46,486,434 Americans received food stamps in July

The figure is down 2.4% from a year ago, according to the report released today.

Food stamp recipient level up 0.6% in June 2014

46,496,145 million Americans received food stamps in June 2014. The level remains down from a year ago, now by 2.6%.

The total cost in June was $5.77 billion.

For the years 2010 through 2013 the average monthly benefit per person has been $133 and change.

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Food stamps go to 46,225,054 Americans in May 2014

Down 3% from May 2013.

Food stamp recipients decline 2.7% in April 2014 from a year ago

Total recipients in April 2014 ticked up from the month earlier to 46,247,450 but remain down from 47,548,577 a year prior.

Food stamps go to 46.098 million Americans in March 2014, down 3.4% from a year ago

Year over year the numbers are down overall, but the number of recipients is up in a number of states, for example, in California 3.7%, 3.9% in Connecticut, 6.9% in Nevada and 3.7% in West Virginia. 

Food Stamp Recipients In June Edged Up Again To Near Record Level

The number of people receiving food assistance edged up again in June to 47,760,285, just shy of the record in December 2012 which was 47,792,056.

The reports may be viewed here.

Data is through September 6th.

15.18% of America's population of 314.69 million receives government food assistance, or 1 in 6.6 individuals, each receiving less than $133 per month or $1.47 per meal.

Obama Calls His Eavesdropping On 100 Million Americans "Modest"

Making 47 million people on food stamps just chopped liver, huh?

Here:

"And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on net, it was worth us doing." 

Food Stamp Households Up, Not Persons, Can Only Mean One Thing

Smaller households.

Food stamp recipient numbers surged up again in March 2013 to 47.727 million Americans, but this did not break the record as claimed by Drudge and Zero Hedge headlines.

The record was reached in December 2012 at 47.792 million.

Zero Hedge is making the claim based on the number of households, not the number of persons. The only thing the former statistic might prove is that as the country becomes more single it becomes more poor. Marriage and family is the economic engine of capitalism, and Obama aims to destroy them both. He's succeeding, which is why Rush Limbaugh famously hoped Obama would fail.

Persons on SNAP have been at the 47 million level since August 2012.

Data here.

Obama The Marxist Thinks The Middle Class Is His Greatest And Most Dangerous Enemy

"The most dangerous enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat."

"The greatest internal enemy of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impose a dearth of ammo for their guns, mediocritize their healthcare, impoverish them with unemployment, make them servile with food stamps and disability payments, destroy their incentive to save with artificially low interest rates, spy on them with cameras, wire taps, drones and email intercepts, make it too expensive to travel, or too humiliating, dumb them down with inadequate public school educations, reduce them to the level of the gutter in their speech and morals through ridicule of all standards of public discourse and thinking, and destroy all traditional conceptions in institutions from the Boy Scouts to the US military. Politicize everything, but threaten the wrong politics with the power of the State. Anesthetize with drugs. Make them hate the rich so they stop trying to be so. Meanwhile, party, and spend their money like it's never been spent before.

New Food Stamp Record Set In December 2012: 47.79 Million Americans

Wily Democrats Ramped Up Spending Baseline Almost 18% In 2009

The Tax Policy Center here provides a useful history in pdf format of federal outlays and revenues going back to 1940.

After taking complete control of the federal purse strings in January 2009 with the election of President Obama, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate proceeded to ramp up federal spending almost 18% in 2009 compared to 2008, from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. You can see from the chart that expenditures have continued at that new, higher level ever since, despite the fact that revenues have not recovered. Is this the height of irresponsibility, or what? It certainly is one of the more baneful consequences of one party Democrat rule. Now you understand why Democrats won't pass budgets. Continuing this excess using continuing spending resolutions keeps their names out of the papers.

You'll notice on the revenue side for 2008 and 2009 that the government's income from taxes of all sorts declined almost 17% while these expenditures were being dramatically increased at nearly the same rate, opening up a gigantic fissure in the government fiscal landscape. Revenues declined by $419 billion between 2008 and 2009 while expenditures increased $535 billion. The revenues declined due to the bursting of the housing bubble, the ensuing financial panic and the massive unemployment which followed. Nearly 11.31 million Americans lost their full time jobs between November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2009. People who don't work don't pay taxes. With federal outlays already running over $450 billion in excess of revenues, you can understand why the deficit in 2009 swelled to over $1.4 trillion, and continues elevated at that level every year since. Deficits for fiscal years 2009-2012 will top well over $5 trillion in the end. At the Bush-level of deficit spending, the number would have been closer to $3.5 trillion.

In exchange for that astounding liability we have fat bankers not prosecuted for their crimes; bigger banks more dangerous than ever; fat government salaries at every level compared to the private sector; crony capitalism in banking, autos and healthcare; 5 million homes repossessed in seven years; over 12 million officially unemployed; over 2 million per year leaving the labor force for Social Security disability, reduced lifestyles, poverty, or retirement; nearly 48 million on food stamps; GDP struggling to average 1% per year under Obama, the worst performance in 65 years; interest rates near zero destroying returns on retirement capital; an exploding wave of reduced work in the form of impermanent contract and part-time labor; and on and on.

And what's hot on the web right now?

"Where's my refund?" 

Pittsburgh Tribune Review Agrees Obama Is Essentially A Fascist

According to an editorial in Saturday's Pittsburgh Tribune Review, here, agreeing with John Mackey the CEO of Whole Foods, Obama is essentially a fascist. The editorial approvingly quotes this definition of fascism by libertarian Sheldon Richman:

“As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. For those with the hubris to think they, not free markets, could better serve society, ‘fascism‘ (or as we prefer, 'fascistic economics') was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone (classic) liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism.”

Just when you thought there's been no progress defining for the public who and what is Obama, a businessman and a newspaper provide some:

"The general parallels to Obamanomics are glaring. Throw in the specifics of ObamaCare — then consider forays into national industrial policy and state protection of organized labor cartels — and the parallels are blinding", the editorial says.

Not that America's odd mixture of socialism and capitalism is something new.

It was Herbert Hoover, as far as I know, who was the first liberal to identify the American phenomenon of a mixed economics. Hoover located it in the blended strongman presidency of FDR, which was based more on Roosevelt's admiration for Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler as leaders than it was on substantive convictions about the dismal science. The alphabet soup of government which we take for granted today is the direct descendant of Roosevelt's impulse to try something, try anything, until it worked. Well, they're still trying.

Under Roosevelt, perfectly good food was deliberately destroyed by government to keep it from reaching the market in order to support prices in a deflationary economy even as people went hungry all across the country. Today we deliberately devote half the corn crop to produce an expensive, politically correct fuel boosting the cost of food animals while the number of people on food stamps is at an all time high and consumer demand has fallen like a rock. In the immortal words of Curly, if at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed.

But Hoover the loser was on to something, even if calling the man who beat him an un-American dictator lover was beyond the pale for some people. History eventually proved Hoover right when FDR broke with American tradition dating from the founding by running for a third term, and then a fourth. It took until 1951 for the American people to wake up and put a stop to that, with the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Some dictators are assassinated, others just end up in the circular file. In many ways, Roosevelt simply out-Hoovered Hoover's own liberalism. People forget that FDR ran on what amounted to a repudiation of Republican liberal economic interventionism in the economy, and promptly ramped it up beyond anyone's imagination after he was elected.

But the blended system in America surely began much earlier. We could dial it back probably all the way to Lincoln himself, which would be fitting if only because the current occupant of The White House who practices fascism goes to such great pains to style himself after him, the president who chose to make the principle of national union over sovereign States the new definition of America. That fact of working a revolution, of remaking the country, should trouble everyone who has an ounce of independence left flowing through his veins, which is what troubles so many people who hear Obama speak of transforming the country. For half of us, one such revolution was enough.

This year we might do well to reflect on a later example, however, seeing that it is the anniversary of the abolition of private banking 100 years ago. It's strangely coincidental. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law in 1913 by a fanatical progressive Presbyterian named Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat who hated the encumbrances placed upon government by the constitutional order and wanted to forge a new world where nations disarmed, lived in peace and cooperated toward a common goal, with the US not at its then natural place, at the head. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in thoroughly partisan fashion by Democrats who had swept to power in the election of 1912 and rammed it through the Congress without Republican support. Their dollar then is now worth 4 cents.

If Woodrow Wilson doesn't yet remind you of Obama and ObamaCare, maybe its because after 100 years of the pernicious effects of American style fascism, you're just too poor to pay attention.

Food Stamps In September Hit New Record 47.7 Million Americans

Hm. There's that number "47" again.

Data here.

One Month Later, Obama Still Has Less Than 51% Of Popular Vote

One month after the election, Obama still can't crack the 51% level in the popular vote.

With 127.6 million votes counted, he's still at 50.88%, only just slightly better than George W. Bush's 2004 win with 50.73% when 122.3 million voted.

W didn't have a mandate then, and Obama doesn't now.

The truly remarkable thing about the presidential election remains the voters' giant shoulder shrug in the worst economy since WWII. We'll never know how things might have turned out had the Republicans not picked a me-too liberal and run a real conservative instead of Mitt Romney, whose first act after his nomination was formalized was to trot out his wife to assure us all how conservative was her husband. Liberal Democrats aren't the only ones suffering from projection syndrome.

As it was the voters shrugged in comparison to 2008 and 2004 when 43% and 42% of the population voted. This year just 40% did.

As FDR bought election after election during the Great Depression of the 1930s with direct federal assistance programs and interventions in the New Deal and culminating in the Social Security Act of 1935 in the Second New Deal, Obama has similarly blunted the pain of our economic straits with massive expansions of unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare and disability, cell phones, heating assistance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, culminating in the Supreme Court's validation this summer of ObamaCare.

Whatever else may be said, doling out the goodies worked then, and it has worked again, which speaks volumes about the ineffectual nature of the kind of conservative revolution worked by Ronald Reagan, which was no revolution because it was at heart a compromise with the liberal welfare state, not an overturning of it.

Half of America may still hunger for a real meal of conservatism, but so far, all they've been fed are Twinkies.

Obamas Spend Millions On State Dinners, Put Millions On Food Stamps

The numbers reported in this story are truly appalling, three to five times more expensive than Clinton's most expensive state dinners:

A knowledgeable government official who made the documents available to The Examiner said the extravagant spending seemed unfair with so many Americans out of work.

"It just kind of takes your breath away to see the expenditure of money that has occurred since 2009," the official said.

2nd Estimate of Q2 GDP Rises to 1.7 Percent from 1.5, Q1 Still at 2.0 Percent

The news release is here.

The awful number is no longer 1.5 percent, but 1.7 percent. An annualized growth of this small magnitude is about half of the historical average up until the year 2000. In the post-WW2 period GDP averaged about 3.5 percent per annum until the turn of the century.

From 2000 to now, however, GDP growth has been far less robust, with year 2004 the lone year as high as 3.5 percent. All the rest have been lower, with some negative in the little depression of 2008 and 2009.

The pdf is here.

Has it occurred to anyone we were spending too much money taking the war to the enemy, and making war on the American people in the name of security, and subsidizing too much stuff like drugs for seniors, food stamps, and healthcare? Ratcheting up these expenditures during the last decade has coincided with a streak of terrible growth numbers.

The necessity of spending cuts has never been greater, but our politicians, of both parties, seem bent on doing anything but cut spending. Which is why AAA went away.

Government Payments Like Social Security/Medicare Consume 89 Percent Of Tax Revenues

The government collects only $2.66 trillion in taxes but spends $2.36 trillion just on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like, summed up as Personal Current Transfer Payments.

If we ran a balanced budget, that would leave just $300 billion for everything else, such as defending the country from our enemies, for which we actually spend about $700 billion currently.

Total current expenditures are running at $3.8 trillion, nearly 41 percent more than we presently take in.

That's Hysterical: Do 2 Recessions Equal 1 Depression?

So Paul Vigna in The Wall Street Journal, here:

"Do two global recessions equal a modern depression? We seem destined to find out."

Notice the word "modern",  as if to say we in our time are much too advanced to have an old-fashioned depression like they had way back in the day. You know, a god-awful depression where massive numbers of people go hungry and die before their time.

The fact is depressions happen. They have a technical character. You can measure them. Some are indeed severe, as in 1920. Some are also short, as in 1920. Some are relatively shallow, as in 2008 or 1937, and go on forever due to incompetence. Some are severe and go on forever due to incompetence, as in 1931, or in Greece today. Our problem is that we won't agree to agree on a name for this depression enemy this time around because depressions don't happen in "modern" times. Insisting that depressions don't happen in "modern" times is actually a form of hubris. And you know what cometh before a fall. But try telling that to an entire civilization.

By the way, isn't the "modern" age over already? The old right in America, you know, the opposition to FDR in the 1930s, used to stand against the modern age which FDR, and Wilson before him, represented. There's still a magazine in print by that name which hails from the conservative ethos of that very time and continues to talk about this, which really is a mark of true conservative distinction, seeing that conservatism at its best brings forward into the present the truths, and critiques, of the past. But "modern" truly is an old conception which is getting a little long in the tooth to continue to be used of this age when we have clearly moved on in any number of ways, except perhaps in our conceits. An exception to this might be our nostalgia for Glass-Steagall, which makes us sort of conservatives of modernism, if it's permissible to speak that way.

But I digress.

What thoughtful people are worrying about at this moment is that we could re-elect this incompetent boob, Barack Obama, who is working on the choom gang, and finally go really and truly insolvent while he fritters away four more years getting in touch with his inner Arnold Palmer. Some people think insolvency is actually his objective, which to my mind gives him way more credit than he deserves. He seems to think money grows on trees, planted by the financial, insurance and real estate sectors, but hasn't yet figured out that his usefulness to them comes with an expiration date not unlike the expiration dates which attach to all the promises he has made and end up going poof into the air.

When liberals finally do conclude the emperor has no clothes on, this indeed will be all over, but the problem with that is that most liberals went to public school. They won't figure it out until it's way too late. Say 2022, if they live that long.

The left already figured it out, however, in the first year of Obama's presidency, but decided to make their strategy of destroying the country Obama's strategy by continuing to support him. This was an inflexion point where all that stupid talk from the right about how we share some common ground with the left should have come to an end. I don't recall the left saying they had any common ground with us. Instead what we got and continue to get from Republicans and other liberals is incredulity about Obama's failure to have learned anything by now.

Here's a newsflash for you: He has no intention of learning anything. Republicans continue to misunderstand his opposition, as is their wont. Saddam Hussein was not worth getting angry about, but they did, and Barack Obama is worth getting upset about, but their response is . . . Romney. No wonder Democrats have contempt for Republicans. The stupid party.

No, everything now depends, unfortunately, on the residuum of common good sense among the rank and file out there, the apolitical people who simply have had enough of this. Considering the depths of our social dissolution, however, and Obama's attempts to subsidize that with food stamps, free cell phones, disability payments and the revivification of welfare (what else would you expect from a drug addict?), it is hard to remain optimistic about them, but that's probably all we've got remaining.

"The Great Depression, after all, actually comprised two technical recessions, 1929-1933 and 1937-38, not that most people could tell the difference.

"What would you call a 7-10 year period of suppressed growth and stagnant wages, of economies on the verge of collapse and overwhelmed leadership? You could do worse than “depression” – lowercase “d” to be sure, and we’ll hope for a great new age on the other side of it. But a depression all the same."


I'll see you at the polls in November, voting for Romney. I'll be the one with a clothes pin on my nose.

And I'm going to keep it because I have a feeling I'm going to be needing it.

He Endorsed Obama And Now Warns About Our Enemy The (Fascist) State

It seems that fascism is becoming something of a meme over at Forbes.

Lawrence Hunter weighs in here against Walter Williams' categorization of Social Security under "handouts" and the recipients of it under "thieves":

... the modern fascist welfare state in America ... is every bit as real and destructive as he describes. ...

Food Stamps, The Women, Infants and Children (WIN) program, Medicaid, agricultural subsidies and price supports, most refundable tax credits, federal deposit insurance, all are examples of federal government “handouts;” Social Security is not; it is a government-mandated Ponzi Scheme—a “giveback”—and there is a huge difference. ...

"[W]orkfare” [is] a dodgy transaction between politicians and public employees/contractors and government subsidized-employers where government gives swag to bureaucrats, contractors and subsidized workers in exchange for their political backing and protection. ...

“Workfare” is the ultimate replacement of the private sector by the government where jobs are created and wages, salaries, benefits and pensions are paid or subsidized to strengthen the fascist welfare state. ...

Allowing one’s rage at the state (especially with respect to Social Security) to muddle one’s understanding of precisely how the state operates and what it is that makes the modern welfare state so vigorous and robust is a mistake that actually strengthens it. The vast majority of people support the modern fascist welfare state precisely because these distinctions [between handouts, givebacks and workfare] are real and matter to people. ...

[T]he modern fascist welfare state is a universal prisoners’ dilemma. The rational strategy when stuck in such a vicious game is to betray everyone else caught in the clutches of the government operating the game in the hope that you can minimize the damage government does to you. ...

[L]ibertarians like my friend Walter Williams have it upside down and backwards when they call Social Security a handout and seniors thieves for insisting on their monthly check. The problem isn’t that everyone is a thief in a fascist welfare state; it is that most everyone is a victim of the criminal enterprise called government and must defend themselves against the state—res publica culpa.


Lawrence Hunter became infamous in 2008 for endorsing Obama, here, primarily over opposition to Bush's foreign adventurism.

The whole thing is not a little ironic. Mr. Hunter allowed his rage at Bush to muddle his thinking about Obama v. McCain and pick the wrong guy. Can anyone seriously argue that the fascist welfare state would have strengthened in the exponential way it has under Obama under a president John McCain, who understood the prisoner's dilemma in fact, not just in theory?

The state? Res publica culpa.

Lawrence Hunter? Mea maxima culpa.

The Cost of Food Stamps? $75 Billion. 'Disability' Dwarfs That: $200 Billion Annually.

So says this story from The New York Post:

As of January, the federal government was mailing out disability checks to more than 10.5 million individuals, including 2 million to spouses and children of disabled workers, at a cost of record $200 billion a year, recent research from JPMorgan Chase shows.

The sputtering economy has fueled those ranks. Around 5.3 percent of the population between the ages of 25 and 64 is currently collecting federal disability payments, a jump from 4.5 percent since the economy slid into a recession.

Mental-illness claims, in particular, are surging.

During the recent economic boom, only 33 percent of applicants were claiming mental illness, but that figure has jumped to 43 percent, says Rutledge, citing preliminary results from his latest research.


The annual cost of the food stamp program is detailed here annually going back to 1969.