If you're still not convinced that we're in a recession, this might change your mind. Fourteen states are already reporting record numbers of food stamp applicants, reports the New York Times, boosting the national total to 28 million people who will require the welfare. The projected value of the sum is $36 billion.
In order to receive food stamps, a family must report a near-poverty income, a figure that varies depending on how many people are in the family. A family of four that survives on $27,000 per year, for example, would qualify for the stamps, which have benefits of about $100 per month per person. A single person earning just over $10,000/year would also qualify.
In Michigan, one in eight residents currently receives food stamps, while in New York, one in ten does. In both states, the number has soared since the last recession in 2000.
The Food Stamp Program (FSP) began in back in the 1930s, but didn't take on its present form for another 30 years. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson requested Congress to pass legislation making the FSP permanent, and later that year it did. In 1965, the number of recipients nationwide was just over half a million, costing a total of $75 million.
In the 44 years since, the program has grown stronger -- and more necessary -- each year. In the 1990s, the FSP started growing exponentially, and without it, many more Americans would be starving today than those that already are.
What does all this mean? A lot of things. It means we need the government's help to ensure that everyone can enjoy a healthy diet. It means those of us with jobs and decent incomes shouldn't balk at paying taxes, which fund programs like the FSP. It means that our current administration could be allocating a lot less money to certain causes (e.g. Iraq) and devoting it instead to feeding its own people. And most of all, it means that we're heading for some very lean times.
Record 28 Million Americans to Receive Food Stamps in '09



Check our most impactful articles and see how popular these opinions are with you.
Will others follow in your footsteps? Share your thoughts and ideas for changing the world.



who in our government looks at these 'indicator' statistics prior to the US entering into a war and says 'we will not be able to take care of our own if we engage in this conflict'? why is this information not shared more publicly? if war is the choice - why are we not more efficient and effective in taking out enemies that pose long terms risks to our freedom and safety? is it really better to allow civil wars to linger indefinitely in these regions effectively terrorizing families and children?