No graphic, but I'm pretty sure it was just anothe

No graphic, but I'm pretty sure it was just another gratuitous swipe from a misinformed faux grievance nurturing conservative.

You should look into just who is more dependent on the 'kindness of strangers'. I begrudge no one in genuine need and the majority of SNAP benefits go to families with children, the disabled, the elderly and members of the military.

Quote:

---

Top 10 States That Rely Most on Federal Aid

www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/

The 10 states receiving the most in federal aid as a percentage of their general revenue, in order, were:

1.Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue
2.Louisiana, 41.9%
3.Tennessee, 39.5%
4.South Dakota, 39.0%
5.Missouri, 38.2%
6.Montana, 37.4%
7.Georgia, 37.3%
8.New Mexico, 36.6%
9.Alabama, 36.1%
10.Maine, 35.3%

At the other end, the 10 states receiving the least in federal aid as a percentage of their general revenues were:

40. Illinois, 25.9%

41. New Jersey, 25.5%

42. California, 25.0%

43. Nevada, 25.0%

44. Kansas, 24.9%

45. Delaware, 24.8%

46. Connecticut, 23.4%

47. Virginia, 22.9%

48. Alaska, 22.4%

49. Hawaii, 21.5%

50. North Dakota, 19.0%

“States with heavy reliance on federal grants-in-aid tend to have a combination of modest tax collections (reducing the denominator) and sizable low income populations (correlating with greater per capita reliance on Medicaid, housing assistance, and other low income and poverty relief programming, and with a greater share of federal education support),” said the Tax Foundation.

This Map of the U.S. Shows a State-by-State Look at Food Stamp Participation

---

Quote:

---

HOW DO SNAP CUTS AFFECT THE LARGER ECONOMY?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/05/24...onomy.html

The government's overall SNAP spending declines when the economy improves and fewer people rely on the program. It's a situation that is the "best possible outcome," said Stacy Dean, vice president of food assistance policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Dean said cutting benefits when people's financial situations are not improving could mean they use money they otherwise would have spent on needs like clothing or even medicine to make up for the gaps in their food budget. So there's still an impact to the overall economy, she said.

Putting off other purchases could affect other departments at superstores or separate retailers.

A report by the USDA in 2010 also said that boosting SNAP benefits during economic downturns starts a "multiplier process" in transactions and consumption. It found that boosting SNAP expenditures by $1 billion was estimated to increase economic activity by $1.79 billion.

---