As Republicans Push For Cuts To Food Stamp Program, Poverty Rises, Particularly In Red (Republican) States!

The Republican Party is determined to cut the Food Stamp program as a boondoggle, wasteful spending, and used by recipients, it is claimed, in an abusive manner.

The reality, however, is that about one out of five Americans in polls have stated that they cannot afford their necessary food supply in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

And the irony is that inability to afford food, and the need for food stamps therefore, is most prevalent in the RED or Republican states of the South and Border states–including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia and Louisiana!

So it is RED states that suffer from hunger, and the reality is that about 50 percent of the food stamp recipients are children, and another 8 percent are elderly.

Statistics show that 18 percent of recipients have no income at all; 41 percent have half the poverty level income; and only 14 percent have incomes above the poverty level. Also, less than 10 percent get a welfare payment along with food stamps. And the assets of these poor souls is less than $100 in savings per family!

Is this the best we can do, and is this what the Republican Party wishes to stand for–to undermine the groups and states that vote for them in state and national elections?

This is a disgrace, which is an understatement!

One comment on “As Republicans Push For Cuts To Food Stamp Program, Poverty Rises, Particularly In Red (Republican) States!

  1. redw0lf24 August 28, 2012 9:16 am

    Professor, if you would also care to look at the states that give the most to charity – you would find those are the “red” states. Money given to Charities house/feed/clothe the poor and in a much more efficient, effective, and dare I say humane method.

    Your preference is that government takes money from some and provides it to others in the name of “charity”, but this is not charity, this is simply welfare and wealth redistribution and does not require any accountability for the success of the program – they just need more money.

    In contrast, charities survive solely on their ability to carry out their mission with the grants and contributions from people that believe in and support their mission.

    The Red Cross & Salvation Army are examples of successful charities that receive funds, from government, but mostly from average Americans. Would the Red Cross & Salvation Army be the same if they were funded/run solely at the behest of government?

    Reference: http://philanthropy.com/article/The-Politics-of-Giving/133609/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.