i.imgur.com — A record 44.7 million people - or 1 in 7 Americans - were on food stamps last year.
It's true that the food stamp rolls have swelled more under Obama's tenure than under his recent predecessors. Also, his 2009 Recovery Act allowed even more people to sign up.
The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has soared to an average 44.7 million in fiscal 2011, up 33% from fiscal 2009.
Jan 22, 2012 View in Crawl 4
langfordJan 23, 2012
More people are on food stamps, because more people have legitimate reason to be on them. The nation's unemployment is because the jobs don't exist any more, not because millions of Americans suddenly decided that they preferred government cheese over the job they used to have.
RavenshoodieJan 23, 2012
Whatever helps you sleep at night bud.
treehugger87Jan 23, 2012
1 in every 4 homes in this country is in foreclosure. The median wage is at its lowest (adjusted for inflation) since 1996. The poverty rate is at 15.1%. You can not deny that people have a legitimate reason to be on food stamps.
If you've got all the answers, tell us all where are the jobs? Do you know something that 2,000,000 Americans who don't have jobs don't know?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 23, 2012
Everybody thank the American Government, "Thanks American Government."
TGRHvWGAFJan 23, 2012
You mean thank the administration people like you elected. Our government does great things when it's run by competent people. It's when simpletons come together to elect incompetents that it screws the pooch.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 23, 2012
"You mean thank the administration people like you elected."
Sorry about you being wrong, i have NEVER voted for a Democrat or Republican. No one i have EVER voted for in a major election has won. The choice between two evils is still evil.
"Our government does great things when it's run by competent people. It's when simpletons come together to elect incompetents that it screws the pooch."
Too bad it's so far and few between, not to mention how a few can screw up years and years of hard work and good that was done in a few seconds.
That is Always my point, America votes in the most incompetent people imaginable, it's an epidemic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BWE5TJan 23, 2012
Foodstamps are good but the system is more than abused. I at the moment work in a low income area grocery store to help pay for college and you would not believe how irresponsible people are with the amount of money they are allotted each month. People come in and buy name brand junk food every day, lots of it. Just this afternoon a lady came in and bought ten large cans of redbull at 3-4 dollars a piece. People on welfare eat better than i do. Personally, i feel that if you live off the government you should be required to show at least some responsibility with the money you are given.
treehugger87Jan 23, 2012
Would you propose a massive regulatory system? Each of the 44.7 million using foodstamps would have to submit an accounting of their daily caloric intake, complete with receipts and photographs?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BWE5TJan 23, 2012
Well first off, even though im not for strict regulation, there are ways of keeping people from buying items with foodstamps relatively easily. For example: you can't buy any non food items, alcohol, tobacco etc... with foodstamps.
Obviously what you said up there^^ is really stupid and the resources required to keep that system running would outweigh the benefits of the regulation.
If anything i would say that junk food/pop/energy drinks should be limited when using tax dollars to pay for your food. Obviously its not a perfect answer but it would be a good start. Trust me, people find a way to buy the things they want, there never seems to be enough money for milk but when lotto tickets, cigarettes, and beer come into play its a different story.
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
I assumed that you would be a no regulation kind of guy. Yes, you can prohibit purchase of certain items with food stamps, but that requires regulatory oversight. Somebody has to look at all those receipts, check the computer software used by grocery stores and local mom & pop stores that accept food stamps, etc. etc.
I think you're exaggerating when you use lotto tickets, cigarettes and beer as examples. Those things are most certainly not eligible for legal purchase with food stamps. But here we go with the regulation again. If food stamp abuse angers you, we need regulatory agents. We need people to go to stores and try to use food stamps buy things that are not legal to be bought with food stamps and then to fine the stores that break the rules.
Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse. As a conservative, you really don't have any ground to complain about corruption with food stamps (or medicare or any other government program) when you and people like you spend most of your time talking about shrinking government. You can't have it both ways.
BWE5TJan 24, 2012
Im democrat, for clarification. I just differ on this subject possibly through all of the first hand experience i have. When i said strict regulation i meant specifically on the food stamp issue. I understand what you're saying though, i just feel kind of mad when i struggle to pay my tuition, groceries, insurance etc... and then people with no jobs come in and buy seemingly whatever they want. I think its a broken system
treehugger87Jan 24, 2012
That I can agree with. It makes me angry too, to see people take advantage of the system. Well put. I don't think the system is broken, I think that the American people are broken. It should be deeply shameful to use food stamps for other than feeding your family. That is the most successful regulation we could have - one where we care enough for our country and our fellow man to be too ashamed to take advantage of the system.
BWE5TJan 24, 2012
fair enough, nice to not have a screaming match with people on this site every once and awhile
pivenJan 22, 2012
We chose to default as a nation many years ago. The destination was certain, only the timing was in question.
Time to step on the gas.
http://cinepad.com/images/thelma.jpg
norman619Jan 23, 2012
Yup. Many economists have been warning us this was coming. Even the former head of the GAO tried to warn the people and Obama. Not enough people gave a s**t so now we will be reaping the reward for decades of insanely irresponsible fiscal policy. So many on here want so very badly to blame the rich or Wall Street or even the banks. They don't want to accept the ugly truth. We The People are to blame for this mess. We allowed it to get this bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 23, 2012
The arrogant are digging you down.
I didn't do it, you did it, no you did it, no you did, i know you are but what am i, i know you are, but what am i, i am rubber, your glue, what ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
"We The People are to blame for this mess."
It's so wonderful to live it a country full of children, blaming others and taking NO Responsibility what so ever. It's no wonder they are scared to death of Ron Paul, scared s**t-less to have to take responsibility for ones self.
Stop blaming each other and work together to fix the country, or face your ultimate fate.
Just waiting on the digg brigade now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFJan 23, 2012
You say arrogant, I say educated.
FrankLuskaJan 23, 2012
Yes, i agree, the highly educated do act like little children, these people actually do act just like movies portray them. Spoiled brats.
But i wonder, if were so educated, why do we keep screwing ourselves to death.
And, many thanks to the ones who dugg me down, your true colors are Shinning Brightly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
The entire economic system is in trouble. The rich and the banks are a much bigger part of the problem than everybody else. First of all, because the rich, the banks, and the corporations have a much bigger impact on the economic policy and the economy than we do. Second, because this is their area of expertise, and they played the apathetic and uneducated public.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 23, 2012
You're wrong. The American people have lost control of the process. We are powerless to stop the forces that have transformed our economy into one that funnels money to the top.
The American people didn't "allow" it to get this bad, they were overwhelmed with too many issues at once to be able to identify and fight the exact one that would actually make a difference.
The biggest culprit is the news media.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maquereautinJan 23, 2012
I could have been on food stamps when I was unemployed for over a year between 2010-2011. But I didn't. I ate a friends houses, my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. In exchange for my company, or helping friends move, computer problems, etc etc. And when I didn't do that I learned how to make the most of my money. A pound of beef ($4.xx), taco seasoning ($0.99), mexican blend cheese($2.xx) and a jar of olives($3.xx) and I could have 3-4 meals by myself. And considering that the olives and cheese lasted probably 10-13ish meals...You get the point.
Another means I had at my disposal but never had to resort too....hunting...fishing....A fishing license here is $12 and is good for a year. A hunting license, dependent on what you are after, is anywhere from $6-17 and is good for a few months or as little as 10 days. And since I already have a rifle and have access to fishing items from friends or family I could potentially go out and harvest a deer and eat for ($17) a month or more. Or go fishing and eat for a week ($0.03/day).
There are options out there you just have to be creative. Yes the supermarket is ridiculously convenient but when push comes to shove...
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"I ate a friends houses, my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles."
In other words you felt you were entitled to food at the expense of your friends and family. This is exactly the same thing except that it spreads the burden to more people.
As for your pound of beef, taco seasoning, cheese, and olives meals, ever heard of nutrition? Yes, you can live on that stuff, but not well, and not forever. You need all sorts of types of vitamins and nutrients to stay healthy.
"A hunting license, dependent on what you are after, is anywhere from $6-17 and is good for a few months or as little as 10 days."
First of all, not everybody does this, has hunting weapons, and knows how to hunt.
Second, do you know what would happen if only one million more hunters went into the forests looking for deer? How quickly would you run out of deer if an extra million people tried to bag more than one deer a season? There are only about 20 million deer in the US. And not everybody lives close enough to deer hunting areas. Not to mention the number of hunting accidents that you would see thanks to a million dumb-ass hunters running around in the forest.
"Or go fishing and eat for a week ($0.03/day)."
Fishing is different, but again - not everyone lives close enough to fishing places, and knows how to fish, where to fish, etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maquereautinJan 23, 2012
I didn't feel entitled, thats not what I meant. I didn't free load at all. In my case my parents had no problem with me coming over for dinner or lunch. Most of the time while I was there I would mow the yard for my dad (6 acres) or trim trees. Or do some dishes or clean the house.
The examples I gave were from my experience. I know not all people have access to the options I have, but you give advice and words of wisdom off what you personally know.
I didn't eat tacos for a year. Once again that was a example. There are many ways to eat cheap and remain healthy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
So in other words, yes, in special cases you can live on very little money, without food stamps. But not many have that option, and it's often a bad idea because of nutrition issues.
Food stamps on average add only $287 to a household, and 47% of the beneficiaries are kids. 8% are 60 years old or older. In many cases the families using food stamps have only a single parent. Etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BWE5TJan 23, 2012
Not everybody has family they can fall back on and friends will tend to be in the same financial situation you are
novenatorJan 23, 2012
You can eat out of the dumpster for FREE! I don't what these lazy poor people are complaining about when they have a buffet of garbage! How dare they!
/sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 23, 2012
I think prison food is free too! We should just put the poor in prison!
promusicJan 23, 2012
Ummm- we are doing that- there are record numbers of people in prison right now- mostly for low level drug-related offenses...
jarysmJan 23, 2012
Blaming the victims >.<.
I've been on food stamps before, while workIng two part time jobs (one was an unpaid internship). My pay barely covered my rent. Anyone who thinks being on good stamps is enjoyable had never been on them. The shame, dwindling self respect, and judgment from people in stores are all powerful motivators. I am overjoyed to have a full time job AND to pay taxes. Society helped me, I aim to do my part and then some. I would have starved while working overtime, were it not for social programs.
The argument that those on food stamps are joyfully leaching from hard working people is an assumption of lack of moral character, quite insulting. Not only is this an example of Actor-observer bias, but the mental trick requires the believer to forget every instance in which community efforts is in any way responsible for their safety/success.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
If I cannot feed myself I have utterly failed as a human being and should be dead. As with unemployment benefits, retirement benefits, and healthcare benefits, I neither want nor need the Government's assistance and should not be providing the funds for it to support other people in that manner.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jarysmJan 23, 2012
Then you can stop driving on our roads, beniffiting from our cops, and living/workin in buildings that have benifitted from saftey regulations and inspectors.
Three of inumerable. You do not, cannot, live without benifiting from our help. We will continue to help you, as your thanks is not required.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
manicpedanticJan 23, 2012
I'm sure you've heard this before but please just shut the f**k up... As jarysm helpfully pointed out, people like you are either completely unaware of or refuse to acknowledge the benefits you receive courtesy of other people. You're more than happy to reap the rewards of being a part of society, you just don't want to contribute anything that doesn't entirely benefit you. You're the very thing you claim to hate, a f**king sponge.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letsgetreal50Jan 23, 2012
Hungry people don't give a good rats ass where the food comes from. They just want to eat.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
I pay about $30,000 a year in taxes for those "benefits". I could most of those same benefits in Panama or another second World nation for half the price. A basic road and sanitary sewer infrastructure with law and order isn't all that expensive. Its all the other crap that adds up.
humanitJan 23, 2012
"If I cannot feed myself I have utterly failed as a human being and should be dead"
That is just BS big time. If you were starving, you would do anything to get something to eat, including criminal and highly criminal acts. It just goes that way. The chances that you are one of the few that can starve "by principle" is very low.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
It would never come to that, I have enough money sitting in my checking account right now to feed me until age 100 (I can feed myself for under $3 a day, granted its a boring diet of rice, bread,beans, and Spam with a multi-vitamin, but it does mean never facing hunger or malnutrition).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
humanitJan 23, 2012
Well, to your surprise your checking account was eliminated because your business partner cheated on you. By your own principles you must now eliminate yourself because you have failed as human being. Goodbye and have nice after life!
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Except I don't have a business partner, spouse, or signatory on the account, and even if I did, I have accounts at two other banks (one of which is in Canada) and an IRA and 401k account. And a job that generates about $3k a month free cash flow after expenses. Plus I own some commercial real estate and have several thousand dollars worth of gold and silver coins sitting in a safe deposit box. And zero debt. And some nice nitrogen packed food I picked up from some loonies that expected Y2K to trigger the apocalypse and as soon as it didn't wanted to recover some of their money.
In other words, there are no circumstances that could arise that could financially ruin me to the point I couldn't feed myself.
humanitJan 24, 2012
Never say never. Although I agree that you have it quite safe, you even have the benefit of not having a heart to use quite many calories. 8P
TGRHvWGAFJan 23, 2012
Really? Then start giving back every dime of tax breaks you ever got. During the period fo your life where you earned at or near minimum wage, somebody else was shouldering your tax burden. You probably had some years where you didn't pay anything in taxes.
So pony up, you owe some back taxes with interest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 23, 2012
Could you be any more of an elitist? Not everyone has all of the privileges that you were born with. Get a life.
NeosopheusJan 23, 2012
Maybe we can ask the top 10 CEO's of 2010 who made a combined $770 million to donate 1% of their pay so that people can eat. That would be $7.7 million to help the needy and such a relatively small amount they would not even miss it.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/dennis-kucinich/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Except we're spending $199 million a day on food stamp benefits based on an average monthly benefit of $133.84. Which means even if you just confiscated all that $770 million of pay outright that would only feed them for 3.9 days.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=1&ind=26
ncmusicJan 23, 2012
FYI your links don't work.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Odd, bit.ly to the rescue I guess:
http://bit.ly/eqdU6h
craig1958Jan 23, 2012
In general I don't like to pay taxes, however I have no problem with paying for food stamps. Let's say we reduce defense spending enough to cover these 45 million people and call it even.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 23, 2012
Yea! sounds good to me.
austinjameshereJan 22, 2012
They got the address wrong... Wall Street is the nation of entitlement... that's in New York. And it costs a whole lot more than food stamps for the poor. Leave it to conservatives to squabble over the crumbs for the poor, while those at the top steal the whole pie.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drumcyborgJan 23, 2012
Meanwhile, the CEO of McKesson pharma made $189,000,000 last year while selling the drugs that made the wealthier people believe that the poorer people were the cause of our once-great country's collapse.
I scoff at thee...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
That's only $10 million short of being able to feed the food stampers for a single day:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=1&amp;ind=26
drumcyborgJan 23, 2012
Most food stamp recipients get $200 a month in benefits.
200 divided by 30 (average month days) = $6.66 per day, drawn from a card with JP Morgan's name on the back.
Your apocalypse is coming...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 22, 2012
Most of the food stamps go for CHILDREN.
skews13Jan 22, 2012
You would think that after 3 years the girl would have gotten over the failure that was the Bush administration. I guess the guilt, and shame is just to much to bear. It's now causing her to make mistakes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Jan 22, 2012
Good Lord, why take it out on kids? I'm happy to pay taxes so the kids of this country don't go to bed hungry. We always took care of our own - now it's a problem when Obama is in office taking care of the debt his predecessor left.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Jan 23, 2012
Do it for the children eh? Maybe when they fix the program people will buy that statement.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
Fix the program how exactly? You have yet to say what you don't like about it. Is it that poor kids get fed?
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2010CharacteristicsSummary.pdfComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Jan 23, 2012
I don't know about you but I have seen the fraud that these programs are riddled with first hand.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"I don't know about you but I have seen the fraud that these programs are riddled with first hand."
I haven't seen that fraud - but then again I haven't looked. However, from the numbers barakalypse presented below, it isn't that bad. 3% is very little.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letsgetreal50Jan 23, 2012
Yes, but they want to take it out on the other 97% that need Food Stamps and Welfare.
This country needs to get back to work.
Obama tried with a Jobs Bill that was obstructed by the GOP/T-Bagger Party because the President has it all paid for by a very small tax increase on those who can afford it. i.e. the wealthy 1%.
Instead the GOP would rather see more people on welfare and food stamps because it creates the impression that they can blame Obama, rather than their obstructionism.
And they wonder why they can't get credible republicans to run on the GOP ticket.
We, democrats should be able to take the House back this year. I hope so. And also, we need to get on board in doing away with SuperPacs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Jan 23, 2012
no one wants to take it out on anyone. Where are Obama's jobs. That's the question.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
Nope, seems like DPs disagree. They apparently want their extra 50 bucks (or even much less) a year, even if children have to go hungry. f**k the children!
THIS is one of the primary reasons why I despise them and the republicans.
Let's see how quickly they bury this post without providing a single counter-argument.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"Let's see how quickly they bury this post without providing a single counter-argument."
Ah, there are the DP dickholes. I was wondering if they achieved sanity and agreed that feeding hungry kids is a good thing, but obviously I should have known better. Considering that these posts have suddenly been buried within the last half hour, you do have to wonder if they are using some sort of idiot swarm approach. Or if it is just one guy logging in under different accounts and burying everything.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letsgetreal50Jan 23, 2012
Republicans could give a rats ass for children! They only care about corporate power that would cement their jobs until they retire or die in office.
Power hungry bastards don't care about people, except when it suits them. Then, they'll tell you any s**t you want to hear. The nominee field this year should tell you that much. THEY DON'T CARE!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harleyman77Jan 23, 2012
"Good Lord, why take it out on kids?"
Well, just watching the Republican debates should tell you that hatred of Obama and misguided anger trump that dirty word: compassion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FenderStratocasterJan 23, 2012
"Most of the food stamps go for CHILDREN."
Citation please.
anomaly100Jan 23, 2012
Google it. I'm on my Android.
FenderStratocasterJan 23, 2012
Nearly half (47 percent) were under age
18. 53%, over half were over 18. So, most food stamps go to adults.
Anomaly was almost right.
allisonrose870Jan 23, 2012
Really Fender, she's more wrong than right based on the info/data provided in Elimgarak's link. (Elim, it may have taken 30 seconds to find the link, but you should have spent more than 30 seconds reading it, lol ; )...
First off, the linked USDA report and its subsequent analysis is based on # of households -- NOT # of participants participating in the program. And even tho # people is cited right at the very onset, it's done so on a per household basis...
"This report provides information about the demographic and economic circumstances of SNAP households in fiscal year 2010".
Most SNAP households were small. The average SNAP household size was 2.2 persons, but varied considerably by household composition. Households with children were larger, averaging 3.3 members. Households with elderly
participants were smaller, averaging 1.3 members.
Findings: Changes Over Time
...the share of households with children fell from 60 percent in 1990 to 49 percent in 2010. This is primarily due
to an increase in single-person households."
and
...households with one person rose from 32
percent of all households to nearly 48 percent."
Therefore, the inference that most go to children is somewhat false and misleading. Children don't apply for SNAP, the head of the household does.
Bottom line is the citation does not support her claim in absolute terms and it looks like an increasing share of SNAP is now going to the elderly as well as households with no cash income of any kind, esp the max benefit which is based on a family of 4...
"Findings: Changes Over Time:
There have been several notable changes in the
characteristics of SNAP households between 1990
and 2010. Some of the most striking changes are:
The percentage of households with no cash
income of any kind nearly tripled. In 1990, 7
percent of SNAP households had zero gross
income. This increased to nearly 20 percent in
2010. Similarly, the percentage of SNAP
households with zero net income, who received
the maximum benefit, rose from 19 percent in
1990 to 38 percent in 2010."
Buy-bye, over n out. Have a jolly good [Mon]day = ]
FenderStratocasterJan 23, 2012
Thanks Ms. Rose. Good work!
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
30 seconds on a search engine:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2010CharacteristicsSummary.pdf
alanocuJan 23, 2012
If that's your final answer, then you have never stood in line behind someone using food stamps.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
If that's your final answer then you don't care about facts and prefer to rely on hearsay and personal recollection in a handful of cases.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2010CharacteristicsSummary.pdfComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
I checked, that link doesn't mention what percentage of recipients sold their benefits for cash or what foods were purchased.
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
What's your point? I never claimed that the link contained this information. And I don't even know how you would gather that information.
Considering families get on average $287, they must not have gotten that much. Do you have any evidence that this is a big problem?
Again, just because you saw some idiot do this type of thing does not mean that the program is bad, or that kids should not be fed. Hearsay does not count as evidence of anything.
Until you provide some statistics or evidence that shows that this is a big issue, it's not a valid a valid method of attacking the food stamp problem. Therefore, irrelevant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
I do actually, 3.05% of food stamp payments were to ineligible recipients totaling roughly $2.5 billion. And that's not even considering retailer fraud (8,500 retailers have been kicked out of the program for it), redemption fraud (where people buy beverages in containers with deposits, dump the contents, and then cash in the deposit), and waste (buying steak at the corner rip-off mart).
"Improper food stamp payments cost the United States roughly $2.5 billion this year as federal spending on the benefits reaches a record $64.7 billion, according to the Department of Agriculture."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/11/maryland-virginia-top-nation-food-stamp-fraud/1962111
elimgarakJan 23, 2012
"I do actually, 3.05% of food stamp payments were to ineligible recipients totaling roughly $2.5 billion."
Ah, neat, I didn't know there were any statistics. But it sounds like this problem is very minor (3% is very little when you are dealing with hungry children) and that it is being addressed. If we do the math and assume that only half of US population pays for this, then it comes out to a loss of about $17 per tax payer. I am more than willing to pay that much if it means that 97% of the money goes to hungry kids, seniors, and working families that have crappy jobs.
The solution is not to remove food stamps - it is to ask for better control. This can be done relatively simply these days. For example, I suspect that the majority of food stamp sales are at large supermarket chains - chains that already have advanced tracking for coupons, digital coupons, buyer advantage cards, etc. Simply pay those chains the money to upgrade the system to track food stamps, and you are done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harleyman77Jan 23, 2012
Ignorant and insulting. Another day for our classy friend bett.
letsgetreal50Jan 22, 2012
The Name is wrong.
It's suppose to be to:
"The Nation of Corporate Welfare."
Why do the republicans always seem blame others for their HUGE Bush/Cheney mistakes?
Those mistakes cost this nation to go into a downward spiral. Those mistakes created a HUGE hole that will take time to climb out of. But there is one very major obstacle. The way, the GOP/T-Bagger Party.
Republicans are the problem. Not Obama. Lets get that straighten out. Obama did not get us into this s**thole we are in.
Republicans got us in the hole and they will continue to destroy voters rights, civil and human rights, by protecting the "apple of their eye," "Wall Street and the 1%" laugh at us because, they know they own the GOP. But, I hope it's not to late to fight them at the polls and while we are at it, lets all join forces with movements like OccupyWallStreet and legislation to kill these SuperPacs and fight for equality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Jan 23, 2012
Wrong. the bulk of our insane debt is thanks to 3 entitlement programs which are growing FASTER then our economy. They are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
ncmusicJan 23, 2012
None of which are responsible for food stamps.
letsgetreal50Jan 23, 2012
I'm entitled to my Social Security and Medicare. I payed the premiums and the benefits are mine. Bought and paid for.
The party (GOP) that f**ks with mine, is my enemy. So say the millions who are on these and those about to retire. f**k with them and you lose millions of votes.
Tax the wealthy instead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mekongkayakJan 24, 2012
Nation of Acheivement...brought to you by the G.I Bill, Union protections, environmental protections, the Fair Deal, The New Deal..and now leaving the messy parts they failed to pay for (global warming, out of control military, financial sharks,etc..f or the next generations to suffer through.
FDR: leader of the Greatest Generation.
GWB: leader of the Worst.
BHO: scapegoat for it all.
aldenbasilJan 23, 2012
great....
skews13Jan 22, 2012
And as we peruse the votes in the commentary, my accusations have been confirmed. You realize that by not acknowledging your obvious, and blatant lie that you only continue to lose credibility with each passing moment right? Now your army of small minded, and weak little boys, and i use the term boy losely, have also lost any credibility they might have had. I'm only going to turn up the heat losers. It doesn't get any easier from here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leonard2Jan 23, 2012
^^Look at this. A moron with no credibility accusing others of no credibility. What a laughingstock. =))
skews13Jan 22, 2012
Reduced to lying now bett? Did you bother to do a quick Google search before posting this nonsense? Apparently not.
raggsat98Jan 23, 2012
You would think that after 3 years Obama would have done more to help the economy of something other than golf courses. Over 90 games played.
skews13Jan 23, 2012
That's the best you've got? It's going to be a long and frustrating year for digg patriots. And your leader who has now proven herself to be a liar that has no longer has any credibility on digg is going to have an even longer year. You nitwits need to find someplace else to hang out. You've overstayed your welcome here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
alanocuJan 23, 2012
Oh honey, I did not just hear you tell someone that they've overstayed their welcome and to find someplace else to hang out?
You stupid little boy.
skews13Jan 23, 2012
I'm not your honey. I don't roll that way. There's nobody here that's special. Certainly not that simple bitch you worship. But i won't waste what that means to you. In fact i can't even touch the down arrow. I would feel sullied.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leonard2Jan 23, 2012
Nit-wit thinks he owns digg lol.
If you don't like the people that are here then why don't you get the f**k out?
pc25Jan 25, 2012
skews = all hat, no cattle.
pc25Jan 23, 2012
what lies jackass? that there has been a 44% increase in food stamps since 2009
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/south-carolina-debate-fact-check/
Agriculture Department statistics show that the number of food stamp recipients has increased 44 percent, to 46.2 million in October 2011, from 32 million in January 2009, when Mr. Obama took office.
The total cost of the program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, increased to $75.3 billion in fiscal year 2011, from $53.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 and $33 billion in fiscal year 2007, before the recession began.
The growth partly reflects an increase in need, as millions of Americans have lost income and lost jobs or remain out of work. In addition, food prices have increased, eligibility has been expanded, and the 2009 economic stimulus law temporarily increased benefits.
skews13Jan 22, 2012
The downvotes aren't going to help you bett. You've now been exposed. An unfortunate event on your part. The credibility that has been called into question has now been proven true.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaketyson85Jan 23, 2012
Look at the percentage of the population that the blacks make up. Now look at the percentage of the prison population that the blacks make up. Draw your own conclusion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
munionhunterJan 23, 2012
Did and done, blacks commit more crimes than whites therefore make up a disproportionate rate in jails and prisons. However, Ron Pauly was wrong about the death row debate, more whites are on death row then blacks. So I think it all evens out in the endComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 23, 2012
Oh we, off by 1.78%
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#deathrowpop
Evens out?