Blogs and Stories
The Scandal of the Working Poor
David McNew / Getty Images
The ranks of America’s hungry are expanding—including double-income families in some of the richest places in the country. Our exclusive survey of which states are failing. Plus: How to help.
The deepening hunger crisis revealed this week by a U.S. Department of Agriculture report has largely been attributed to the recession. But an exclusive analysis by The Daily Beast finds several states with hunger problems that far outpace their poverty rates, an indication that it isn’t just the fragile economy that’s to blame.
In states with disproportionate hunger problems—Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, and Connecticut top the list—bureaucratic red tape, geographic and demographic challenges, and high housing and energy prices are keeping people from getting the food they need, analysts and activists say.
The worst 10 offenders for disproportionate hunger are:
1. Colorado
2. Alaska
3. Oregon
4. Connecticut
5. Utah
6. Nevada
7. Vermont
8. Maine
9. Missouri
10. Oklahoma
“The bottom line is always political will,” says Kathy Underhill, executive director of the Colorado Coalition to End Hunger. “As a state, it’s where you put your resources.”
Read Sasha Abramsky’s report on Double Income No Food families. Plus, click here to see The Daily Beast’s complete ranking of states with disproportionate hunger, and read about the methodology of our study.
Mariana Chilton, a professor of public health at Drexel University who specializes in hunger issues, agrees that political leaders across the country need to step up to improve the situation in anti-hunger and other relief programs. “These programs have been neglected,” she says. “It doesn’t mean that they’re not good programs, but they need to be updated.”
She points to the federal Food Stamp program as a prime culprit. Food stamps work differently in each state—with varying eligibility standards, application procedures, and requirements for continued participation. “The feds will say that people don’t know they’re eligible for food stamps,” Chilton says. “But people know they’re eligible…The process can be extremely complicated and time consuming.”
In Colorado, for example, “There’s a 26-page application, one of the longest in the country,” says Underhill. While the program is supervised by the state, it is administered at the county level, with each of the Colorado’s 64 counties using different procedures. In addition, the state requires recipients to return every three months to maintain their eligibility, stricter than the federal minimum of every six months, and benefits are available only to those who earn up to 130 percent of the poverty level—or less than $28,000 for a family of four.
But Pauline Burton, deputy executive director of the Colorado Department of Human Services, points to the USDA food insecurity report, which included Colorado among 13 states where the percentage of households without enough food declined from 2006-2008, as evidence that the state was doing better in addressing hunger.
The USDA report found that 49 million Americans lived in households without consistent access to adequate food last year, a stunning 13 million more than the year before. In Colorado, while the overall number improved, the percent of households facing acute hunger increased by more than a percentage point, to 5 percent.
Burton acknowledges that just 54 percent of eligible people in the state participated in the Food Stamps program in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available. Colorado has stepped up its outreach efforts, she says, launching an online tool last month that allows people to check whether they are eligible for food assistance and other benefits before going to a county office. An online application is expected to be available in the spring. The county offices facilitate cooperation with local area food banks, Burton says, and each site has a staff member who speaks Spanish or offers access to an interpreter.
Oregon, where hunger has been a largely unexplained problem for more than a decade, has already made substantial improvements to its Food Stamps process, so that an application that used to take nine days can now usually be completed in one office visit. The state also makes benefits eligible to those who earn up to 185 percent of the poverty level.
Gene Evans, communications officer at Oregon’s Department of Human Services, called Food Stamps “a booming business,” with an unprecedented one in six Oregonians, or 654,000 people, receiving the benefit. “We expect that number to increase,” he says.
Evans notes that the federal government recently awarded the state a bonus because it is reaching such a high portion of the Food Stamps-eligible population—85 percent in 2006. With high Food Stamps participation rates and a strong state network of food banks, analysts said other factors help explain the state’s persistent hunger problem.
“On average, it’s true that place where poverty is high, hunger is high,” says Mark Edwards, a sociology professor at Oregon State University who has studied the phenomenon. “But it’s also true that other characteristics of states really matter.”
He points to the area’s high housing costs, which mean that, while people’s income may place them above the poverty line, such a high portion of their wages go to rent that there is little left for food. Residents in Northeastern states such as Maine and Connecticut may face a similar dilemma, forced to pay for expensive home heating fuel over food.
Reaching hungry people in the far corners of Oregon also remains a challenge. “I think people have this vision of rural America as full of bounty and food,” says Stacy Dean, director of food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. “But many of the poorest counties in the country are rural, and there are many rural counties without food banks.”
In Alaska, some of the same forces are at play. The poverty rate is an especially poor guide to the food insecurity that residents face in this expensive state, where wages may be high but so are milk prices.
As Merri Mike Adams, managing director of the Food Bank of Alaska, puts it, “Alaska only has roads through half the state, so getting food around is difficult.” The food bank manages six state government food programs, but, Adams says, Alaska is the only state without a U.S. Department of Agriculture warehouse, making it difficult to stockpile food in case of emergencies.
She cites several other factors as contributors to the state’s hunger problem, including high shipping costs. In addition, “Some people don’t like to ask for help,” she said. “Indigenous cultures especially have an attitude that says, 'I should be able to feed my family.'”
Ellie Fitzjarrald, director of the Alaska Division of Public Assistance, says participation in the Food Stamps program had increased over recent years as residents struggle with exorbitant energy costs. “We’re hearing anecdotally about households who may have been able to get by before, but are applying for benefits, because they just can’t manage anymore.”
Her office is now engaged in a preparedness campaign, working hard in the western part of the state, where winters are especially harsh, to remind seasonal workers that they might qualify for Food Stamps. Meanwhile, the food bank will fly some 3 million pounds of food around the state and distribute another 3 million in Anchorage.
That may not be enough. “You do not solve hunger simply with more food,” says Chilton, the Drexel professor. “The only way you’re going to end hunger is to address poverty head-on, admit that it exists and that our programs are not working.”
Get Involved: Read our Q&A with City Harvest’s Erin Hoover on how to alleviate hunger close to home.
Holly Yeager is a longtime Washington journalist. A former U.S. politics correspondent for the Financial Times, she writes frequently about public policy and national politics.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
hockeydog
This is America, for heaven's sake.
You aren't supposed to care.
You are supposed to think only of money, and buying more stuff.
That is, until its your family that is going hungry, and then your Rush Limbaugh values may in fact be discarded in favor of compassion.
But watch out, compassion is a dangerous thing, and has the potential to turn you into a liberal.
JohnnyBeagle
Tell the hungry to read some Ayn Rand...and then eat the book, then at least they will get somthing out of it.
amanda07070
GREAT ONE!!!
ThinkAgain
You liberals think if the gov isn't taking your money to mismanage and waste and buy politcal favors with in the name of helping people, you're not caring.
You can give voluntarily you self centered self righteous lazy fools. Why do you need the damn government to force you to help needy people? Give to your church, the local shelter, etc. It's easy.
studentoflaw
think again:
that is the same argument selfish americans have been making since the reaganomics revolution. guess what? you're not giving enough, because people continue to suffer more and more. and more. and more.
highrpm
studentoflaw
and when and where do the bleeding heart liberals get off their "saviour of the world" high horse? how many of the politicos--pelosi & co--live in $M houses; how many of them have EVER packed sack lunchs and gone down to homeless hangouts or rescue missions and handed them out? no, that might be putting themselves in danger! how many times does obama say no to a PR trip on airforce 1 or a weekend at camp david because of the cost? no, they are the "teachers of the law" who get to tell the common man how to live. i say to them, "practice what you preach". a practical line in the sand of when to stop "giving to others" is the widow's last mite: when i have to put my donations on my charge card or write a bad check, then i have reached the limit of my giving. the bleed heart liberals pay no attention to the federal deficit when voting yea to another entitlement.
namedujour
ThinkAgain/Highrpm,
Government money isn't intended for the hungry. It's intended to finance wars so people can die and there are fewer to feed.
aBigDeal
Oh please! Get over yourself! Your Leftist values tell you to set up a bureaucracy to feed hungry people so you don't have to get near those people. In 1965, 70 cents of every welfare dollar went to the poor. 30 years later, it was only 30 cents. Those are some great values.
The Left believes that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and without the free market, it would be distributed equally. We saw what happened in the Soviet Union when they took the free market away. We saw 90% poverty before large scale free markets ever existed, when your wealth was determined by blood.
"Progressives" always want to try something that takes us back to the time without free markets. We've been there, done that "Progressives"
A solution to hunger that won't mostly benefit the government is to go out there YOURSELF and FEED THE HUNGRY. A long term solution make sure people have access to JOBS!
Msbeachwood
Unfortunately, you solution is not an efficient way to deal with a problem of this scale. When the department of agriculture has a surplus are they going to dump it on your driveway for you to distribute? When food manufacturers have a quantity of mislabled cans of food, will you go and pick it up and start to distribute it? How will you know who truly needs it There are many non-profit NGO's that are working on this problem, but they are being overwelhmed. The American people are generous, but there are some things that the federal government, BEAUSE OF ITS SIZE AND SCOPE, is better equipped to handle.
connie47
Having access to jobs depends on people being able to buy things. When the bottom 80% of Americans are dividing up 7% of the nation's financial wealth, they aren't going to be able to buy much. We've seen what happens when the wealthiest Americans "trickle down" enough to keep the peons at work. We're living in it.
areopagatica
I don't understand why conservative commentators and bloggers assume liberals don't give to charity or belong to churches.
Isn't it possible that a combined approach of charity and government would work more quickly to alleviate hunger folks are feeling today while we work toward a better future solution than either would alone?
I live in Alaska now, but have lived all over the US. My town is the only one I've lived in where the average citizen is keenly aware of the current status of the local foodbank- as in, are the shelves empty, full, or half-filled?
Aristocracy arose out of the ultimate, non-regulated, capitalist system- barbarism. Feudalism is the evolutionary byproduct of the barbarist laize fair economy. Anyone who thinks the distribution of wealth today isn't connected drawn from blood relation isn't looking at the royal families of power and politics, looking at related corporated execs, looking at inherited shares. Why else are the wealthy so concerned with eliminating inheritance taxes? Why is it only possible to become truly wealthy through passive earnings versus sweat equity?
retired-army-1SG
aBigDeal... You and I agree about one thing. As a progressive leaning person, I would love for the federal and state governments not to have to be involved in taking care of the poor, the unemployed, the uninsured but the one organization charged with doing those things refuses to do so. Some years ago, Jimmy Carter made the point that in the city of Atlanta there were 50,000 homeless, and 50,000 churches. Where are all the good Christians? Didn't Jesus command the Church to feed the hungry, care for the sick? Evangelicals are spending their money on beautiful buildings (mega-churches), holding political rallies and yes, paying ridiculous salaries, living in mansions and owning business jets. Be careful that you are casting the first stone.
aBigDeal
connie47
Repeat after me: WEALTH IS NOT ZERO SUM. My gain is not NECESSARILY your loss. My loss is not NECESSARILY your gain. If it were, we'd still be living in the dark ages. There is no "dividing". Your employer trades with you. You and your employer BOTH benefit, otherwise you wouldn't be there.
areopagatica
"Aristocracy arose out of the ultimate, non-regulated, capitalist system- barbarism."
Barbarism has as much to do with capitalism as it does communism. Capital increases wealth. Barbarism can only increases your wealth if your victim doesn't seek revenge and injure/kill you. Communism actually has more in common with barbarism: over 100 million killed last century.
retired-army-1SG
Just because someone is homeless doesn't mean they are the victim of Christian apathy. Religious people give FAR more than non religious people. They would give more if they could afford to, i.e. the government didn't confiscate their hard earned money for political purposes. Most of those on the streets are there because of mental illness or drugs. See the Jamie Fox movie The Soloist. It has absolutely nothing to do with lack of compassion.
selahh
Ohhh one of the lefts favorite ploys, equating liberalism to compassion.
It's funny you say that, because if you actually look at the facts conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Even when they make less, they give a higher percentage of their income to charity. And if I'm remembering correctly, liberals tend to give more money to things like schools and museums, while conservatives tend to give money to the poor.
The point is that you cannot equate a political ideology to compassion.
The involuntary redistribution of government funds, while sometimes necessary, is not a reflection of the compassion of taxpayers. People are compassionate. People care for people, not the government. The ironic thing is that liberals who want to be viewed as compassionate want their government to do everything for them so they never have to get near a poor person! Perhaps if they did it would mess with their values. They would find out that there is something profoundly wrong with the fact that they have so much while others have so little (and this applies to everybody). In America we feel that we need and deserve our dream homes, luxury cars, designer clothes, big screen tvs and vacations, while some people just want to put food on the table. This is a huge problem, and it doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative. But compassion is not simply allowing your government to do your work for you, it is getting out there, getting involved and helping people face to face. I know most of the homeless people in the urban neighborhood that I spend time at by name. I'll give them money or a hot meal and I will stop and take the time to stike up conversation with them (which makes my friends very uncomfortable). Some of my friends and I took in a homeless family and helped them get on their feet and gave them Christmas presents. I don't do that kind of stuff enough, but THAT to me is what compassion is. I pay my taxes every year, and some of that money goes to social programs, but if I am to consider that to be my act of compassion something is very wrong.
areopagatica
"...liberals tend to give more money to things like schools and museums, while conservatives tend to give money to the poor."
This might translate as liberals giving money for education, shown repeatedly to be the best means of eliminating poverty as opposed to conservative charity treating the symptoms of poverty, such as hunger and homelessness. Both seem to me very necessary, so it doesn't really appear that any liberal, conservative, or moderate version of charity for the less fortunate is misplaced. But, as a liberal, I must add,"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." And he can probably then help feed his community, too.
mcasio
"because if you actually look at the facts conservatives give more money to charity than liberals."
I'd like to look at the facts. Can you provide some? Its not that I don't believe you, I would just like it if claims like this were backed up with the study they came from.
retired-army-1SG
Please site your source about "because if you actually look at the facts conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. ...they give a higher percentage of their income to charity. ...liberals tend to give more money to things like schools and museums, while conservatives tend to give money to the poor." I don't believe there is one.
camfield
It's just another sign of conservatives' belief in their entitlement to a class society, as further illustrated by their mad-dog resistance to health care reform.
It appears they look upon altruism, compassion and empathy as social diseases.
retired-army-1SG
Amen! Good points!
retired-army-1SG
ThinkAgain... does that mean you would be in favor of leaving these people to their own devices? In the rural area where I live, jobs are almost non-existent. When the previous four administrations "incentivized" companies to move jobs and plants off shore through ridiculous tax breaks, rural America was left with an employment vacuum. Add to that Wal-Mart's predatory practices of killing small towns and you have a recipe for poverty. Your romantic ideas about rugged individualism is from an era long gone - if it ever existed at all. When the government supports offshoring jobs they do so at the expense of working Americans. You want to support America - support taxing companies who offshore.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--squareyellowpaperconnie47
You are so right, and that attitude exists in the face of this from the Bible:
Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
retired-army-1SG
Connie47... I am repeating an earlier post to add to yours, hope you don't mind... As a progressive leaning person, I would love for the federal and state governments not to have to be involved in taking care of the poor, the unemployed, the uninsured but the one organization charged with doing those things refuses to do so. Some years ago, Jimmy Carter made the point that in the city of Atlanta there were 50,000 homeless, and 50,000 churches. Where are all the good Christians? Didn't Jesus command the Church to feed the hungry, care for the sick? Evangelicals are spending their money on beautiful buildings (mega-churches), holding political rallies and yes, paying ridiculous salaries, living in mansions and owning business jets. Be careful that you are casting the first stone.
JohnnyBeagle
What passes for conservatism in the USA is little more than faith in corporate wisdom and kindness.
DakLak
A sad commentary on what some claim is the worlds greatest country.
The USA gives away plenty in times of trouble, why not inside the country?
clearthinker
"Feed the flock of God which is among you" 1 Peter 5:2.
connie47
The money we like to give to the local food bank has just vanished. Yesterday, Aetna informed us that our insurance premiums are doubling next year. That will eat up not just every cent we gave to the food bank and other groups.
connie47
I must start proofreading before hitting 'submit.'
That will eat up every cent we gave to the food bank and other groups.
eurydice9276
It's a mistake to think that this is a liberal vs conservative issue. Some of the states on this list are quite politically liberal and they still have problems, and most of the fattest cats on Wall Street call themselves Democrats. Patting oneself on the back for having more compassion isn't going to put food on peoples' tables.
I don't think anyone actually wants people to go hungry. It looks like the reasons for this problem are varied, complex and local, but would also benefit from federal coordination. Every one of our senators and congressmen can evaluate what's needed in their respective states and bring fresh information to the table - of course, they might have to stop campaigning for a bit first.
connie47
".... most of the fattest cats on Wall Street call themselves Democrats."
Would you mind backing that statement up with a couple of links to, say, census data?
connie47
clearthinker,
So asking someone to provide a source for their statement is getting on a moral high horse and condemning everything conservative?
You need to take another look at yourself.
eurydice9276
Well, I don't have census data, but I do have over 20 years experience on Wall Street and I worked with many of the fat cats who are even fatter today. Most of them identify themselves as Democrats, they give money to the Democratic party and they give money to charities. At the same time, they engage in the business practices and behavior which liberal pontificators like to believe only conservatives do.
I'm not a conservative - in fact, my liberal friends think I'm a little too radical for their tastes - I'm not trying to support one side or the other. My only point is that these issues are much more complex than just left or right, that no one side has the exclusive on being compassionate or moral or correct, and that this kind of egotistical sniping doesn't add one bit toward finding solutions.
JohnnyAces
"I don't think anyone actually wants people to go hungry"
are you sure? because food stamps equates to a form of socialism and we know fro many that there is no room for that kind of government system in any form!
clearthinker
Johnny and Connie need to settle down a bit. Don't get on your moral high horse and condemn everything conservative. Don't act like the poor are helpless. There are many examples of success stories in America of people "making it" despite their nominal upbringing. I believe our society should take care of its people and communities through charitable givings. However, nobody should "earn" a living off such givings.
eurydice9276
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that the food stamp program was started for some other reason than trying to help the poor? That people actually thought "Hey, we should let the poor go hungry, let's give them food stamps." ?
periscope
As a society we are a failure if we allow the rich to grow richer (and pay more bonuses to themselves), while even working people can't afford to feed their families, provide healthcare and pay the rent; all at the same time.
America has devolved since they Raygun administration into that corrupt caricature that Bushboy promoted, which he called. "The Ownership Society."
In that draconian society, those who "own" the businesses and the government get to live lives of decadent extravagance, while the working people get the "trickle down" effect.
If they survive fine. If not? Well ... there's always plenty more working people than there is work.
amapola101
Periscope, we need the rich, the wealthy, the working,the flourishing to grow richer, and spread, the wealth and hire, and produce and leave a piece of the cake and crumbs.What we got was thieves,greed ,ravages,rapers,of the systems,programs,markets ,banks, and elected officials ignorant and unproductive leading, and not supervising and watching out for mainstream.Not caring about anyone but themselves,rewards, and bonuses and salairies,tied to productivity, quality not just because you are in the position.the same should apply to politics,workforce,companies,banks,on&on.
clearthinker
Greed is the dirty problem for America. A free society lends itself to such corruption. Greed is not limited to a single party or even politics in general. Americans are born with a responsibility of self, given to us by the principals of God and our founding fathers. However, we must understand we aren't perfect and must learn through our failures. This is what defines us as a society and makes this country what it is. A government that restrains its own people is no longer a free society. No longer will people be responsible for their own selves, they will no longer care about the lives of others. A government that starts regulating the thoughts in one's head such as lust and greed and believing they have the capacity to stop it becomes an entity unfamilier to the American landscape.
Cooper2
I don't mean to state the obvious - Colorado, but pouring money into creating an "on-line" food stamp application seems to be a misguided use of capital since by their very definition, poor, they are unlikely to have a computer and internet access.
DakLak
Good point. Maybe they can hoof it to the nearest library.
upsidedownzebra
Poor people have computers. They also can have cars and houses and clothings and ATVs and electricity and credit debt and other reminents of more fruitful days. It always amazes me the speed of which a life can change. You have stable work for years, accumulate some debt, then you're laid off, live off credit cards, can't find the same level of job you had. No matter how hard you try, how many corners you cut, your debt goes up and up until you have hit your credit limit. Even if you haven't been laid off, the cost of living is rising, drastically (free market at work). One in six on food stamps in Oregon, I believe it.
The poor don't all live in tents Cooper.
djanimaequeen
Actually there are many places to access the internet for free. DakLak is right that libraries have access, so do unemployment offices and places that provide free skills training. For those who do have laptops but no internet, many cafes offer free wifi. Sure it's not as convenient as sitting in your living room, but at least it's available.
amapola101
The billions, going abroad, belong here. They do not go to help the poor people in Afghan, Pakistan,Iraq, it goes in the hands of the mullahs,drug lords,leaders.There are people starving Here. How can we justify it???Charity starts at home.The way the world is heading, this hunger will double.Without,jobs,trainig, work,assistance,it grows.
DakLak
Just think of the billions Bush squandered because of non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction' which was really a cover up for Saddam voicing his thoughts on Bush No.1's longevity and Saddams desire to shorten it.
All the wasted billions for the sake of Bush 2's ego that could have done so much for America's poor.
The pols argue about health care and rubber stamp DOD budgets.
JohnnyAces
"Colorado has stepped up its outreach efforts, she says, launching an online tool last month that allows people to check whether they are eligible for food assistance and other benefits before going to a county office"
Does anyone else see a problem with this approach? How many families who can't afford food actually have access to the internet?
devilsadvocate
Great point.
Nobody in America should go hungry, and no responsible citizen should spend money on luxuries (cable/satellite TV, high-speed internet) if they cannot afford the necessities of life. On the other hand, some people cannot afford the necessities because they spend all their money on luxuries. There are many different reasons one can go hungry.
MatKen
Many, I presume. People may have access at work or a friends house or the local public library. Perhaps like many other people that recently lost their job they still have access to the internet but desperately need to establish assistance before losing their food along with everything else they might be losing in the near future like cable tv and internet access.
whipmawhopma
JohnnyAces - Let's not get hung up on who has access to the internet. I was out of work in late 1999 and money was ultra tight, so I used the internet access at the local library. And I had a friend who would allow me to use his access. Mercifully I could walk to both.
I have a nominal member of my extended family who is a member of the barely working poor - jobs are hard to come by here - who uses my internet access at home to conduct her business, look for jobs, etc.
I would imagine if I were to become working poor again, I would cut cable television before cutting cable internet access, and drop down to the cheapest dial-up access I could if needed before cutting internet access altogether.
The internet is very useful in a practical sense. And like cell phones, I think it makes life less painful for the working poor. Imagine being able to find all the food pantries in town with a few keystrokes. Be able to look up city and county government offices. Online ads, etc. Churches, temples and mosques offering help.
nubody
Economic parasites behave much like biologic parasites. They cross the blood brain barrier convincing the host "We are you",invade every organ, and commence to consume. Their only instinct is for their next meal, i.e. create the next 'bubble'. Eventually the host (the real economy) sickens and dies, as do the parasites. In essence, they are suicidal.
Result? Total collapse, economic and social, now manifesting in hunger These parasites won't stop. They can't. It is their nature. They want their next meal. And it's you..
SFGiants
Once upon a time, in the times of Reagan, my wife and I both worked but didn't earn a lot. We were on foodstamps until our financial situation improved.
Parasites, or just a family that needed a hand for a while? Anyway, we contributed to the economy then, and we contribute to it now.
djanimaequeen
SF I don't think nubody was referring to working families who hit hard times a needed a hand up as parasites. I think nubody is referring to the rich who feed on the working poor and create a society of desperate people. Anyone who has loads of money but has never worked an honest day in their lives is a parasite IMO.
upsidedownzebra
The economy would blaken and die without the poor? The poor fuel the economy, there's more of us than rich folks. Always has been. A society without the poor is a bubble about to burst.
Also, Nubody, your writing skills are subpar.
whipmawhopma
I am not convinced that nubody is talking about the working poor. I believe he's talking about the exploiter class on Wall Street and the Banking Guilds that live on the national economy of the working poor, the middle class and the working rich. As long as the exploiters get their profits the rest of the country, the host, can rot in a living death. They are the problem behind this problem.
At least that's what I think nubody is commenting about.
tolatetocry
You people are pathetic! If you have no job or money for food go sign up for food stamps, they are available in every state! America also has food banks and pantries and churches give to people in need all the time. It may not be the greatest, but starving to death in this country is considered abuse not a way of life. Besides I thought America was to fat, we need to go on a diet anyway, thats what I've read on the DB for some time now!
During the Reagan years, yes the economy was worse, but then we had a President who got us out of the hole verses one who is digging us a deeper hole.
amapola101
totalcry,many people are in conditions, that are not in their power. The economy,lack of jobs,growth, the sepapration,of wealth and workingclasses,is bigger than ever, the internet,untrained, persons for todays challenges and competition from abroad, many things are out of control funny,you bring up food stamps, I wonder how many who do not really need it, are the ones enjoying and abusing it. All programs, are so flawed with humans.
tolatetocry
I don't know where you live but where I live I don't see people standing in line for food stamps that don't need them (for whatever reason) I know many people who are probably qualified for food stamps that don't, they make their own way. There are generations of Americans who live their whole lives on welfare. This stand in line mentality is the mind-set that conservatives hate so much. Otherwise, it is well documented that conservatives are extremely generous to those in need and those whose lives have taken a bad turn. We aren't big on welfare as a life-style.
connie47
Both conservative and liberal economists say that starting in 2008, we moved into the worst economy since the Great Depression. Since you seem to know something they don't, maybe you could share your secret information with them.
scotti2az
90% of this country keep 10% of it afloat. Is this a democracy or a corporate country? Do we really have the interest of the people in mind or just how much profit we can make? I am some times ashamed to be to called human. Is this what a civilized race of people do to each other?
david7134
I think you have it backward. It is 10% of the people who pay the great majority of tax. Over 50% don't pay tax at all and many get an anual gift from the government.
democracyforall
shocked to see Vermont, the liberal gay haven, on the list...
periscope
Homophobe: Vermont is also ranked #1 of all the United States for the good health of it's citizens. Which means they have the lowest obesity rates and the lowest sickness rates. Their economic problems relate to the lack industries there, not the lack of people willing to work.
But being smug and stupid, you wouldn't know that.
MatKen
Perhaps the working poor wouldnt be so poor if they werent crushed under the weight of taxes collected to pay for the services that dont reach them.
A handout or keeping more of the money you earn; which do you prefer?
timeflies
Perhaps the working poor wouldn't be so poor if they didn't have more kids than they can afford.
my3sons
How much money was spent to find water on the moon? How much money are we spending in Iraq and Afganistan? Maybe if we got our prorities straight we could feed our people and our president would not need to kiss China's ass.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.