.S. crop supports by $1 billion, land stewardship by $760 million, research by $620 million and rural development by $446 million.

They can cut food stamps, but how far can they cut the actual food production.

Tis sick.

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 07:54 PM
Texans and Military Families.

Talk about Republicans eating their own.

Bush's Odd Warfare State

Military families on food stamps? It's not an urban myth. About 25,000 families of servicemen and women are eligible, and this may be an underestimate, since the most recent Defense Department report on the financial condition of the armed forces--from 1999--found that 40 percent of lower-ranking soldiers face "substantial financial difficulties." Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, reports hearing from constituents that the Army now includes applications for food stamps in its orientation packet for new recruits.

Texans Most at Risk for Food Insecurity, Third Year in a Row

Texas leads nation in rate of households at risk for hunger

AUSTIN, Texas Texas has the highest percentage of households at risk of going hungry than any other state over the past three years.

The U-S Agriculture Department reports that between 2002 and 2004, more than 16 percent of Texas households at some point had trouble getting enough food for everyone in a family. In almost five percent of the Texas households, at least one family member did go hungry at least one time in that period because there wasn't enough money to buy food. That's the fourth-highest rate in the country.

Nationally, about eleven and a-half percent of households had been at risk of going in that time period. More than three and a-half percent of U-S households had at least one family member go hungry.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

"This is not a giveaway program that results in windfall profits," said North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield in opposing the cuts. "That is not moral. That is not American."

Antihunger activists said hunger rates were up for the fifth year in a row, so the cuts were a mistake.

"It is hard to imagine any congressional action that is more detached from reality," said James Weill of the Food Research and Action Center.

"Cutting food stamps now is a scandal," said David Beckman of Bread for the World, pointing to losses from hurricanes.

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 08:02 PM
PLease see this related story about government cuts to school lunch programs

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 10:50 PM
For the benfit of a non American what are food stamps?
#not a 1 liner#

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by xpert11
For the benfit of a non American what are food stamps?
#not a 1 liner#

Just a regulated program (now done by card I think most places) that is like monetary assistance, but only redeemable for approved food (which tends to support the farmers/manufacturers it's actually based on as a food defense initiative).

Like where "government cheese" came from. But "food stamps" now means alot of things like "kleenex" including school lunches and all kinds of stuff. It USED to be actual stamps though, thus the name.

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 11:25 PM
Rant Thanks for that telling me what food stamps are as a non american Im not sure what to make of

[edit on 31-10-2005 by xpert11]

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:23 AM
What I would like to know is why threads like this don't get more replies.

Agriculture and food in general seems to be a total thread killer topic.

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:45 PM
are you sure this isn't gonna increase costs, instead of decreasing them?

"The $574 million reduction in food stamp spending would affect families who receive food stamps because they receive other non-cash government assistance."


"The restriction also could take free meals away from an estimated 40,000 school children, because children in many states are automatically eligible for school meals when they get food stamps, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

right now, if a person is on certain government programs, they are automatically qualifies for others and their enrollment is more or less automatic. they don't have to resubmit the same data for each program. for instance, if I am on food stamps or AFDC, well, all I would have to do to get the free lunches would be to write in my case number, names of my kids, school, ect on the application. I wouldn't have to tell them my income or anything. it's like that with alot of programs. the person reviewing the application wouldn't have to evaluate weather or not I would be eligible, another agency has done that already. so, just because I wouldn't be able to qualify for the free lunces via my food stamp case number. my income would still be low enough, I could still fill out the entire form and unless there is a question on it as to weather or not I recieve food stamps, or other kinds of assistance, I would be eligible. seems to me, that would kind of be a little more susceptable to fraud and such, since many would more than likely say, nope, not recieving anything...and well, get the free lunches more than likely, since the two programs are run by two different agencies even. to restructure it like that wouldn't make sense. at least not to me.

I think they are saying that there will be no more automatic qualifications, that each time you apply for a program, your income, ect, will have to be reevaluated to ensure you qualify. thus, more time spent, doing work that has already been done, thus more money spent. I believe they are wanting to undo something that Gingrich and clinton did to "save" money!!!!

My guess, that if this gets passed, the programs will run into a deficit quite quickly, since the number of people qualifying will still be increasing, and well, people aren't that lazy, they'll just go through the extra trouble to apply. although, less money will be appropriated, since our congressmen want to give the impression that they are doing something, and really they are!! they are increasing the cost.

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:34 PM
It is being cut (actually a reduction in the rate of increase) because more and more people do not need foodstamps anymore.

Some states are actually advertising the availability of food stamps. Because they know if they don't use there allotment, they will not get an increase next year.

The media is getting there #'s from the amount of the cut divided by the # of people it could feed, if they existed.

Why increase food stamps if less people are using them?

Why not cut food stamps if less people need them?

Remember Welfare Reform?

I partially thank Bill Clinton for this, even though he was forced to do it.

Just another "Republicans want to starve our children" story. It really gets old after awhile. (Yawn) They did the same thing in 1995 when Bill Clinton caused the Republicans to take over the House and Senate. (Yawn)

[edit on 31-10-2005 by Carseller4]

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:01 PM
It never ceases to amaze me, Bush II made more people in Texas hungry than any other state now he's going to make more people in the US hungry. He did the same with education remember NCLB he ran education in Texas into the ground and now he is to doing the same with the US. I quess I don't get it because I'm not a millionaire.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:40 PM
Yes Bush Bot, republicans starving kids is just another "Republicans want to starve our children" story. WOw, is this like Hitler killing Jews was just another "Nazis want to kill the Jews" story?

So sad, all these kind caring people discussing this, then a Bush Bot comes and defend the actions of a mass murderer. What do you think happens to people who Starve to Death? THEY DIE! Bush did it to Texas, now he is doing it to the country.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:47 PM
Its amazing. Its incredible. Whats he got to lose now that he managed a second term? WE ARE TO BLAME.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:10 PM
The ones that will be the most targeted is the children school programs and free lunches.

I worked for the school system in GA and I was surprised to learn that many of the children that received the free lunches came from families in real need.

One thing that hit me the most was when a fellow teacher confess to me that many of the children only had one hot meal a day and that was the one provided by the schools.

So, yes is poverty in the US and still in this days is children than goes hungry every night to bed.

So we already covered the topic with the help of Dg a while back.

Sad but true.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:17 PM
You guys don't know anything about baseline budgeting.

All spending automatically increases every year by a certain percentage.

If a welfare project like foodstamps is scheduled for a 5% increase but only receives a 3% increase. Is this a cut? Even though they are getting 3% more than last year?

Simple math says it is not a cut because they are getting more money.
Democrats call a 3% increase over last year instead of 5% a cut.


A couple walks onto a car lot looking at a $40,000 SUV, but a treehugging salesmen talks them into a economy car that costs $20,000. They think about it and decide to buy it.

Did this couple just save $20,000 by buying the econo-car?

Of course not they still spent $20,000!

Another one:

A worker got paid $100,000 last year and was expecting a 10% raise this year. The greedy CEO announces that pay is only going to increase 5%. Did the worker actually get his pay cut? Or is he going to get more than last year?

According to Democrats his pay was cut.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:05 PM
Personally, I don't think it's such a bad idea, although perhaps the method might be off.

We need serious cuts in our spending, but perhaps food isn't the best place to start.

I'd say if we started cutting in areas that don't affect people's lives, we can start to get it back into the system rather than circulating through Washington.

In any case, while I think foodstamps stink generally, because there are other people that deliver food in this country in vast amounts. I just think there is a better way than government promises and forced programs that are really to be used topically rather than generally.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by xpert11
Rant Thanks for that telling me what food stamps are as a non american Im not sure what to make of them.

Food Stamps = the dole

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 05:02 AM

low wage jobs=government subsidized employees.

or beggers in the streets.

or dead employees...

how would society like to provide for their cashiers, maids, burger flippers, receptionists, farm wokers, MILITARY SERVICEMEN and many other workers and their families in our society?

government handouts?

how about charity??

or how about those who buy the burger, expect the cashier to ring up their grocieries, enjoy the friut of the farm worker, as well as the security our military provides pay a little extra for that service?

or can this be a new way of population control? just refuse to provide their needs in exchange for their services. they die off, but there's many willing to take their place.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by dawnstar]

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:32 PM

You got a point there, what many people do not realize is that our economy is not for the benefit of the low income class or the poor and needy but for the elite.

Many if not all the jobs been created are on the minimum wages as an example look at the biggest job maker in the US now, Wal-mart.

You tell me that a family can afford to have benefit cuts and no more free lunches while the parents both work in wal-mart with not health benefit that they can afford and getting minimum wage.

What a joke.

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:45 PM
Obviously there is a need for foodstamps to exist. If someone screws up thier finances, or some other calamity happens, then surely they should be provided food by the government untill they raise there financial standing? If the foodstamps are not needed then fine, cut them. But they will always be needed, for there will always be a hungry person.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in