Food Stamp Use at Record Pace as Jobs Vanish

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The New York Times

Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.

The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.

But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 — to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.

The percentage of Americans receiving food stamps was higher after a recession in the 1990s, but actual numbers are expected to be higher this year.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/31foodstamps.html

[Vincardog]

1. BUT BUT BUT the official enron sanctioned UNemployment numbers do not show that

[Igel]

34. When is 4% greater then 5%

When you take 4% of an amount >25% larger than the amount you're taking 5% of.

5% of 100 = 5.

121% of 100 = 121. 4% of 126 = 5.04.

Conveniently, the article article says as much. Greater numbers, lower percentage.


I wonder if in additional to a larger population there isn't also greater buy-in on the part of the eligible population. When I left NY state in 2004 they were in the middle of a campaign to get more people eligible for food stamps to sign up. Apparently there was considerable under-enrollment.

[CatholicEdHead]

2. Highest level ever?

This better be all over the Monday news cycle and beyond.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

5. It's time-stamped with Monday's date...

...but whether it will have any traction on Monday morning is a different matter. The NYT might have to make room for something more important, like a special message from President Bush on how the economy is strong and getting stronger...

:eyes:

Seriously, though, if it's got the 3/31/08 time stamp, maybe it will be in Monday's print edition. We shall see.

:patriot:

[Imagevision]

3. They need to start handing out gas coupons...!

[appleannie1]

4. Thats what happens when you replace high paying jobs with

service sector jobs, many of which are part time to avoid paying benefits. People cannot afford to eat.

[Stuart G]

25. And some of these people are probably new to food stamps..

Kinda a place that no one ever expects to be in.. Not enough to eat in a country that has more surplus food than any on earth. And food stamps do not really help that much. Qualifications for the program have become much more strict in the last few years. This really is terrible.

[ikojo]

29. Also, thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton's support for

welfare "reform" (for humans but not for corporations of course) there is now a five year LIFETIME limit to receiving welfare. Of course they, like the Bushes and other members of their privileged class, will never need food stamps so it's easy to cut benefits for "those people."

[Megahurtz]

45. Terrible.

Just more to resent them for.

[notesdev]

6. Unintended consequences of biofuel

Burn food for fuel, guess what happens. Food prices go up.

Biofuels made from edible crops cause starvation. A gas tank full of biofuel represents enough food to feed a human being for a year.

It hurts the rest of the economy, too. People need to buy food - they make their cuts in other parts of their budgets.

Want green energy? Nuclear power is the answer. No emissions, and unlike biofuels it can be produced in quantities sufficient to make a significant impact on usage. Waste is an issue but it's a smaller tradeoff than with any other energy source.

In the meantime... we do run on oil right now and there's no getting around it. So let's ban food exports to all OPEC nations until they dissolve the cartel and let the market set the price. Bring our military home, and downsize it to a level appropriate to defend the country - the US military is the single greatest consumer of oil on the planet.

[silverojo]

7. Yeah, nuclear is great...not

What part of the dangers of radioactive waste don't you understand?

[seriousstan]

8. The part you can eat.

[notesdev]

9. I understand it fine

The dangers of radioactive waste can be dealt with more easily, and will do less harm, than the dangers of mass starvation.

Nuclear waste - radiation and all - is actually not that difficult to deal with relative to the amount of emissions that a similar amount of power generated by coal, oil, or LNG presents. You can take nuclear waste and bury it deep in a remote place, seal it up with heavy metals, and minimize the effects.

Yes there is a tradeoff when dealing with nuclear power, as there is with any energy source. I'd rather we chose that problem to deal with rather than carbon pollution or starving off large numbers of poor people.

After a few more months of watching your grocery bill steadily rise, get back to me on this. You may also want to spend some of that time studying engineering and economics.

[girl gone mad]

14. Most nuclear reactors never pay for themselves.

Spending more on an energy source than you will ever get out of it does not avert starvation.

Here's a good article on the topic:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_5_86/ai_77279545

But saying nuclear power plants are efficient is a bit like saying moon rocks are free for the taking. Sixty percent of the cost of nuclear power occurs before the reactor ever opens. Utility executives estimate that building a new nuclear power plant would cost between $3 billion and $4 billion--about twice as much as a coal- or gas-fired power plant with equivalent output--and take seven or eight years, compared with two years to bring a natural-gas plant on line. "From a utility planner's perspective, is a very risky choice," says Christopher Sherry, research director for the Safe Energy Communication Council, a nuclear-power watchdog group. "You're basically taking a big gamble on the future price of electricity and what electricity demand will be when the plant is finished."

In the heyday of nuclear power, utility companies didn't have to worry about financial risks--ratepayers did. Before deregulation became all the rage, electricity rates were based on production costs (operating, construction, and capitalization expenses), which is one reason that electricity prices zoomed 60 percent between 1978 and 1982, right after a bevy of nuclear power plants came on line. Most of these plants were much more expensive to build than their backers had anticipated--the last round of nuclear power plants was collectively responsible for $120 billion in cost overruns. California's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, for example, was originally supposed to cost $320 million and be up and running by 1972. It finally opened in 1985, $5 billion over budget. This expense--among others--was eventually passed on to California consumers, who are still paying off $25 billion in "stranded costs" incurred by the state's three investor-owned utilities.

Deregulation changed the nuclear power equation for good. "In this new competitive generation market, investors don't have any guarantees that the construction costs will ever be recouped," explains Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "No matter how many subsidies we throw at this technology, we're not going to tempt many investors to build nuclear power plants when cheaper alternatives are in front of them."

Taylor is not someone you'd expect to see dissing nuclear power; his bio on Cato's Web site notes that he is an outspoken critic of federal regulations, environmental "doomsaying," and energy-conservation mandates. But as a strict free-marketeer, he thinks conservatives have "a soft spot in their heads" when it comes to nukes. "If nuclear power can pay for itself over time, then it doesn't need any government help, welfare, subsidy, or anything else," he says. "It seems clear to me that were it not for large and historically important federal subsidies, there wouldn't be a single nuclear power plant in the United States."

[notesdev]

17. Costs are artificial

The primary cost drivers for nuclear energy in the US are insurance and regulation.

If you take a look at France, they show the way.

They were the only ones to strictly adhere to their Kyoto obligations. How did they manage to do it?

They generate 75% of their electricity with nuclear power, that's how.

And if France can find a place to store nuclear waste, we with our vast open an uninhabited territories can find a way.

With the price of oil over $100/bbl, nuclear energy is a good deal relatively more cost effective than in the analysis you cite, which was done against a price of $25/bbl.

[JDPriestly]

21. Germany is increasing its non-nuclear capacity.

Nuclear energy is not the only answer.

And nuclear energy has a greater potential for blighting our environment than oil or even coal. I think of a time hundreds of years from now and a population less prosperous than ours trying to deal with the mysteries of uninhabitable, poisoned landscapes -- devastated by nuclear reactors left to emit radiation after some war, famine or other catastrophe causes a significant decline in the standard of living of the remaining humans that we cannot foresee.

The licensing and construction of nuclear reactors presumes that people will remain as sophisticated, well organized and peaceful as we are today. (Ha!!!) But the likeliest scenario is that people will fall, at some point, into a Dark Age. Imagine how the barbaric hoards that invaded the Roman Empire would have dealt with nuclear reactors and areas of tremendous nuclear contamination on their routes had such areas existed. I do not want to bequeath the hazards of nuclear reactors to my unborn descendants.

[NickB79]

58. Germany is building 37 new coal-fired plants to replace their reactors!!!

Come over to the Environmental Board and you can read all about it.

[girl gone mad]

27. No, the costs are very real.

This one, for instance (just one of many):

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- From a windswept corner of Hokkaido, Japan's northernmost island, Japan Steel Works Ltd. controls the fate of the global nuclear-energy renaissance.

There stands the only plant in the world, a survivor of Allied bombing in World War II, capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak.

Utilities that won't need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won't be enough production to meet building plans.

``If there are 50 to 100 reactors or more to be built, there will be a real shortage and real delays in deliveries, so it's a good hedge to get in line now,'' said Ron Pitts, senior vice president for nuclear operations at the construction and engineering company Fluor Corp. in Irving, Texas.

Pitts estimated the cost of heavy forgings, including reactor containment vessels, steam generators and pressurizers, at $300 million to $350 million for each generating unit. Japan Steel wouldn't comment on the size of the down payment, which Pitts estimated at $100 million.

[girl gone mad]

30. Global warming is endangering France's reactors..

Water temperatures in the Rhone have risen beyond acceptable levels, threatening all five of the plants which use the river's water to cool their cores. The government had to relax the rules regulating allowable intake and outflow temps., and the country faces the very real danger of having to shut down at least 37 of their 58 nuclear plants within the next two to three decades, possibly much sooner.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689

[12string]

22. nuclear power

Putting cost aside,when the total amount of energy that construction of a nuclear power plant is taken into consideration,material production,transportation,energy consumed by bringing thousands of craftsmen in a daily commute,etc.,a nuclear plant consumes more total energy than it can ever produce.A backward plan from the outset.Also,lets put the blame for rising food costs where it belongs.We do not produce that much biofuel yet.The rise we are seeing at present is from the drastic increase in the transportation costs from farmer to processor to wholesale and retail outlets.How much has diesel gone up in last six years?

[Petrushka]

15. "...fly ash--a by-product from burning coal--contains up to 100 times more radiation

than nuclear waste," according to a December 2007 article in Scientific American.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste


As a native of a coalfield State--and being well aware of even the hidden costs of coal-mining--if I had my druthers, it'd be nuclear power.

[mbperrin]

18. Wind and solar.

Just one of the dozen wind farms lately built here in west Texas generates enough electricity for the city of 100,000 that I live in. Ironically, though, because this is Texas, all of the electricity being generated is actually for Florida.

NO emissions, no fuels, literally energy for the taking with a bit of infrastructure building, the mills themselves.

It's happening already, we just need to speed it up.

On that no emissions nuclear thing, you might want to look up that little Three Mile Island or Chernobyl thing.

[notesdev]

20. Good supplements, but they don't scale

The problem with a lot of proposed alternative fuel sources is that they simply don't scale to the level of power needed by modern industrial civilization.

As far as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are concerned, we're talking 40-year-old technology, and the latter was under a crumbling USSR. In terms of damage done per unit of energy generated, nuclear has an excellent record compared to other forms of energy.

I encourage you not to base decisions on emotional bogeymen of a past era. Read up on France's experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

"due to their reliance on nuclear power, France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time.<10> In the same Ipsos poll, 88 percent of the population believe that reducing the greenhouse effect was a major reason to continue using nuclear power.<6>"

[Thothmes]

23. I guess as long as you dont try to put them

near Nantucket, thinks will go ok.

[girl gone mad]

10. Nuclear power is the answer..

to the question "what could our next dumb energy move be?"

Fissionable materials are scarce and non-renewable. They are mined primarily in unstable regions. We have no good storage solution for nuclear waste. Nuclear plants are complex and costly to maintain; opportunity for failures abound. Most importantly, better alternatives exist and can be developed today.

[notesdev]

13. Check facts first

Over half the world's uranium supply is from Canada and Australia, two of the most stable nations in the world.

Only about 20% of the uranium supply comes from "unstable" regions - compared to oil, that's a very good number.

I acknowledge that waste is an issue and it comes with tradeoffs. However, I repeat - that is better than starving off large numbers of people who will not be able to afford to eat in a biofueled world.

If you have an alternative idea, let's hear it. Just calling an idea "stupid" is not a solution.

[Chisox08]

19. The 50,000 who used to live in Prypiat would like to have a word with you.

[Javaman]

32. looks as the ghost of wellington has come back...

wellington was a freep tool that spouted on and on about how wonderful nuclear energy was, but when I informed the tool to 1)superfund sites aka rocky flats for one 2) the fallacy of "disposal" nuclear waste 3) the recent cracks found in the salt storage area in New Mexico 4) etc 5)etc...he fell like a house of cards.

Do I have to do the same to you?

didn't your daddy every teach you never to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Bring it on boob. I have a bazooka.

[notesdev]

35. Easy to be a critic

and hard to come up with a solution that works.

When millions starve because of people who say "no" to every idea and offer no alternative solution, how much of that will you accept responsibility for?

Are you simply untroubled by the idea of mass starvation in the 3rd world because of the shortsightedness of the West?

Let's hear your ideas. What's your angle? How do you propose to generate enough power to fuel a modern industrial economy without either starving people in vast numbers, or choking the air with pollution? Or are you proposing the dismantling of industrial civilization?

[Javaman]

36. Look up permaculture and read. Then make a enlightened comment.

Until then nuclear is a fools paradise.

[notesdev]

39. Again, doesn't scale

Permaculture is a fine idea and I do not doubt that it works well in small scale communities.

However, you cannot sustain large cities with that technique. Without cities we cannot sustain the human population. No cities means no arts, no commerce, no large-scale engineering.

I get the feeling that you are perfectly fine with starving off huge numbers of people if that is what it takes to achieve your ideal ecologically sustainable situation. I am not fine with that, and I think you'll find that the people who would have to die to create your utopia will not be fine with that either.

[Javaman]

42. So prior to the discovery of oil all the farms we had in the US was unable

to feed our population then?

Sorry your argument doesn't work. It has been proven in Europe to work very well on a large scale.

But again this is beside the matter. The issue at hand is if nuclear power will power us?

No, do you honestly have any idea how many nuclear power plants it would take to maintain our current level of need?

This is not even including the amount we will need as the population grows.

And let me remind you, this amount will also include a sizable amount of nuclear waste.

[notesdev]

43. Tally

Your criticisms: many

Your solutions: one, which requires sacrificing most of the human race.

It is clear to me now that you do not possess the mathematical tools to participate in an intelligent discussion on the topic, and have no understanding of history or economics either. No thanks to you for a complete waste of time.

It is also clear that you don't pay for nor grow your own food, either. You have no idea of the sticker shock the average person sees in the supermarket these days.

God forbid the world go down your path, we would see wars and bloodshed on a scale never before experienced by humanity. Nor would your little permaculture settlement survive the roaming bands of scavengers who would have to kill and loot to survive in such a world.

That anarchy avatar you include with your posts is truthful - that would be the end result of your monstrous philosophy.

[Javaman]

44. LOLOLOL yet another amusing post...

you crack me up!!!

To answer your first questions: I'm a historian by trade. the economics of the enlightenment was based upon an agrarian state. In fact I have a wonderfully large garden. :)

The few things that I have still have to buy at the grocery are indeed expensive and salaries are grossly behind the cost of living. :) In fact if you do know everything, you are also aware that grain prices are at historic highs.

Thank you for your mad max hobbsian kill or be killed stupidity. :) hope that doesn't work out for you.

What I find really interesting is you suddenly take offense when I call you on your BS. You failed to answer my questions I posed to you, I remit:

No, do you honestly have any idea how many nuclear power plants it would take to maintain our current level of need?

This is not even including the amount we will need as the population grows.

And let me remind you, this amount will also include a sizable amount of nuclear waste.

If you don't have the answers I will gladly provide them to you. Which in turn would show, you haven't the foggiest clue as to what you are talking about.

But you will probably block me than actually answer the questions which would only go to further my point.

I will throw in one more bonus question for a lightening round: do you know what constitutes nuclear waste?

Have fun, I soooo am looking forward to your answers. :)

[notesdev]

46. I doubt that

you are really a historian. If you are, you must be a specialist in some obscure, marginal culture.

Because I do not see how you would advocate going back to what we were on before oil... which is coal. Real progress there. Should I mention that biofuel in the US is mostly produced from coal-powered plants?

The number of nuclear power plants we'd need is approximately 400. This is in line with the number of nuclear plants France has, relative to population.

I am not the one advocating a reduction to the Hobbesian pre-civilized state here - you are. Do you understand that permaculture can only exist in the context of an industrial state? It's not a solution for everyone - it cannot sustain everyone.

I find it interesting that you suddenly have become aware of population figures when it comes time to discuss energy needs, as the kind of lifestyle you advocate - the pre-industrial lifestyle - cannot support anywhere near our current population. It might be suitable for a US population of 20-50 million, not a population in excess of 300 million.

The more you talk the more you reveal how little you understand about economics. Of course the price of wheat has gone up! Farmers are planting corn instead of wheat because the price they get is so much better. Do you think this happens in a vacuum?

For someone so ecologically minded, you have a distinct lack of awareness of the interconnectedness of all things.

[Javaman]

47. ahhh another one who chooses to cherry pick rather that confront

such a tool.

oil, coal, wood, freeze to death. that's how the story goes.

Oil will run out, then people go to coal. Coal will run out, then people go to wood. When there is nothing left to burn, people freeze. You don't have to go back to our pre-oil days to know that. It happened quite clearly during WWII.

I never ever have been an advocated coal. no such thing as clean coal. Nor have I ever been an advocate for nuclear energy. So please stop putting words in my mouth you are looking foolish.

400, nice pipe dream. And where do you get your info from? Chutes and ladders?

Executive Intelligence Review.
How To Build 6,000 Nuclear Plants
by 2050
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html

You like many people out there honestly believe that the US and the world can maintain this society that we currently have. It's not going to happen. When oil finally starts declining in earnest, you better be prepared because the ordinary nuclear power plant that you advocate takes between 7 and 10 years to come on line. That's if it gets the approval for operation without any problems. Perhaps you should look into Northeast Utilities track record for operation as well.

Also there is a little thing known as cost. The following link is 2007 prices, no doubt they will go up.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004449.html

I'll let you in on a little secret, because you choose to live in the pollyanna world of reality.

Our current world population is not sustainable without oil. Period. You think people won't die? LOL Take a close look at the early stages of what the world will look like when we can't feed everyone in southeast asia and in Africa. Population will thin. Just a fact.

Permiculture can feed large pops, but you choose not to do the research so I will enlighten you, read the Omnivores Dilemma, read Fast Food Nation, watch The future of food, there are several large scale farms across the US that don't use fossil fuel for fertilizer.

You seem to think we can keep feeding people just by going nuclear. How do you suppose we fertilize the crops without natural gas?? Love to hear that one.

No duh, not only has wheat gone up because of corn but so has rice, millet, soy, cattle grain, etc. Man does not live by bread alone. LOL Explain to me how switching to nuclear will suddenly make all sorts of crops grow again?

LOL lack of connection to how things are linked, you are a pisser, you really are, you haven't a clue, you really don't as to who you are chatting with. LOL

Like a said before, don't bring a knife to a gun fight, but sadly you brought a toothpick. LOL

[notesdev]

48. Lyndon LaRouche???

OK now I know I have been wasting my time with a crazy person.

[Javaman]

49. Ah rather than read the links and understand the

issues with Nuclear power you choose to cast dispersions.

Have fun with that and enjoy your ignorance.

You will be blocked now so whatever witty reply you choose to delight me with will go unread.

enjoy eating your nuclear waste. :)

have a nice day, this was a most amusing exchange. LOL

[notesdev]

50. Why should I waste more time

with someone who can't do simple math? 6000 nuclear power plants could produce enough energy to supply the entire planet for the forseeable future.

France gets 75% of their electricity from 59 nuclear plants. For 100% they would need about 75 plants.

The US is about six times the size of France. With 450 nuclear plants total, we could generate enough power for all of our electricity.

6000 nuclear plants is about 13 times what we would need. It's more than the whole planet would need.

Since you can't even do this simple math, it's no wonder you don't understand any of the rest of the economics of energy generation.


NOW I understand why you were worried before that I would ignore you... you've probably got a long list of people who have made the same mistake I have and tried to engage you in rational conversation.

So go ahead, pat yourself on the back, you 'win' here by being too ignorant and irrational to be worth continuing a conversation with.

[tama]

65. Uranium is limited resource n/t

[NickB79]

59. Prior to oil there were 100 million Americans, cities were smaller, and the majority lived on farms

Today, we have 300 million Americans, less than 2% live on farms, and most have no idea where their food comes from.

[tama]

64. Nothing scales

There is simply no replacement for oil in oil based economy and society. No way out of this catastrophy. It does not make people starving off in masses OK, just unavoidable. Reality of limited resources is a bitch and it does not respond well to stupid cornucopian theories about eternal material growth of fools belief in Deus ex Machina. This has been known at least since 72 when the Club of Rome published their famous report.

Well perhaps - ecosocialism (or ecofascism, does not really matter) to distribute scarcity more equally (with strict policies against population growth) in the last minute effort to attempt a soft landing while building a new human society from ground up, based on networks of small scale self sufficient communities that are based on permaculture. But in reality, you really needed to start your revolution many years ago, now is too late, the shit is hitting the fan as we are speaking.

[TheFarseer]

51. For what it's worth

I'm willing to listen to anyone promoting nuclear. I'm not sure it's the answer to our prayers, but if France is having success with it, it must have something going for it. I do worry that uranium/plutonium is finite as well and we are just setting up for "peak uranium". I have confidence that the safety issue is a good deal more under control than in the 70's but still a concern. As to whether it's more economical, I have no idea. I'll have to look into that. Nuclear, IMO, deserves more serious debate than it is getting.

[Javaman]

53. First look up superfund sites. for example Rocky flats.

then look up what constitutes nuclear waste. everyone, because they watch the simpsons, things it's glowing green stuff. LOL far from the truth. Anything that comes in contact with nuclear material or gets irradiated is considered waste.

If that problem is ever solved, then sure, go ahead let's have nuclear energy, until then, I personally don't want waste within 500 miles of my home. I live in Texas and know what I speak of.

[Lars39]

54. Last I heard, France is wanting to ship their nuclear waste to TN.

[notesdev]

60. Realistic energy solutions

There are four sources of energy that can be produced in great enough quantity to support an industrial civilization. These are:

1) Coal
2) Oil
3) Nuclear
4) Hyrdo

The ideal power source is hydro power. In the US we've already exploited our hydro power to the fullest. It's amazingly economical. But it is not enough, on its own, and some areas simply don't have it.

So the choice is between coal, oil, and nuclear power.

We happen to be sitting on the largest deposit of coal on the planet, which is located in Utah. With the price of oil what it is, coal is the cheapest solution. But it is also the dirtiest.

Compared to oil and coal, nuclear power is very clean. But any solution is going to have some sort of drawback, there's no getting around that. With hydro, it's limited availability; nuclear, high startup costs and waste disposal issues; coal and oil result in air and water pollution.

What is going to happen is that at a certain price, people are going to simply stop caring about carbon emissions, and coal will get the job. We have the option now of getting behind nuclear power instead, and heading off that default result.

Waste is an issue, but an ideal disposal site has already been created. The only thing stopping it from going into operation is politics. Ironically, by stopping the disposal at Yucca Mountain, the opponents of the site have merely caused a situation where the waste is piling up in temporary storage in nuclear power facilities.

So it's a pick your poison situation. While wind, solar, bio, and other alternative fuel sources can make small contributions in boutique markets, those methods simply can't produce anywhere near enough power to make a dent in the overall consumption. All together, estimating generously, they could supply maybe one percent of total energy usage. Conservation also helps, but again, the best that can be done through conservation is a small fraction of the problem, maybe two percent.

While there are some potential future technologies that could make energy cheap and low-pollution, we don't have them and we don't know when they might get here. Besides the eternally-almost nuclear fusion, the most promising ideas of which I am aware are geothermal (using 'core taps') and tidal power. If we could harness either of the latter two then all these conversations would be moot. Alas, we are not there yet, and there's a lot of money in making sure we don't get there.

[tama]

63. Dismantling industrial civilization

It was a fatal mistake to begin with, so no alternative but to make necessity a virtue.

[Javaman]

37. Unintended consequences of nuclear power...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x140641

[notesdev]

40. Nothing to do with nuclear power

That's a consequence of the falling dollar, if you'd read your own source. You're not even reading the links you are throwing at me to try and prove your case, are you?

[Javaman]

41. So you think that the cost of building a plant has nothing to do with

nuclear power? LOL

right, nuclear plants are made out of cotton candy and candy canes. LOL

You can't build the plants you don't have power. LOL simple logic that even you should be able to understand. LOL

Believe me I haven't even gotten started yet.

Have you even bothered to look up permiculture, yet?

[tama]

62. Neocon logic

Yeh, lets brake up the Opec cartel by invading Iraq and attempting a coup etc. in Venezuela so US can steal the lion's share of what oil is still left in the world. Hmm, seems like US allready tried your way and miserably failed.

Biofuel and Peak Food and then Peak Population are not unexpected or unintended consequenses of Peak Oil, of which your governement has been fully aware for a long time; they just don't give a shit if half of USans starve to death. Nuclear energy? To produce electricity for non existing electric cars and agromachinery running on batteries and fertilizers to keep poverished soil productive?

[cal04]

11. Middle Class Long Islanders turn to food pantries

These days, food pantries aren't just for the jobless or homeless.

Tapping such free resources has turned into a survival tactic for some working members of the middle class as they struggle with an economy that has put them in a bind.

A father of three, Bill makes more than $70,000 a year. But after his mortgage rate reset in October, hiking his payments from $3,300 to $4,300, he began going to his church's food pantry.

(snip)
More and more working Long Islanders are straining to put groceries on the table as many essentials -- milk and bread, fuel oil, gasoline and health care premiums -- have climbed faster than the Consumer Price Index. In some cases, they're people daunted by the steep rise in property taxes or payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-bzecon0331,0,2740821.story

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. If You Listen To Some DUers

Especially ones with suspiciously low post counts we should do a complete audit of the finincial histories of the new enrollees before deciding whether or not to feed them.

I know, it too makes me vomit that we have such rat bastards who supposedly call themselves dems.

[ikojo]

31. I get tired of this argument that there are well off people

getting food stamps by lying. A friend of mine works for St Louis public schools and she is always going off on the kids who get free school lunches (I received free school lunches from grade school through my sophomore year in high school, when my mom was told it would then only be at a reduced reduced rate). This woman says "these kids come to school wearing more expensive clothes than my kids ever wore and they have $200 hair styles..." I called her on it and asked her why is it that people expect poor people to wear rags and shoes with holes in them before they are deemed "worthy" of assistance. OY vey!

Few people actively work against rich sports teams getting corporate welfare but if people get any kind of the "wrong" kind of government help, they are seen as taking advantage of the system.

[shrike]

33. Yeah, I noticed that ,too. Sickening n/t

[Thickasabrick]

57. They are freepers - and they always make people vomit. nt

[MidwestTransplant]

16. And Hillary supporters are threatening not to support Obama in the GE and vice versa.

[Stuart G]

24. Very, very sad.. K and R.......More and more poverty and the Republicans..

will ignore it..............
How?....By lieing, and also by denying that even exists..It is so sad, and predictable.

[tanyev]

26. WTG, George and the GOP.

The government program you despise the most has grown to unprecedented levels thanks to your ridiculous economic policies.

[ikojo]

28. A lot of people may be on food stamps...however

high gas prices have not kept Americans out of their SUVs, very large houses, and motor homes. A couple of friends of mine and I were at a scooter rally in New Orleans this weekend and I saw A LOT of very large motorhomes on the highway.

[lovuian]

52. this means they don't have health insurance

thats what it means too

[llmart]

38. This boggles my mind.....

In a country where obesity is rampant and the choices of food items seem to be infinite, we have lots and lots of people who can't afford to buy food. In some ways this is the dichotomy of a GOP-run system - as John Edwards stated - there really is a huge division of class these days and I truly think that the GOP wants it this way. There are people who can pay $200 a month for a haircut/color/manicure/pedicure or whatever and they eat out five times a week and drive gas-guzzling SUV's and then there's the rest who are trying to make ends meet.

However, there are also a good number of people who don't have the common sense to spend their money wisely either. Let's not pretend here that this isn't the truth. Plenty of people were shortsighted and didn't think about the consequences of their spend, spend, spend mentality. I know lots of people who bought a big house that they didn't need saying "it is an investment" not even considering that a big house is expensive in more ways than the initial purchase; i.e. heating it, maintaining it, etc.

Case in point: during the good economic times of the Clinton years, auto workers were getting nice big year-end bonuses from the big three. The local papers would do an article interviewing these autoworkers and ask them what they were going to do with their big bonuses. The vast majority of them said things such as "I'm going to buy a new car, I'm going on a two-week vacation to a resort area, I'm remodeling my kitchen." We took the money and saved it. Rarely did anyone being interviewed say they were going to save it. Now those same workers are losing their jobs and crying the blues that they can't make ends meet.

Americans need to get back to some common sense when it comes to their money.

[Doctor_J]

55. Yes, but the fundamentals of the economy are strong

according to the first MBA president. And if there were a problem, it would be Bill Clinton's fault.

[Thickasabrick]

56. 1 in 10 New Yorkers on Food Stamps, 1 in 8 in Michigan are on

food stamps. Those numbers boggle my mind. If we don't win in November - it's only going to get worse.

[Juche]

61. What about food pantries

What about the people who aren't on food stamps but instead use food pantries, who borrow money from family and friends to buy food, who won't ask for help or whose states have strict requirements and/or have slightly too much money to qualify?

Here in Indiana if you have more than $2k in assets, you don't qualify. So if you own a used car you have too much money. I'm sure here in Indiana alot of people who make $6/hr and who own a used car need food assistance and can't qualify.

If 10% of Americans are on food stamps, maybe another 5-10% or so have trouble buying food but use different forms of assistance (family, friends, pantries) and/or can't get food stamps.

So its possible that closer to 15% of Americans (as a guess) have trouble buying food.