I also saw a breakdown by state, showing what % of their population is on food stamps. It makes for interesting reading.
Food Stamp Use, by State
Click on the top of any column to resort the chart.
| State | Number of people on food stamps Sept. 2010 | Year-over-year change | Month-over-month change | Percent of population on food stamps |
| U.S. total | 42,911,042 | 16.2% | 1.2% | 14% |
| Alabama | 849,785 | 12.8% | 1.2% | 18% |
| Alaska | 81,196 | 15.4% | -0.1% | 11.6% |
| Arizona | 1,044,410 | 10.9% | -0.3% | 15.8% |
| Arkansas | 483,309 | 8.4% | 0.7% | 16.7% |
| California | 3,466,974 | 17.7% | 1.2% | 9.4% |
| Colorado | 424,878 | 16.8% | 0.1% | 8.5% |
| Connecticut | 364,341 | 22.8% | 1.4% | 10.4% |
| Delaware | 124,755 | 21.9% | 2.6% | 14.1% |
| District of Columbia | 128,759 | 16.4% | 1.7% | 21.5% |
| Florida | 2,881,019 | 25.8% | 2.5% | 15.5% |
| Georgia | 1,693,976 | 16.4% | 0.7% | 17.2% |
| Hawaii | 147,250 | 15.7% | 1.2% | 11.4% |
| Idaho | 214,378 | 39.1% | 1.2% | 13.9% |
| Illinois | 1,839,051 | 18.6% | 8.5% | 14.2% |
| Indiana | 857,992 | 13.3% | 0.6% | 13.4% |
| Iowa | 352,164 | 10.9% | 0% | 11.7% |
| Kansas | 291,126 | 18% | 0.6% | 10.3% |
| Kentucky | 804,538 | 8.7% | -0.1% | 18.6% |
| Louisiana | 864,112 | 10.3% | 0.9% | 19.2% |
| Maine | 237,530 | 9.6% | 0.1% | 18% |
| Maryland | 616,102 | 20.4% | 1.5% | 10.8% |
| Massachusetts | 785,435 | 12.2% | 1% | 11.9% |
| Michigan | 1,884,751 | 15.2% | 0.4% | 18.9% |
| Minnesota | 455,852 | 17.2% | 0.7% | 8.7% |
| Mississippi | 601,432 | 8.7% | 1.1% | 20.4% |
| Missouri | 928,183 | 7.9% | 0.1% | 15.5% |
| Montana | 119,039 | 15.8% | 0.1% | 12.2% |
| Nebraska | 169,385 | 14.5%td> | 0% | 9.4% |
| Nevada | 314,253 | 28.7% | 1.5% | 11.9% |
| New Hampshire | 110,576 | 20.4% | 0.6% | 8.3% |
| New Jersey | 690,075 | 27.2% | 1.9% | 7.9% |
| New Mexico | 390,154 | 20.1% | 0.6% | 19.4% |
| New York | 2,895,995 | 13.3% | 0.8% | 14.8% |
| North Carolina | 1,476,207 | 18.2% | 2.3% | 15.7% |
| North Dakota | 61,229 | 7.1% | 0.3% | 9.5% |
| Ohio | 1,683,877 | 11.9% | 0.8% | 14.6% |
| Oklahoma | 613,531 | 14% | 0.9% | 16.6% |
| Oregon | 738,702 | 13.2% | 0.7% | 19.3% |
| Pennsylvania | 1,644,259 | 13.2% | 0.3% | 13% |
| Rhode Island | 150,450 | 26% | 1.3% | 14.3% |
| South Carolina | 832,651 | 11.3% | 0.3% | 18.3% |
| South Dakota | 99,504 | 14.9% | 0% | 12.2% |
| Tennessee | 1,267,478 | 8% | 0.5% | 20.1% |
| Texas | 3,837,839 | 24.6% | 0.9% | 15.5% |
| Utah | 269,819 | 25.9% | 3.8% | 9.7% |
| Vermont | 87,838 | 7.7% | 1% | 14.1% |
| Virginia | 826,277 | 13.8% | 0.7% | 10.5% |
| Washington | 1,006,518 | 16.4% | 0.8% | 15.1% |
| West Virginia | 343,764 | 5.1% | -0.6% | 18.9% |
| Wisconsin | 762,287 | 21.3% | 0.6% | 13.5% |
| Wyoming | 35,615 |
Notice: Alabama- 18%, Arkansas- 16.7%, Georgia- 17.2%, Kentucky- 18.6%, Louisiana- 19.2%, Mississippi- 20.4%, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Has anyone noticed many of these states are also hotbeds of Tea Party activity? Notice that they are also very anti-government.
Now, I understand being anti-damn-near-everything if you feel you've been screwed -- but, damn, how can you elect someone like Rand Paul when 18.6% of the population depends on the HATED Federal Government for FOOD.
I really understand all the anger against an unresponsive government -- but opposing the very folks who give you a major portion of your food, medical care, and those damn scooters so many Tea Party supporters seem to ride around on seems short sighted.
If you have a plan for something better. If you are willing to give up your perks (like food, medical care, etc.) for some "greater good" -- I'm with you, but just saying "we don't like YOU!", then electing someone who intends to destroy whatever safety net YOU have left, when you are no longer able to do it for yourself, seems questionable.
Will these supporters of "personal responsibility" blame both "them", and "others" when what they VOTED FOR bites them in their rather generous asses?
You can bet on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment