US: $4 billion on food stamps

Originally posted by Surtur
That seems like a lot until you think about other crap money has been wasted on. Like that one jet plane(I forget the name) that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and has BARELY been used. Where is the outrage over that? People can eat food, they can't eat aircrafts or fighter jets.

The F-35 is the name of the jet you're thinking of.

And it has a cost of over $750 billion over it's whole life, so far.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398

Let's take a look at that:

312 million people living in the US.

750 billion dollars.

That's $2403.85 for every single person in America.

But let's think of this a different way. How about a college fund for every single child in America? All those under 18.

74.2 million.

http://www.aecf.org/resources/the-changing-child-population-of-the-united-states/

So 750/.0742 = $10,107.82

Not bad. How about we start a college fund for all children instead of the entire F-35 program?

🙂

Really, I'd prefer we setup of a guaranteed income.

Let's chop the "defense" budget in half and then use the other half to setup a partial universal healthcare option.

Edit - My cost estimate for a true universal healthcare option in the US was a bit more than $2 trillion, annually. But my estimate did not account for the fact that younger Americans do not use healthcare nearly as often as older Americans (because my estimate was based on the expansion of medicare). So, likely, a true universal healthcare cost would be somewhere between $500 billion and $2 trillion, annually. This is in addition to the existing cost of the medicare program.

He's probably thinking of the F-22, since the F-35 is new and hasn't really had a chance to sit and collect dust while costing the US taxpayers billions.

edit: Good article though, funny how the "fly away cost" we're told always seems to be substantially smaller than the actual dollars spent.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's probably thinking of the F-22, since the F-35 is new and hasn't really had a chance to sit and collect dust while costing the US taxpayers billions.

No, the F-35 is what he was talking about.

Program for the F-35 started in 2006. It has been a financial disaster costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Fraught with delays, data loss due to spying, and mismanaged budgeting, it is the "pinnacle" of shitty US Government project management.

The fact that the US Government continues to fund the program is a testament to how disconnected and shitty our elected representatives are, on average. There are some excellent reps, of course, that veto budget stuff related to things like the F-35 (Ron Paul), but the average congressman votes "yes" on these things.

Ah, my error then. Thought it was more recent.

They say "yes" to these taxpayer scams (are they anything but?), because they're paid to, imo.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-100-billion-on-food-assistance-last-year/

At least 40% of the entire population of the US participated in food assistance programs.

WTF?

Well if you read the article you would have seen them mention the national school lunch program. And the vast majority of public schools participate so that’s a huge amount of people right there counted in that percentage. So it’s not like 40% of the population is on food stamps. Although, that is still a very large amount.

The cold part about the F-35 is that it's replacing the A-10, and just about every serviceman in the military is like "DO NOT WANT". The A-10 being retired is a super unpopular move, and most tests point to the F-35 being inferior to the A-10 in performance and cost (it costs something like 10 million to build the A-10 vs 100 million to build the F-35).

Anyway, per the thread, at one point we were throwing 50 billion a month into the fire to fund the War on Terror. I absolutely don't give a shit about 4 billion a year.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The cold part about the F-35 is that it's replacing the A-10, and just about every serviceman in the military is like "DO NOT WANT". The A-10 being retired is a super unpopular move, and most tests point to the F-35 being inferior to the A-10 in performance and cost (it costs something like 10 million to build the A-10 vs 100 million to build the F-35).

Anyway, per the thread, at one point we were throwing 50 billion a month into the fire to fund the War on Terror. I absolutely don't give a shit about 4 billion a year.

http://giphy.com/search/slow-clap

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Anyway, per the thread, at one point we were throwing 50 billion a month into the fire to fund the War on Terror. I absolutely don't give a shit about 4 billion a year.

It's actually 100 billion a year and just under 75 billion is on food stamps.

Btw, interesting tidbit for you: Foodstamps are the best known economic stimulus, period.

Because they always get spent on food, relatively quickly. Food at supermarkets, which in turn is a business that has a high product turnaround and buys new product on a daily basis. And is fairly employee heavy, giving it to employees who are of in an income bracket that normally has to spend a good portion of their income on necessity. Meaning the money changes hands multiple times in rapid succession.

Money-wise, the rate of return of food-stamps-to-economy is really good, each dollar spent on food stamps adds multiple dollars to the economy. And not to the rich corporations and people who sit on money in their coffers for awhile, but at low-level.

If you want return on investment, there's actually nothing you can funnel foodstamp money to that'd get you more bang for your buck.

Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
Perhaps if people were paid livable wages, there wouldn't be such a great need for food stamps. The people that abuse the system make up a small percent of those who actually need food stamps.

I needed them at one point being sick and out of work, but it was ridiculously hard to apply for them, so I wasn't able to get them. Not easy to get in Texas. srug

Yea, that's another thing, the abuse factor is so low, that trying to eliminate any 'misuse' (which often isn't) often costs more than the cost of doing so, and a large amount of the people who need 'em nowadays are working poor. Making people jump through hoops and having people track down the very small (single-digit-percentage) amount of problems literally costs more than those problems cause.

A lot of people trying to put in more restrictions are basically more interested in punishing people who use 'em than they are in doing anything that makes the slightest economic sense.

Hand-wringing over food stamps and opposition to the program is one of the most bizarre things politicians in the US try and focus on. It literally returns more than it costs, helps people become less poor, and gives a basic need.

Originally posted by Q99
Hand-wringing over food stamps and opposition to the program is one of the most bizarre things politicians in the US try and focus on. It literally returns more than it costs, helps people become less poor, and gives a basic need.

Also, providing food, shelter, and clothing for the poor (read: single mothers/parents and their children, the elderly, and those that cannot earn due to disabilities) is also one of the most Christ-like things Americans can do. Odd that so many politicians, who often use religion as a reason they should be elected, don't actually do the very basics of their faiths.

http://bluenationreview.com/jon-stewart-obama-poverty-and-the-danger-of-fox-news/

Well, looks like I was wrong about my comment about food stamps putting money back in the hands of corporations!

👆 q99

We should start our own country.

Originally posted by krisblaze
I suggest removing this system and giving people salaries they can live off 👆

The problem with that idea is that many would use it to buy drugs, and other things that may be unproductive in our society.

Originally posted by Stoic
The problem with that idea is that many would use it to buy drugs, and other things that may be unproductive in our society.

Wut

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-100-billion-on-food-assistance-last-year/

At least 40% of the entire population of the US participated in food assistance programs.

WTF?

Is that really any surprise with a dumbocrat in the white house?

"In 1981, the Food Stamps Program experienced severe budget cuts during the Administration of President Ronald Reagan. This reduction in program funding was associated with a subsequent rise in hunger in America during the 1980s.

Some funding was restored to the Food Stamp Program in 1988 and 1990 in order to combat the hunger crisis in America." SNAP

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, providing food, shelter, and clothing for the poor (read: single mothers/parents and their children, the elderly, and those that cannot earn due to disabilities) is also one of the most Christ-like things Americans can do. Odd that so many politicians, who often use religion as a reason they should be elected, don't actually do the very basics of their faiths.

Yes. It's like, some of the opponents claim to be religion, but 'do you even Christian?'.

Read this, some Wisconsin Politicians want to give arbitrary limits like no shellfish, no potatoes, no white rice, bagels, creamed vegetables...

Can you imagine? According to these people, the problem is the poor are eating too much potatoes, rice, and vegetables.

Star428
Is that really any surprise with a dumbocrat in the white house?

Hey, by any chance do you remember something called a 'world economic crash' that started, oh, the end of the previous president's term, under the other party?

Or the party that's interested in tax cuts in the rich while cutting programs that help people out of poverty? I mean, do you think that people get out of poverty faster if they do, or do not, have aid in getting food?

Or the President who has dropped unemployment from over 10% to 5.5% during his term, so far? Hint, it's the one you call a 'dumbocrat'. In fact, Ronald Reagan also had to deal with a 10% unemployment rate, and at the end of his term he got it down to 5.5% unemployment, you know, where we are right now under Obama, who still has a year to go.

Meanwhile, countries that followed the advice of the 'dumbocrats' opposition and used Austerity have recovered noticeably less in the same amount of time, and had double, triple, and even quadruple dip recessions, where we've avoided going back into recession even once.

A bit of advice to you specifically Star, when it comes to economics, your instincts tend to be somewhat.... off. When you instictively react in one direct, consider what the opposite of that reaction is, and that's likely closer to accurate.

Originally posted by Robtard
"In 1981, the Food Stamps Program experienced severe budget cuts during the Administration of President Ronald Reagan. This reduction in program funding was associated with a subsequent rise in hunger in America during the 1980s.

Some funding was restored to the Food Stamp Program in 1988 and 1990 in order to combat the hunger crisis in America." SNAP

1988-1990?? Darn those Dumbocrats .... *flips through* Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush!

😉

Those two got it. It's not purely a party thing. Sometimes people need help, and the foodstamp program is one of the more successful government programs.

Originally posted by Q99
Yes. It's like, some of the opponents claim to be religion, but 'do you even Christian?'.

Read this, some Wisconsin Politicians want to give arbitrary limits like no shellfish, no potatoes, no white rice, bagels, creamed vegetables...

Can you imagine? According to these people, the problem is the poor are eating too much potatoes, rice, and vegetables.

Hey, by any chance do you remember something called a 'world economic crash' that started, oh, the end of the previous president's term, under the other party?

Or the party that's interested in tax cuts in the rich while cutting programs that help people out of poverty? I mean, do you think that people get out of poverty faster if they do, or do not, have aid in getting food?

Or the President who has dropped unemployment from over 10% to 5.5% during his term, so far? Hint, it's the one you call a 'dumbocrat'. In fact, Ronald Reagan also had to deal with a 10% unemployment rate, and at the end of his term he got it down to 5.5% unemployment, you know, where we are right now under Obama, who still has a year to go.

Meanwhile, countries that followed the advice of the 'dumbocrats' opposition and used Austerity have recovered noticeably less in the same amount of time, and had double, triple, and even quadruple dip recessions, where we've avoided going back into recession even once.

A bit of advice to you specifically Star, when it comes to economics, your instincts tend to be somewhat.... off. When you instictively react in one direct, consider what the opposite of that reaction is, and that's likely closer to accurate.

Also the 5.5% is based on those pulling from unemployment which runs out, the spending on welfare has greatly increased post Bush.