Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term
www.breitbart.com...

In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

It seems like the whole "get them dependent on the government" tactic is working perfectly.

As the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, "The number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to seek a job increased by 8,332,000 to a record 88,839,000 in President Barack Obama’s first term."

(% are rough estimates)
~So we have around 15% of Americans on food stamps

~So we have around 30% of Americans deciding not to work or seek a job

~We have a government that can't even pretend to address its budget

~We have banks and a government, that can basically dictate the success of larger businesses(tax incentives, forced bailouts, corruption, bankruptcy for profit schemes), which in the long run, helps destroys prospects for small businesses.

~etc., etc. etc...

I know it's not all Obama's fault, but c'mon! Barack "Executive Order" Obama better start addressing these things before he goes down in history as the President who helped cater to the destruction of America.

Maybe limit the duration in which people may receive food stamps?

Maybe limit the duration in which people may receive unemployment checks?

Maybe cut the ties between larger companies and/or corporations with the government, as in destroying all tax incentives?

Road to recovery? lol, yeah ok Obama

Our society and generations are the "Give me" generations they expect everything handed to them for little to no work. It does not surprise me these stats just by looking at the world around you and how things have changed.

Why work a hard job for something you can get the same thing for free?

11,000 out of some 300,000,000 people.......

Well...there's always babies being born to single mothers, people retiring that can't make ends meet with social security. People being laid off,

And your article is from breitbart, a known right wing propaganda site.

Originally posted by muse7
11,000 out of some 300,000,000 people.......

Well...there's always babies being born to single mothers, people retiring that can't make ends meet with social security. People being laid off,

And your article is from breitbart, a known right wing propaganda site.

11,000 per day for the first term, not 11,000 total for a total of 39,000,000

Are we supposed to just forget how much the Bush/Cheney administration sucked, then? Blame it all on one man?

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by muse7
11,000 out of some 300,000,000 people.......

Well...there's always babies being born to single mothers, people retiring that can't make ends meet with social security. People being laid off,

And your article is from breitbart, a known right wing propaganda site.

11,000 per day for the first term, not 11,000 total for a total of 39,000,000

Ok? It doesn't change the fact that babies are born every day to single mothers or couples that can't make ends meet, and that people retire every day.

This is part of automated spending. As the economy collapse as Obama was coming into office people losing jobs begin to file for aid. Its not like Obama gave it to them, it is automatic. Of course now with economy finally getting better those numbers will drop a great deal.

Lol, there we go.. I knew it was coming.. Everytime obama gets criticized bush gets brought up..

Ok? It doesn't change the fact that babies are born every day to single mothers or couples that can't make ends meet, and that people retire every day.

What does that have to do with you not reading the article correctly and stating 11,000 total instead of 31.9 million?

reply to post by retirednature


reply to post by scottromansky


By your responses it is very clear that both of you really do not know what you are talking about.

You do not realize that we are now in the age of robots and automation. Human jobs are being replaced every day by robots because that is the right thing to do in a capitalist society which your type seems to argue so hard for.

Jobs lost to AI will NEVER return. Its not economically feasible the way our society is structured.
So yes, go ahead and blame Obama for something he has basically ZERO control over....

As technology evolves, jobs are lost

Year after year, the software that runs computers and an array of other machines and devices becomes more sophisticated and powerful and capable of doing more efficiently tasks that humans have always done. For decades, science fiction warned of a future when we would be architects of our own obsolescence, replaced by our machines; an Associated Press analysis finds that the future has arrived.

reply to post by Juggernog


So Bush's presidency didnt affect the world economy at all?

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: IGNORANCE AT ITS FINEST

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Juggernog

 

So Bush's presidency didnt affect the world economy at all?

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: IGNORANCE AT ITS FINEST

Bush isnt president Obama is.. its time to quit the blame game you people have gotten so good at.
Obama has blamed his bad times on everything from Bush, to the Tsunami in Japan, grow up.

reply to post by Juggernog


lol the blame game? Isnt the purpose of this thread, to blame obama for something? Pot meet Kettle.

You act as if Obama controls the economy with a magic wand. You do realize he inherited a steaming pile of crap from bush. On top of that, as i pointed out earlier, we are in a huge state of change in the global economy. Research artifical intelligence please and educate yourself.

sorry kiddo, but you don't have the mental kahunas to argue with me.

reply to post by VonDoomen

sorry kiddo, but you don't have the mental kahunas to argue with me.

He just stated facts about Obamas presidency and his social programs and the first thing that comes up, as usual, is "Its Bushs fault" I dont care about Bush, I didnt like him then and dont now but he isnt president now Obama is
Actually, I just dont have the patience to argue with your kind of logic, since youre just going to echo what your dear leader says "Its not my fault"
Later

reply to post by Juggernog


Yea and i just stated the facts that bush left a steaming pile of crap. its the truth. get over it.

Also, my dear leader? Apparently you haven't seen my avatar

I am not an Obama supporter. I just like to argue against ignorance.

But I accept your forfeit.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by retirednature

 

reply to post by scottromansky

 

By your responses it is very clear that both of you really do not know what you are talking about.

You do not realize that we are now in the age of robots and automation. Human jobs are being replaced every day by robots because that is the right thing to do in a capitalist society which your type seems to argue so hard for.

Jobs lost to AI will NEVER return. Its not economically feasible the way our society is structured.
So yes, go ahead and blame Obama for something he has basically ZERO control over....

As technology evolves, jobs are lost

Year after year, the software that runs computers and an array of other machines and devices becomes more sophisticated and powerful and capable of doing more efficiently tasks that humans have always done. For decades, science fiction warned of a future when we would be architects of our own obsolescence, replaced by our machines; an Associated Press analysis finds that the future has arrived.

You're so right! I have no idea what I'm talking about.

By your response it is very clear that you really do not know what you are talking about. Two can play that game.

Is it robots and AI that is responsible for all the goods that we consume, or is it that a bulk of what we consume is made by the hands of either slave labor, or unfair labor practices; including unfair wages or debt secured labor. ie.China

There are many pieces to this puzzle. I think a lot of it starts with addressing our trade relations.

But hey, if we slow down considerably in our consumption rates. Just think about what that does to China. Economic warfare using our way of life as a weapon?

Isn't that what we'd expect in a recession? Regardless who was president? If John McCain had won in 2008, would the numbers be any different? Maybe worse?

The situation at hand was predicted to affect everyone in the world many years ago, some listened to their inner thoughts and some sought solace in the TV.
No one person is responsible but there is a group of people that fear the day we find out exactly what happened and when we do heads will roll.......not a token Presidents head but the real Heads.!

Regards,Iwinder

Originally posted by retirednature
In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

Well, knowing how Breitbart likes to get their articles factually correct.... SNAP should read as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. A bit nit picky I know but I know those folks over at Breitbart, having double proofed their article, would be aghast at the error and will soon issue a correction.

Maybe limit the duration in which people may receive food stamps?

Maybe limit the duration in which people may receive unemployment checks?

First on food stamps. According to the USDA.gov page on SNAP, it states the following:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PROWRA) stipulates that able-bodied, childless adults may only receive food stamps for 3 months in a 36-month period unless they work at least 20 hours a week; participate in an approved work or training program; or live in an area that has been waived from the time limit due to either an unemployment rate higher than 10 percent, or insufficient jobs.

So there are time limits in place along with exemptions. If you look at some of the stipulations by the states that time limit is different and is calculated by the exemptions set forth from USDA. Examples:
Idaho Has no stated time limits
Pennsylvania Says as long as you remain eligible you may receive them.
Connecticut falls in line with the USDA of a 3 month limit on receiving food assistance with the same exemptions outlined in the USDA guidelines.

On to unemployment:
Unemployment benefits is not a life long program and does indeed have a time limit. In the interest of saving some time I've found an article that outlines, basically, what those time limits are and the benefit amount limitations. NOLO.com outlines these as such:

Benefit Amounts:

Unemployment benefits are intended to partially replace lost wages, so the precise amount you receive will depend on what you used to earn. States use different formulae to calculate benefit payments, but all states take prior earnings into account in some way.

and

All states also set an upper limit on the total weekly benefit amount. A common formula is to pay half of what the employee used to earn, up to a cap that's tied to the average earnings in that state.

Benefit Time Limits:

n a normal economic climate, most states offer unemployment benefits for up to 26 weeks, or half a year, although a handful of states now offer benefits for fewer weeks. In these anything-but-normal times, however, the total period for which a former employee can receive benefits has been lengthened several times, through two separate programs.

and once the original 26 weeks is up it falls into the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC for short) and is figured as such:

Tier 1 provides up to 20 additional weeks of benefits until September 2012, and 14 weeks therafter.
Tier 2 provides up to 14 additional weeks of benefits, in states with at least 6% unemployment.
Tier 3 provides up to 13 additional weeks of benefits until September 2012, and nine weeks therafter, in states with at least 7% unemployment.
Tier 4 provides up to six additional weeks of benefits until September 2012, and ten weeks therafter, in states with at least 9% unemployment.

I hope this helps in furthering the discussion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Isn't that what we'd expect in a recession? Regardless who was president? If John McCain had won in 2008, would the numbers be any different?

I agree with this, however, I will also say that these numbers should have already gone back down (as should the unemployment numbers) by now. Supposedly the recession is over, but the Main Street evidence indicates a different situation. Wall Street has recovered fully, but the overall economy is still recessed (dare I say depressed?). The proof of that is found in stats such as record food stamp recipients, unacceptably high unemployment, continued near-record federal deficits, and continued numerous small business failures. I do believe the numbers would be far better had a conservative been elected... but no, the numbers wouldn't be much different had McCain been elected. McCain, like Bush and like Romney, is no conservative, though.

reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn


It would be awesome if we could go by these numbers. But we can't. There's a way and a means for getting just about anything.

Granted, many of these regulations are carried out, then there's always:

Thousands of Millionaires Collect Unemployment
abcnews.go.com...

People loop hole the system all day, and it is designed for this. Again:

www.factcheck.org...
Warren: GE Pays No Taxes

We’re not going to weigh in on Warren’s larger point about whether corporations like GE aren’t paying their fair share. That’s up to voters to decide. Again, the company has clearly been aggressive in reducing its tax burden through various tax credits and deductions created by the federal government (one example is clean energy incentives). It also has been creative in moving a good deal of its profits offshore. But Warren overreached with her claim that GE pays “zero” in taxes. The company does pay payroll taxes and local and state taxes. And GE says it also pays federal income taxes. How much? We don’t know, and GE isn’t saying. Nor is it required to.

So, we allow corporations like GE to pay no taxes, yada yada yadda

So, we allow people like millionaires to collect unemployment, yada yada yada
(It's not just Millionaires, there's plenty of people collecting foodstamps and unemployment that make $250,000 + a year)

Which then feeds into our debt, which then gets all fiscal cliffy as we try to address it, which make businesses weary about doing business which then results in less jobs. Saweet. I'm not going to pretend like it's that simple, but to make a long story short, it is.