So as it turns out, the number of people receiving food stamps is falling.

In 2010 there were 40.3 Million on the SNAP program.
In 2013 there were 47.6 Million food stamp recipients. (this is the record for the program by the way).
2016 there were 44.2 Million.
In July, 2017 "only" 42.6 Million were on the program.

Now before supporters jump to credit Trump with the reductions, and unsupporters jump to demonize Trump (cause, you know, it's Trump), a bit of background on the program is required, so we can see if we even give a shit that the numbers are dropping.

The pilot program that became SNAP started in 1959 and was made permanent in 1964. Cause, you know, Congress never found a benefit program they didn't like.........

In any case, under the program, working-age adults without children can receive benefits for three months in three years. After that time limit, they must work at least 80 hours per month or participate in an education or job training program for that same amount of time. States can temporarily waive the three-month time limit when unemployment rates rise, and many did so during the economic recession that started in the late 2000s.

So the food stamp program isn't just a giveaway program for lazy people; there is a work requirement tucked in there.

Also, there are restrictions on what people can buy with their food stamps; no booze. No cigarettes. No pet food. No hot food (McDonalds in other words, can't take your food stamps). You can't buy household products, you know, like toilet paper or cleaning supplies. You can't use them for pharmaceuticals. So, no, you can't buy condoms with food stamps. Or KY Jelly for that matter. Or antacids.

You can buy just about anything a grocery sells that is edible. And, you can buy seeds to grow food. It is, after all a nutritional assistance program, not a rider for unemployment benefits.

There's another interesting thing about food stamps; The data shows that the share of Americans getting SNAP benefits rises and falls pretty accurately along with the percentage of Americans living at or below the poverty line. Huh. Think about that for a moment.

The share of Americans getting SNAP benefits rises and falls pretty accurately along with the percentage of Americans living at or below the poverty line​

For the conceptually challenged, SNAP enrollment also is a good indicator of the percentage of Americans in poverty. Lower SNAP recipients means fewer people living in poverty. Higher SNAP recipients means more poverty in the US.

Enrollment in SNAP is dropping. Supporters and unsupporters can fight about who should get credit for this decline; whether because Trump is an ogre who is cutting the program (true; he has been a long time critic of SNAP and wants to cut $193 Billion from it over the next decade) or because lazy assholes are being kicked off the program when they hit the 90 day limit and are still not willing to find a job.

But what Shooter finds fascinating is that apparently fewer Americans are living at or below the poverty line. Setting aside politics and who you like for President, that deserves a great big

 

Don't celebrate too long Shooter. The snowflakes will be along soon to spin this to blame Trump and republicans for the drop in enrollment.

 

The food stamp program was never designed to benefit the poor people.
It was designed to provide a reliable market for farmers. It was first called commodities. The government would buy up produce from farmers to keep the price from dropping so far it would put them out of business. It changed over to food stamps when stores and markets decided they wanted in on the guaranteed government market.

 

Isn't that welfare for farmers? And don't we still have farm subsidy programs?

 

Oooooh...stumbler earns a gold star.

You keep that up mister.....you get another gold star this week, you'll also get a brand new box of 64 count crayola crayons...( with the sharpener on the back of the box)..

We're all rootin' for ya.

 

I have my doubts about your real level of interest but just in case here some really good graphs about food stamps which have actually been decking for a while now.

http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts

 

I heard it's because they're starving to death so there's less to provide for..

 

That is a fucking low blow bro, using a cat image to end your post. You know everyone loves cat videos and images so nice deflection by trying to make us forget about whatever you said by tugging on our heartstrings lol.

Don't kid yourself bro, the US economy and state of affairs is in the crapper ...

And didn't you make another thread on this last week, or someone did anyway.

 

Have you learned to color inside the lines yet bro ???

 

Eh...I'm still practicing.

 

Just so I understand the OP:

You cut funding to food stamps so that you have less people on it, then you point to less people on it as less people needing it?

 

Just 28 million people received the benefits in 2008.--(before the market crash and the Great Recession)

An average of 44 million people received SNAP benefits in 2016,
down from a peak of 47 million in 2013.

As the Great President Obama led the USA and the world out of the Financial mess Bush caused the
benevolent Obama allowed more and more people on the food stamp rolls that helped them with the suffering
caused buy the greedy bankers lead by President Bush....

By the master control of Obama and his economy less people over time needed the food stamps
as they once again
found jobs.

It only seems natural that less money should be spend on food donation from the taxpayers now that less need it....

Unemployment is down to 4.5% compare the the high of 9 or 10%.....less people needing help...

 

So it's Obama's fault?

 

Worrying about who was at fault is for morons... The great thinkers are concerned with who is making progress in eliminating the problem.

 

So, according to Randy, Obama did. That was my point. It was Obama's "fault" for reducing the number of people on food stamps, according to what Randy said. So you inadvertently called me a great thinker here.


You can't even insult me correctly. That's embarrassing.

 

read it again what is wrong with Obama increasing jobs.....???

simple as a b c go fish.....more people working less people need help....

 

Insulting YOU? Lol! I am merely pointing out the obvious my young friend. Blame is for losers, winners take action...

 

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Quite frankly, I agree with you. But the thread was created under a different premise, where it's all Trump's doing. So I used what you said as a trap, because you effectively went against the OP. Well, the trap was sprung, just in a much dumber way than I anticipated.

 

I'm glad you agree with us that Obama was certainly a winner.

 

we came back in spite of Obama.....