Stamp of disapproval

Doctors say cutting food stamps could backfire.
Associated Press
Jan 9, 2014


Doctors are warning that if Congress cuts food stamps, the federal government could be socked with bigger health bills. Maybe not immediately, they say, but over time if the poor wind up in doctors' offices or hospitals as a result.

Among the health risks of hunger are spiked rates of diabetes and developmental problems for young children down the road.

The doctors' lobbying effort comes as Congress is working on a compromise farm bill that's certain to include food stamp cuts. Republicans want heftier reductions than do Democrats in yet another partisan battle over the government's role in helping poor Americans.

Food stamps, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, feed 1 in 7 Americans and cost almost $80 billion a year, twice what it cost five years ago. Conservatives say the program spiraled out of control as the economy struggled and the costs are not sustainable. They say the neediest people will not go hungry.

The health and financial risks of hunger have not played a major role in the debate. But the medical community says cutting food aid could backfire through higher Medicaid and Medicare costs.

"If you're interested in saving health care costs, the dumbest thing you can do is cut nutrition," said Dr. Deborah Frank of Boston Medical Center, who founded the Children's HealthWatch pediatric research institute.

"People don't make the hunger-health connection."

A study published this week helps illustrate that link. Food banks report longer lines at the end of the month as families exhaust their grocery budgets, and California researchers found that more poor people with a dangerous diabetes complication are hospitalized then, too.

The researchers analyzed eight years of California hospital records to find cases of hypoglycemia, when blood sugar plummets, and link them to patients' ZIP codes.

Among patients from low-income neighborhoods, hospitalizations were 27 percent higher in the last week of the month compared with the first, when most states send out government checks and food stamps, said lead researcher Dr. Hilary Seligman of the University of California, San Francisco. But hospitalizations didn't increase among diabetics from higher-income areas, she reported Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs.

Seligman couldn't prove that running low on food was to blame. But she called it the most logical culprit and said the cost of treating hypoglycemia even without a hospitalization could provide months of food stamp benefits.

"The cost trade-offs are sort of ridiculous," Seligman said.

She is working on a project with Feeding America, a network of food banks, to try to improve health by providing extra, diabetes-appropriate foods, including fresh produce and whole-grain cereals and pastas, for diabetics at a few food banks in California, Texas and Ohio.

Last year, research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger in an increase of $15 billion in medical costs for diabetes over the next decade.

Other research shows children from food-insecure families are 30 percent more likely to have been hospitalized for a range of illnesses. But after a temporary boost in benefits from the 2009 economic stimulus, children whose families used food stamps were significantly more likely to be well than kids in low-income families that didn't participate, Children's HealthWatch found. About half of food stamp recipients are children, and 10 percent are elderly.

How much would be cut from the food-stamp program ranges from $400 million a year in a Senate-passed farm bill to $4 billion a year in the House version. Congressional negotiators now are eyeing about $800 million a year in cuts.

That would be on top of cuts in November, when that 2009 temporary benefit expired. According to the Agriculture Department, a family of four receiving food stamps is now getting $36 less a month. The average household benefit is around $270.

Since then, food banks are reporting more demand because people's food stamps aren't stretching as far, said Maura Daly of Feeding America.

Conservatives pushing the cuts say they want to target benefits to the neediest people, arguing that those who are truly hungry should have no problem getting assistance if they apply.

The final bill will most likely crack down on states that give recipients $1 in heating assistance in order to trigger higher food stamp benefits, a change that wouldn't take people completely off the rolls.

The bill will also likely add some money for food banks and test new work requirements for recipients in a few states, a priority for many Republicans.

"While this program is an important part of our safety net, our overriding goal should be to help our citizens with the education and skills they need to get back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families," said Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., when the farm bill was on the House floor last summer.

Democrats and anti-hunger groups opposing the reductions have said that cutting food stamps could worsen health and raise health costs for the poorest.

"Food is medicine," says Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, who has led the Democrats' defense of the food stamp program. "Critics focus almost exclusively on how much we spend, and I wish they understood that if we did this better, we could save a lot more money in health care costs."

Dr. Thomas McInerny, past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said too often, poor families buy cheap, high-calorie junk food because it's filling, but it lacks nutrients needed for proper child development. The two main consequences are later-in-life diabetes, and iron deficiency that, especially in the first three years of life, can damage a developing brain so that children have trouble learning in school, he said.

"The children may not look malnourished the way children in Third World countries look," he said, "but they are malnourished."




Well, maybe if the worthless folks receiving them would stop trading food for drugs....


"Doctors are warning..." Nonsense. What doctors? Type 2 diabetes is caused too much food, not too little, and everyone knows it. This article is propaganda from the food industry, that grows fat on SNAP, which ruins people's health by making them fat. SNAP should allow healthy food only, but Congress only approves what wealthy campaign donors like.

One way to give low-income people a fighting chance to get ahead is to reduce taxes they pay but instead we unfairly increase sales tax while cutting income tax at the top, where no help is needed at all. We give tax subsidies for luxury second homes but housing subsidies for low-income people is no help, it just makes slum landlords rich.

Our economy is managed to ensure a surplus of labor so that it's cheap and desperate. That's convenient for employers but costly to society. The only way to have economic justice is to get money out of politics, so that we can have a government for all people, not just greedy selfish people.

mimi's word

If they look at what people usually buy on food stamps it is nothing healthy...twinkies, pop, snacks, chips, red meat...

The Big Dog's back

Do CONservatives ever consider collateral damage when they legislate hate?


Wanting someone to get a job and work instead of mooching isnt hate moron. God that koolaid must be extra strong lately


But theres something all you people that slam the food stamps program dont think about , And that its a known fact that when they cut foodstamps , they cut it across the board , thats retirees as well as the disabled . So please , before you open you mouth try to think of the whole picture and not just the part you can use to come on and slam people on the program .

Simple Enough II

If you are retired why do you not have enough income to well be "retired"?


Snappers are already buying junk food so IMO it can't get any worse.

Bottom Line

Well this article is a complete joke. More excuses for more handouts out of our pockets. Just trying to appease that 47%.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I believe the article reflected the sentiment well, though it doesn't call out the inane reasoning for increasing a program that already spends $80,000,000,000.00/year. I'll point out the (sarcastic) rock-solid reasons why we need (according to them) to increase payments:

could backfire
could be socked
Maybe not immediately, they say, but over time
down the road
cutting food aid could backfire
Seligman couldn't prove that running low on food was to blame.
could provide
could trigger in an increase
30 percent more likely
cutting food stamps could worsen health and raise health costs for the poorest.

This is how we make our economic discussions, ladies and gentlemen. As long as something could happen, we need to make sure it absolutely can't despite nothing ever changing despite how much/many programs exists to supposedly change circumstances. Looks like the War on Poverty is faring as well as the War on Drugs. Happy 50th Anniversary! I can't believe we've been free of poverty for that long now. You almost can't tell that there's an entire population who gets jerked around by our government as it controls their very lives.


Which population are you referring to ? The invisible poor , or the rich elite who feel entitled to better standards ? The sob stories work from either point of view if you twist it the right way . ; )

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

The intention was regarding the poor, but as you point out it seems rather universal in nature which I'll take as a serendipity. Especially as I hate "classifying" human beings.

Professor Playdoh's picture
Professor Playdoh

I'm not sure what you mean by the rich elite who feel entitled to better standards. I have worked many years and make a very good income. If I'm paying for "better standards", why is that "feeling entitled?


Some rich people think they are above everyone else . Like the kid who got off of murder charges because they pleaded that he was too rich to know better . That he believed that he was beyond the laws of poor or even middle class people . Thus he thinks he's entitled to a better standard then a run of the mill murderer . I believe daddy got him into a plush rehabilitation facility that looked more like an extravagant vacation resort .


Re: "Some rich people think they are above everyone else ."


And some poor in the U.S. have a "you owe me" entitlement attitude and believe that there is some kind of sense of nobility in poverty.

It takes all kinds to make a world, but I've generally found that cream rises to the top.

I agree, I thought that verdict was BS myself. A poor kid should plead "poorfluenza."


Limit only healthy food to be purchased with government entitlement. Fruits, vegetables and lean meat for example.

Problem solved. I'm not a doctor but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Simple Enough II

Sound logic & LOL on the last comment!


Ok , let's put it this way " Limit guns and ammo to be purchased with government regulation . clip capacity , registration of all owners , and mental evaluations for example . Problem solved , I'm not a doctor and this makes about as much sense as donutshop guys comment , because those food stamp limitations already exist . : ))))) I think we have a love / hate relationship going on here with government . We love it as long as it doesn't interfere with our guns or money .

Simple Enough II

My tax dollars doesn't provide me with free guns & ammo. Also Where in the constitution does it give the government the power to take from one and give to the other who the government has deemd poor or needy?


In can be difficult when facts get in the way of prejudices.

The Bizness

You posted the best comment, yet sadly no one probably read the info graph.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Forget the infograph. I went for the sources it quotes. It baffles me how people keep claiming that you get +X% for every $Y spent. The infograph doesn't bother to explain it. So, going to the report itself that it quotes...

"Moody’s Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity."

Guess it just keeps getting passed around like a game of operator. Of course nobody asks where the money first comes from, what "economic activity" means, or the fact that it is simply an estimate yet is parroted as if it is 100% Nobel-earning economics.

So the search continues. It took my to which parrots the figure but cites Moody's site. Couldn't find it there through the in-site search so I broadened it to Google and...

So, a document made in January of 2008 that suggested a one-year temporary increase would supposedly generate $1.73 for every $1 spent. It's on Page 4 if you want to check it out. It also refers to the action as "priming the pump". Still priming now six years later it seems.

Reading the entire document is an interesting time capsule for sure.


According to the progressives, if I give my daughter $5.00, our household (economy) is $5.00 wealthier.

Keynes viewed govt. expenditures as temporary, not as a permanent means to prosperity.

If bastardized Keynesianism actually worked, we should call up Bernanke/Yellen and have 'em print up a couple hundred trillion dollars, pass it out and poverty will end!!!!

SNAP should be privatized and control returned to the local level.


Funny you should bring that up. Direct payments to the people who need and deserve it, the victims of Wall Street, is the kind of stimulus that works better and costs far less. Instead, Congress approves stimulus that gives most of the money to people who don't need it and those who do just get the "trickle down."


Re: "Congress approves stimulus that gives most of the money to people who don't need it,"

There ya go!

Need I remind you for the 'umpteenth' time?

TARP and the Stimulus Program were approved by a Democrat held Congress.

Kottage Kat

65 diabetic worked 40 years had to retire for health reasons 15.00 per month SNAP. That is 50 cents a day to eat on. Food bank food is NOT diabetic friendly. No junque food here. There are alot of us out there who are not lazy and are trying.
I would rather be working.

Pterocarya frax...

Quit smoking and you will have more money for food.


Where in anything Kottage Kat said was "smoking" listed? I didn't see anything about that so why do you automatically assume that they do? You can't just jump to a conclusion that a person smokes and that's something that they could give up to give them more money every month.

Pterocarya frax...

From the story 2 days ago about empty grocery store shelves:

Kottage Kat
Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:03pm

No TV, computer. Do no use electric can opener. Don't drink,had food coffee and cigarettes I did no impulse buying. Always have toliet paper. No big deal here.


Well I apologize for what I said then. I hadn't seen the previous post and didn't know. I do know though that most people just automatically say things without knowing what the whole situation or circumstances are and it bothers me. My nephew has been overweight his entire life because he has been on high levels of steroids since he was 3 months old and they quite frankly are what's keeping him alive. People don't know that though and they just see a young man that's overweight and think he must eat nothing but junk food and if he's having a candy bar or something they flip out! Well he does have diabetes and he actually has more self control than I've ever seen and has been on a diabetic diet for many years but because of the steroid use he's still overweight. He'll always be judged no matter what because people will always just look at the outside and not the whole picture and that's why I got a little upset by what you said. Again I apologize for what I said but I hope now you'll understand why I said it.

mimi's word

Isn't it supposed to be an added supplement to help with groceries? not your only source for groceries? You will get no sympathy from me. I worked 3 jobs at 1 time at minimum wage and 1 was as a closer at BK so I could take all the left overs that we didnt sell and that was my only source of food since I had so many bills that I couldn't make it. No one was handing me money and I also took prevention so from I didnt have any kids I could NOT afford...This is not the land of the free and the home of the brave is the land of GREED and the home of the I want I will have at any cost to anyone...


So, you admit that you were walking out the back door with food that was marked on the sheet as waste and you are bitching about what food stamp recipients buy and how you were working 3 jobs, etc.? Sweetie, I've been a manager at numerous fast food places and as per corporate policy,if I would have caught you,I would have fired you in an instant,that is stealing. Yet,you are trying to get sympathy because you were working 3 jobs with nothing to eat? Where the hellD did your money go? Medical expenses? Allowable deductions with food stamps,utilities ort rent costs? Allowable deductions-sounds to me you're just mad cuz for whatever reason you couldn't be approved.Whatever,I've been on just about every links public assistance program,I utilized the services I bearded to get back on my feet,get an education and support my children and to be honest,if I wanted to buy ice cream or a candy bar or anything else,I did. If an alcoholic or a person on disability for a heart condition or diabetes or whatever want to purchase something detrimental to they their health,why is it your business? If you your generic answer is because you are paying for it,then get guess what,you weren't. So I worked from the time I was 14 until the age of 39,which our is when I started receiving assistance,I paid for my stuff,not you.

Simple Enough II

You are right, it isn't our business., but it is our business when we have to borrow money to support the government and all those programs, because someone has to pay that back. How did you earn those services, any tax dollars you paid into the black hole of our government are long gone?


OK, it's time to take Phroggy, Rbenn, Mikesee and Bottom Line to school. Here's some facts about food stamps:

#1: 76% of food stamp recipients are children, the elderly or the disabled.
#2: The majority of food stamp recipients are White.
#3: Food stamps have the lowest fraud rate of any federal gov't program.
#4: Every dollar spent on food stamps returns $2 to our economy.
#5: No one in America should go hungry - EVER.


what Im trying to say is, if you receive government assistance a requirement should be (for those physically able) some kind of work such as 20 hours a week or some sort of community service. I really dont think thats too much to ask. I bet you a lot of the complaining would go away if people were at least doing something to earn said benefits. Think about it, when you collect unemployment you have to show you looked for work. SO whats wrong with the same kinda accountability with welfare and foodstamps?


And what would that cost taxpayers ? A whole new division of welfare to oversee implementation of your idea . More money down the drain , and more big government .That' s mighty Liberal of you ; ))))


Im far from liberal, but people should not just sit on their fat a$$ and collect money for nothing. And how does someone getting work cost the taxpayer? It pays into the system duh


Re: "20 hours a week or some sort of community service."

IMO, the public sector unions will find this objectionable, i.e. taking jobs away from them.

It also smacks of some kind of progressive-minded publicly funded work program, e.g. WPA.

"Public assistance" used to be administrated on the local community level, until the big govt. politicos & bureaucrats federalized it in order to help buy votes.

There's only financial incentive to increase the number of recipients, not to reduce them.

Stop It

Think TVA....

mimi's word

I agree if you are only able to work 20 hours a week and have trouble making it I think they should be paid exactly what they make in a check dollar for dollar. Maybe people would find a way to work more than the 20 hours. Give out what you put in. It is the people that are abusing that makes people angry...a lady was on assistance because she wanted to be a stay at home mom...that is a priveledge not a right. I also see no where in the bill of rights where food, money, or not feeling bad is a right.


What about Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . I think food , money and not feeling bad would fit into those criteria .

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

So we are up to $2 now for every dollar spent? Senator Reid will be ecstatic. Please explain this. I promise I am good at math. I am genuinely curious how one becomes two magically. Start with where the money comes from first. We're doing this beginning to end. Soup to nuts, to use food terms.


Re: "Every dollar spent on food stamps returns $2 to our economy."

A progressive fiction. It would imply the fantasy of 'something' for nothing.

GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M )

The govt. (G) can't spend a dollar that goes to consumption (C) that it doesn't take from somewhere else.

Keynes viewed govt. pump priming as temporary, NOT as a magical panacea for permanent prosperity.


Re: "#3: Food stamps have the lowest fraud rate of any federal gov't program."

According to whom?

"Lowest fraud rate"?

It's the freshest turd in your progressive toilet?


According to an article by Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize winning economist, who has studied the issue far longer than you or I.

Unless you have specific - unbiased - information to the contrary, I'm going to go with what an expert has to say on the situation.


Re: "According to an article by Paul Krugman,"

Got a link?

Still begs the question regarding the phrase: "lowest fraud rate."

How many billions of dollars is that?

What's the GAO have to say about it?


Re: "Nobel-prize winning economist,"

His paper which merited him the prize was wholly unrelated to this issue.

So you'd consult Miss America regarding clothing styles and consider her to be the last word regarding fashion?

Per usual, you're tightly wrapped in a fallacy.

BTW: H*ll, even the "experts" didn't see the '07-'08 financial crisis coming.

Where was the omniscient Mr. Krugman with his bullhorn?


Paul Krugman in 2002: "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
This is why everyone does not listen to progressives for economic views, All they do is lurch from one crises to another without ever fixing anything. If he is your expert I suggest you find another one.


Meanwhile many believe that the next credit crisis will be one of sovereign debt due to the actions of the Fed. Resv.

And IMO, it ain't too far away, maybe 2015.

"Buffett Calls Fed History’s Greatest Hedge Fund"

Hedge funds NEVER blow up do they? :)


The last one out catches the tab as they say. Too bad the left thinks the party will last forever.


Coaster don't forget this one. Standing in line at the gas station the other day a person purchased 1 bag of chips, 3 candy bars and 2 2-liters of Pepsi with their SNAP card. They then purchased a lottery ticket and a pack of cigs with cash. Thats my problem!

My problem with SNAP is not necessarily the amount of people on it but the items they are entitled to buy. If they are legit then ok. By allowing them to purchase such foods just increase's their chances of having medical condiditons related to eating so much junk food. Which of course they don't care about their health conditions because the taxpayer picks up the tab for that as well.

BTW I read recently in the paper that there was a ring of SNAP receivers busted for selling their benefits to other not entitled. This was in the Tiffin area.


Donutguy: I do agree that only certain foods should be purchased with food stamps. However, if you agree that we should allow the government that amount of intrusion/control, congrats: you're a Democrat, and don't even realize it. :)

Pterocarya frax...

Oh snap!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Your continued pride in forcing people to do things isn't something to smile about, in my opinion. If that's a case you should grin widely that prisoners are forced to sleep in a cot at the whim of someone, somewhere.

However your point isn't scored so easily as there is a difference between those who are already wards of the state being tossed around by governmental tempests as opposed to imposing government on people who already take care of themselves to have them conform to people who don't. I don't need you or an unknowable, unelected entity hundreds of miles away telling me what to buy. But, for someone on a program, it seems they do and are left flapping in the winds of bureaucracy since their lives (hopefully temporarily) are conceded for someone else to run.

So much like you and donutshopguy, I agree that the scope of what can be purchased should be limited because these are people who need (again, if only temporarily) someone else to help bring their lives into check. But for me? Kindly keep your party's hands out of my shopping cart. I am responsible for my behavior, thank you. The day I am not you can - luckily - force your will on my diet as I'll be in jail or a ward of the state in some other way.

Like the argument I made before with prisoners, are they being responsible citizens by putting themselves in jail per the law after breaking it? Or are they simply forced to comply with the government's wishes? Responsibility isn't forced, coerced, or imposed. It must be generated from within.


My point was that conservatives always rail about "government intrusion into our personal lives", yet they often are the MOST intrusive. Vaginal probes anyone? They continue to discuss and attempt to legislate many things, abortion, gay rights, contraception - issues that do not affect them - issues that should truly be left to individuals to decide.

The common thread is that they believe they should be able to tell other people how they should/shouldn't live, especially if it doesn't agree with their antiquated 1950's world view. Their viewpoint is equal parts amusing and pathetically out of touch.


Re: "yet they often are the MOST intrusive."

And isn't it your desire to have the State control all the means of production?

And THAT would not be wholly "intrusive"?

You read extremely confused.


It is amusing watching you scream about others being intrusive while your president is running the most secretive intrusive admin in the nations history, Please go on.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I think there should be a separation of "conservative" and "Republican". There are many who are conservative who don't like intrusion and are willing to let people do their own thing as long as it doesn't harm others. SamAdams here comes to mind. She's very conservative yet has consistently advocated for no intrusion. Many Republicans may be conservative, but take their activism to personal decisions which I and many others here DON'T condone. That is why I find myself at odds with "social conservatives" such as Rush Limbaugh, to use a national stage, or even thinkagain here locally.

Each has their opinions, and I read/listen to them, but I don't always support the lifestyle brand of their thinking. I still respect that fact that they at least try to support their cases, which I wish would happen more with both (and especially) liberal and conservative commenters here.

As a young conservative (probably closer to GenX than a Millenial) I am tired of the tropes that continually get invoked like your comment about 1950s legislation. At the same time my eyes roll back and I bleed from the nose every time I see a "conservative" argument that has welfare recipients branded as a parasite class. Ugh.

I'm ecstatic that the Republican party is having fits and death throes as it prepares to modernize and have a (hopefully) Phoenix-like rebirth. I could only wish the Democratic party would do the same thing as it is rife with GOBs, outdated policies/thinking, and party-first mentality.

mimi's word

If you sit around and want everyone to have freedoms but only the freedoms you deem are correct congrats you are a Republican.


for the record:

You CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:
breads and cereals
fruits and vegetables
meats, fish and poultry; and
dairy products
Seeds and plants to produce food for the household to eat

You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods

mimi's word

No you can't buy dog food...I saw a lady buying at least 10 packs of steaks and ground meats...I said oh look who is having a cook out...She said no it is extra meat for my dog...they don't pay for dog food on food stamps...TRUE STORY!!!!
And as far as medicines go if they are on food stamps that means they probably qualify for some medicare...


People don't always qualify for Medicare if they get SNAP. That's a myth,


I must admit to being curious as to the difference between being hungry and being "truly hungry." What are the criteria that need to be met to cross over to being even more desperate? Is it different for adults and children? (Conservatives pushing the cuts say they want to target benefits to the neediest people, arguing that those who are truly hungry should have no problem getting assistance if they apply.)


Reading through the above comments, the one thing that immediately stands out is that many conservatives are just plain cruel. Because a possible few might be scamming the system, they think it's ok to throw millions of others under the bus, the vast majority of food stamp recipients who have done nothing wrong who are overcome by economic forces not of their making and beyond their control.

The ultimate irony is that it was THEIR party who caused the massive job losses in 2007-2008, which led to the huge increase in people needing assistance. It's puzzling that they can't seem to acknowledge the rather obvious cause and effect here. There are currently 3 unemployed people for every job opening, yet these callous conservatives think that all unemployed people are "lazy".

I repeat: 76% of food stamp recipients are children, elderly or disabled. Please tell me that these people should not be helped.

"These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for rent, food and other critical bills. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down". George H.W. Bush in 2002


Re: "I repeat: 76% of food stamp recipients are children, elderly or disabled. Please tell me that these people should not be helped."

Which equates to approx. 1 out of 7 Americans and the numbers have grown.

"So here’s the thing about SNAP: it’s one federal program that really has exploded in size in recent years, with the number of beneficiaries rising around 80 percent." - Paul Krugman

So what is being done to help reduce the numbers instead of just continue to throw money at it?

JMOP's picture

"Their party"? Sure Bush was in office, but democrates in congress and the senate were the majority elected in 2006. Yep, that's when the economy pretty much spiraled out of control.


Policy based on emotion is not logical policy. That is common knowledge. You do not want religious policy, Well your emotions mean just about as much as someones religion to those of us who have a brain.
Cruelty, Making the nation listen to a liar drone on about how great he is while the country goes down hill. Have the telepromptor send us all the transcripts and save us the time.

Simple Enough II

That was 12 years ago and since the numbers ave increased dramatically.


The wrongheaded progressives continue to spew the financial fiction that food stamps, unemployment benefits, et. al promote economic growth.

"But I should point out that when you talk about the snap program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus."

- Sec. of Ag Vilsack

As long as politicians rob Peter to pay Paul, they can continue to count on the support of Paul.


While I know that some people need help (food stamps) to survive, what I think irks most of us is the ones we see abuse it. The other day, I watched a man and woman buy milk, bread, and some chicken with a food stamp card (they have to declare the use of the card before they are rang up. After that purchase, they proceeded to buy a bottle of vodka with cash. That's the thing that upsets me. If they have money for vodka, they have money for SOME food.

thinkagain's picture

Another article that exemplifies the liberal media's diversionary tactics. Fear mongering Democrats do not want to be held accountable for out of control government spending and have no intention of getting serious about budget cuts.


Would Jesus let people go hungry , Hmmmm.

Simple Enough II

I guess my concern is, I know of folks who have made choices in their life that have driven their situation and they and their family (parents) seem fine with using all the benefits available for them from the various government sponsored programs and have become "comfortable" in that life style. I think, if you have use of these benefits and can smoke, drink, have a cellphone, have gas to run around, get your your nails done etc, it is to easy to find this acceptable as a lifestyle, what is the incentive to improve?


OUTLAW NAIL SALONS , DRINKING , SMOKING , AND CELLPHONES , because it is well known everyone using or doing these things are on food stamps . : )))))

Simple Enough II

Well she is and her parents make a very good living, yet instead of they looking out for their daughter and her kid, they have found it okay for the government to take care of her instead.



"Job growth weak, raising questions about Fed move"

"Job creation stumbled in December, with the economy adding just 74,000 positions even as the Federal Reserve voted to take the first steps in eliminating its stimulus program.

The unemployment rate dropped to 6.7 percent, below economist estimates and due primarily to continued shrinkage in the labor force. The labor force participation rate tumbled to 62.8 percent, its worst level since January 1978."

"1978"? Pres. Carter's admin., who got creamed in 1980.

A lousy economy?

Thank Carter II, aka Pres. Obama who thinks that more soup kitchens and bread lines are acceptable paths to economic growth and prosperity.

Peninsula Pundit

Feed the Hungry.
I am going to laugh aloud when I listen to you naysayers try to defend yourselves at the final judgement.
Even though I realize, judging by your comments, that you neither believe nor follow Christ.
If you did, you may think the same way you think now, but maybe would have the decency not to post it.
If these people on food stamps took help who didn't need it, God will make that judgement. It is not yours to decide.


Re: "Feed the Hungry"

So the food stamp program is the "Lord's work"?

When are FDR, LBJ and others scheduled for sainthood within the Church of the Most Profligate Spending Progressive?

Should Pres. Obama’s title be changed to Pope?

You've conflated the concept of Christian charity with govt. theft.

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.'" (2 Thess 3:10)


They do say the Lord works in mysterious ways . ; )


Re: "If these people on food stamps took help who didn't need it, God will make that judgement. It is not yours to decide."

I guess we can now toss out any concern for separation of church and state. If it is OK for gov't to do so in one thing... is it OK for gov't to do it for other things that are questionable in some religions? Or are you the one who gets to decide which things Gov't can do have religious consiquences and which things gov't does won't.


Maybe if they stop issuing benefits to all the illegals they wouldn't have to worry about cutting the benefits of Americans in need. Maybe if they issued with some restriction it would help. I'm not saying children should be denied any snacks, but perhaps they could limit snacks to a small percentage of the benefits. But the problems are much larger because as a few have mentioned, selling benefits is a huge problem and then those children don't eat anyway. I fostered an infant a few years ago and they issued WIC for the baby. I lived in another county at that point before buying my place in Erie County. When I went to the store to pick up the WIC (powdered formula), the shelf was bare so I asked a clerk when they would be getting some because I really needed it. I was told they had plenty but it was behind the counter up front. My initial reaction was sadness that people would have to steal formula to feed their babies ..... then I talked to the lady at the desk and was shocked ...... people, she told me, were using infant formula to cut with cocaine. My heart just sank as I thought about all the babies whose mothers get WIC that were likely not getting their formula. The problems are much bigger that what most people realize.

Dr. Information

What is disturbing is the SNAP approved foods. High in sugar junk food is about 75% of it. Just walk down the isles of the stores and see what is approved, you will be shocked.

However, we will hear the left cry that its not fair to make all the SNAP approved foods healthy.


Soon going to be way more than 47% if more plants close up with no jobs to replace them. Too many eligible people in workforce and NOT enough jobs to go around.