The fraud has gone deep

Here's another one uncovered:

Why Are Food Stamps A Growth Industry?

Today in the Washington Post there's an article about how states are trying to grow their Food Stamps (SNAP)  programs to get as many people as possible onto food stamps.  Something is terribly wrong with society when states see Food Stamps as a growth engine.

...In fact, it is Nerios’s job to enroll at least 150 seniors for food stamps each month, a quota she usually exceeds. Alleviate hunger, lessen poverty: These are the primary goals of her work. But the job also has a second and more controversial purpose for cash-strapped Florida, where increasing food-stamp enrollment has become a means of economic growth, bringing almost $6 billion each year into the state. The money helps to sustain communities, grocery stores and food producers. It also adds to rising federal entitlement spending and the U.S. debt.

Nerios prefers to think of her job in more simple terms: “Help is available,” she tells hundreds of seniors each week. “You deserve it. So, yes or no?”

In Florida and everywhere else, the answer in 2013 is almost always yes. A record 47 million Americans now rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, available for people with annual incomes below about $15,000. The program grew during the economic collapse because 10 million more Americans dropped into poverty. It has continued to expand four years into the recovery because state governments and their partner organizations have become active promoters, creating official “SNAP outreach plans” and hiring hundreds of recruiters like Nerios.

A decade ago, only about half of eligible Americans chose to sign up for food stamps. Now that number is 75 percent.

Right Now, Higher Unemployment Might Be Better

This morning I was listening to P.O.T.U.S. on XM satellite radio and a guest, economist Mark Lieberman from Economics Analytics Research, put succinctly and in easy to understand terms what the lower unemployment rate of 8.6% announced today, is actually not good right now.  

It has nothing to do with what might benefit the GOP in 2012, and everything to do with the unemployment trending.

Link love

So I'm working 14-16 hours a day lately and my blog is suffering.  Trust me, I'm not complaining - I'm working.  Until I'm back to normal, check out these quality posts elsewhere:

Obamanomics - where food stamps equal economic boon.

Unions = people?  Corporations = people!

The bigger the lie, the more people you fool.

The Black Caucus is losing patience with Mr. O.

Libertarian dystopia?

Perry can't win, Romney can.

Romney can't win, Perry can.

Nobody can win, except Sarah Palin.

Nobody can win but Newt Gingrich.  No link?  Oh wait, he'll have the Hawaii vote.

Always end with a chuckle.

Some more two word opinions

I'm falling behind on posting again.  In order to do a quick catch up, here are some quick two word opinions on some recent headlines.  On a side note, this is 500% harder than doing it in three words.

Unemployment rate dips to 9.1%. Oh really?

S&P downgraded the AAA credit rating to AA+. Truth hurts.

It's been a horrible couple of weeks on Wall Street. A correction?

US Postal Service could default? About time.

Record numbers on food stamps under Obama. UNDER OBAMA.

Obamacare gives out free birth control??? Just irrational.

Tea Party versus GOP fallout on debt ceiling debate? Not now.

Senate Democrats cave on FAA legislation passed by Congress. A win.

More posts are coming - with more words.

Michelle Obama's secret political agenda on food

"What's your name, fat-body?"

Normally, it's an unwritten rule that keeping families out of politicians out of the spotlight is a fair thing to do.  Indeed it's noble to not cover them, particularly in the case of children.   While the mainstream media was good with Laura Bush in terms of her efforts as First Lady, one has to question whether it was out of that sense of nobility or simply that broadcasting anything that showed any Bush in a good light was not advancing the cause of liberal Democrats.  After all, Laura Bush focused her efforts as First Lady on education and literacy.  That it was done without much fanfare is not surprising. Yes, she did receive coverage, but not like Michelle Obama and her war on obesity.

Now consider the drubbing the Palins take in the media as if somehow that family deserves everything it gets. Does that mean the gloves are now off because it suits the media's bias?  All is fair now? I don't think so.  I have tried to not comment on Michelle Obama much.  But in light of the additional coverage she's getting, and the fact that her statements have impacted the national discourse, it seems fair that commenting on her comments that have become political is not out of bounds.

Food Stamps For Everyone!

Food Stamps.  Tasty.

You know what these things in the picture are?  They're food stamps. You know how many people in the United States are currently using food stamps?  41.8 million people.  That's more than the entire population of Argentina.  At last check, Argentina was NOT a super-power.  Argentina has a GDP per capita of $14,525 according to the IMF (2009).  The United States by comparison has a GDP per capita of  $45,934.  Three times that of Argentina.

According to Bloomberg,

The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 41.8 million in July as the jobless rate hovered near a 27-year high, the government said.

Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases jumped 18 percent from a year earlier and increased 1.4 percent from June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a statement on its website. Participation has set records for 20 straight months.

Yet the United States, the one that's the superpower, has more people on food stamps than the entire country of Argentina.  For a family of 3 (roughly the average family size in the U.S.), in order to qualify for food stamps, the family's Gross Income must be under $23,808 to qualify for food stamps.  That's not that far from Argentina's GDP per capita.

In Argentina roughly 20% of the population is below the poverty line. In the United States, the number varies but is typically in the teens. Based on the recent numbers, 13.6% of the United States is currently on food stamps. So things aren't all that rosy.  Curiously, 20 straight months of growing food stamp use happens to coincide with the number of months President Obama has been in power.  Hmmmmm.  Maybe the President should kick off some sort of War on Poverty.  It could be a green movement too!  I don't like the direction of that line of thinking.  But I bet a lot of Democrats do.

Disgraceful!

In a country the size of the United States, with a population of approximately 306 million, you have to expect there's going to be some poverty. It's going to be true in a command economy (i.e. a socialist system) as much as a capitalist system. There's no getting around some level of disparity. And you have to expect that during a steep recession the number of recipients of food stamps would increase.

BUT

According to Forbes, there are some 34 million people on Food Stamps.

And while it's high, it wasn't that low 11 months ago either. According to the Forbes article;

Month Total

May09 34.409 million
Apr09 33.758 million
Mar09 33.157 million
Feb09 32.556 million
Jan09 32.205 million
Dec08 31.784 million
Nov08 31.097 million
Oct08 31.050 million
Sep08 31.586 million

That means 11.1% of the population is on food stamps. That is disgraceful in the richest country on earth. The problem is partly the government (for having food stamps so readily available, which encourages abuse) and partly the people's (some people who are getting it don't need to, they're just being lazy) and partly the recession's (at least the last 3 million people are added to the rolls during a recession).

Another disgraceful thing - the media would have been all over the last 2 million people if it had been during President Bush's first term. Not so for President Obama. Remember, he inherited this recession, Bush, who inherited a recession was never given the same leeway.

The real tragedy is that these numbers have continued to exist and they haven't been addressed. People continue to live on food stamps and start to rely on them instead of relying on themselves to get out of the social safety net the government is providing.

The United Way talks about a hand up and out of the dependency cycle, rather than a handout. If a charity can think that way, why can't the government? Unless of course it relies on the dependency cycle to keep people beholden to them and can coerce votes to those inclined to press socialism upon the masses. There's the real dependency cycle.

It's as simple as giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Those who espouse indefinite welfare either wittingly or unwittingly are creating a dependent class, which the liberal elite then use to stir class warfare and argue for more of the same. It hasn't worked in 50 years to eradicate poverty or elevate the poor into higher income brackets, and it never will.

No matter what hope and change you might have been expecting, this is one area I guarantee you will not see any because there's a vested interest in seeing it continue.