The minimum wage went from $5.15 in 1997 to $5.85 in 2007. The ten year hiatus was probably because the wages were better in the USA compared to the cost of living. The Congress was dogged to raise the cost of living because the poverty rate was low then.
The poverty rate (click here) decreased in 1997 to 13.3 (±0.3) percent, down from 13.7 (±0.3) percent in 1996. The number of poor people in 1997, 35.6 (±0.9) million, remained statistically unchanged from 1996. The declines in the poverty rates of Blacks and people of Hispanic origin accounted for most of the decrease in the overall poverty rate between 1996 and 1997....
That is a difference of 1.8%, but, the difference in the number within that percentage is vastly different.
The population in the USA in 1997 was 267,743,595 (click here).
In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.
There was a recession in the 1990s that President Clinton saw through a recovery, but, it did not at all have the characteristics of the Great Recession of 2008.
So, the characteristics of the poverty from 1997 to 2007 was very different in regard to work.
So, let's do the math.
In 1997 the population was 267,743,595 with a poverty rate of 13.1 percent. That means 35,074,410 people were in poverty.
In 2010 the USA population was 308,745,538 with a poverty rate of 15.1 percent which leaves 46,620,575 living in poverty. That is a difference of 11,546,165 more people in living in poverty in the USA today. The moral content of the USA is suppose to improve every year on the poverty rate, but, we all know what happened in 2008.
The thing about the S.N.A.P. program and when the country needs it is also related to Cost of Living.
This is the increase in the cost of living between 1997 and 2013. These are official rates according to the Social Security Administration. Benefits to our seniors are determined by this as well as the retired military.
January 1997 -- 2.9% (click here)
January 1998 -- 2.1%
January 1999 -- 1.3%
January 2001 -- 3.5%
January 2000 -- 2.5%
January 2002 -- 2.6%
January 2003 -- 1.4%
January 2004 -- 2.1%
January 2005 -- 2.7%
January 2006 -- 4.1%
January 2007 -- 3.3%
January 2008 -- 2.3%
January 2009 -- 5.8%
January 2010 -- 0.0%
January 2011 -- 0.0%
January 2012 -- 3.6%
January 2013 -- 1.7%
I think this makes the point to justify the continued need for S.N.A.P. There are more poor, there are more unemployed and there are higher costs of living. There is a great injustice and lack of morality in cutting food stamps to our citizens. While there has been complaining about ONE person receiving food stamps that is viewed as a young man in need of a job, that has been the case for decades. Two decades ago the Republicans complained about university students receiving food stamps. No one cared they might have children to support or a degree program to finish that would ultimately benefit the country, they were the lazy ones then.
People that receive food stamps still have to pay for housing, which can be ridiculously expensive for the poor, pay utilities, etc. There is no reason for Republicans to complain about the level of food stamps NEEDED in the USA. They caused it, now, they need to live with it. Two unfunded wars and host to a global economic collapse. The Republicans need to grow up. Their childish tantrums are not appreciated among the adults in the country.
Oh, one other thing, I am tired of hearing the 'slogan' "The Working Poor." It is an oxymoron and should not exist. I don't mean change the words, I mean get rid of the need for them.
Cutting taxes to Wall Street does not create jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
