By MARC McDONALD
Feeding America, a non-profit food bank network group, reports that hunger is "increasing at an alarming rate in the United States."
Despite this, a recent review by The Associated Press found that dozens of food-stamp programs in 39 states left at least a quarter of applicants waiting weeks or months for food aid.
America is currently in the grip of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. With millions of ongoing job layoffs and a high jobless rate, it shouldn't be surprising that many American families are now finding it increasing difficult to afford even the basics, including food.
The cost of the U.S. food stamp program runs around $50 billion a year. That may sound like a lot, until you consider that it is nickel-dime chump change, compared with other government programs that primarily benefit the wealthy.
Take for example, Bush's bailout of the corrupt gangsters on Wall Street. That welfare-for-the-rich program is set to cost the U.S. taxpayers a cool $1 trillion.
Of course, even that pales in significance compared to the $3 trillion that the U.S. is flushing down the toilet in the fiasco known as the Iraq War (and the ever-growing costs of the fiasco known as the Afghanistan War).
For the same amount the U.S. spends in a few months in Iraq, we could fully fund the U.S. food stamp program for one year and ensure that no children go to bed hungry.
But then again, crony corporate pigs like Halliburton and Blackwater might then have to suffer a slight decrease in the billions they've reaped in closed, no-bid contracts in Iraq.
So while the Top One Percent of rich Americans continue to gorge themselves with a generous helping of our tax dollars, ordinary citizens continue to struggle as the U.S. economic crisis continues.
AP notes that currently, a record 40 million people (one in eight Americans) now rely on food stamps.
"The number of participating households increased by one-fifth in fiscal 2009, and many states' food-stamp rolls grew by a third or more" AP reported.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Y'all socilists jest don't understand how our great economy works. Repeal all them welfare programs, and cut taxes for corporations and rich people, and watch the economy soar!
HAAAA---the only thing that happens when you cut taxes for corporations and the rich is that the economy and everyone else gets SORE. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty and hunger in this country. It is high time we stand the very wealthy on their heads and shake all the coins and cash out of their pockets---at least enough to feed the hungry and raise living standards for the poor, working poor, and middle class!
Excuse me, I meant, repeal all them welfair programs, and watch the economy sore!
Hi Manifesto Joe, thanks for stopping by and for your comment.
Interesting fact: did you know that WalMart is one of the biggest supporters of programs like food stamps and Medicaid?
Not because they give a sh*t about the poor, but because those programs make WalMart's business model viable. (WalMart offers such sh*tty wages and benefits that the only way their workers can make ends meet is via food stamps and Medicaid). It turns out that WalMart's "Always Low Prices" aren't so low after all, when you factor in the taxpayers' subsidies of their workers.
But try to explain all that to a Sarah Palin-supporting Tea Bagger.
Hi Jack, thanks for your comment.
re:
>>It is high time we stand the
>>very wealthy on their heads and
>>shake all the coins and cash out
>>of their pockets
Right on, brother.
But actually, I'd just be happy if the wealthy paid as much of their income into taxes as ordinary working people like me did.
The fact is, they don't. Even mega-billionaire Warren Buffett has admitted that, even though he doesn't try to avoid higher taxes, he pays less of his income into tax than does his secretary and his cleaning lady.
The IRS tax code is comprised of some 26 volumes. The part of the tax code that applies to working stiffs like me only takes up a few sentences. So what, exactly, is in the rest of those 26 volumes of dense legal jargon? It's obvious that it is in fact nothing more than various loopholes for the rich.
The IRS tax code is complicated for a reason. Complexity makes it easier to hide loopholes for the rich.
The conventional wisdom in America is that the rich would support a simple flat tax. But in reality, the rich do NOT want a flat tax. They are scared sh*tless that, under a simple flat tax, there would no longer be any tax loopholes for them. They might (gasp!) have to actually start paying as much of their income into taxes as the "little people" do.
BTW, I myself do not support a flat tax. But it is a measure of just how unfair the current tax code is that a flat tax would actually be more progressive than the "steal-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich" tax code we have now.
I'm hoping that goddamned upside down pyramid we call an economy implodes at the top soon. There's so much corporate welfare and the future wealth of millions bloating it to the point of becoming a quantum singularity. God knows I hate commies, but I think China's state capitalist model will become quite popular when Wall Street eventually falls apart when the government can't freebase them cash from the Treasury anymore...
Glad you're back Jack, been too damned long.
-WageslaveZ-
Hi WageslaveZ,
re:
>>>Glad you're back Jack, been too
>>>damned long.
Thanks for the kind words. (Actually, though, my name is Marc).
re:
>>>God knows I hate commies
The problem is that "communism" and "socialism" have, at least in the U.S., become such loaded terms that it's impossible to rationally discuss their merits (or to even acknowlege that they may indeed have merits in the first place).
As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. ruling establishment and its media allies have never adequately (for me, at least) explained how a state-controlled economy would be worse than the corporate-controlled system we have now.
However, one thing they have done very well is they've very effectively demonized the very words "socialism" and "communism."
Therefore, it's impossible for most people (even progressives) to consider the possibility that leaders like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro may actually, in fact, have their good points.
No, instead, we Americans are only allowed to think of them in simplistic black-and-white terms. They're "evil," pure and simple. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a dangerous radical, who isn't to be taken seriously.
My bad, kept thinking Jack Jodell ran this page, but this was your show all along Marc. That's what 10 months of inactivity does. Anyway, still missed this page.
-WageslaveZ-
Post a Comment