Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6
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.


I don't know if the recession is over. I don't think so. Maybe Wall Street has recovered, but that darn money just ain't trickling down, you know? I think one of the biggest factors is the gap between CEO's and the average worker's pay. Not sure a conservative president would help that at all. In fact, I think it would be worse.

In 1980, a CEO made 42 times what his workers made. Today, he makes 380 times what his workers make. When corporations do better, the executives take it home. When they do worse, they don't cut their own pay, they take it from their workers.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

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


Where are the people on the left freaking out when unemployment went over 5% under Bush? They sure are very quiet now.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by retirednature
 


Cloward and Piven being applied to a T by Obama, and yet people won't allow themselves to read it and awaken themselves to the fact, Obama is nothing more than the Biggest Traitor in the history of our nation.........



edit on 22-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by retirednature
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,


Oh most certainly there is blatant misuse of the stated benefits. I don't think there is anyone that could honestly argue against that point. I was merely providing the OP with the information that there are indeed stated limitations to food assistance programs and unemployment benefits, as the OP put forth limitations on those programs as a possible way to solve a problem.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6
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.


I don't know if the recession is over. I don't think so. Maybe Wall Street has recovered, but that darn money just ain't trickling down, you know? I think one of the biggest factors is the gap between CEO's and the average worker's pay. Not sure a conservative president would help that at all. In fact, I think it would be worse.

In 1980, a CEO made 42 times what his workers made. Today, he makes 380 times what his workers make. When corporations do better, the executives take it home. When they do worse, they don't cut their own pay, they take it from their workers.


hey BH...don't you know that the recession ended on the first day obama was in office?

i guess obama should have started hiring people on that first day



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by retirednature
 


Cloward and Piven being applied to a T by Obama, and yet people won't allow themselves to read it and awaken themselves to the fact, Obama is nothing more than the Biggest Traitor in the history of our nation.........



edit on 22-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)


gee, the biggest traitor...after nixon, where over 43 of the POTUS staff were imprisoned for watergate?, or after reagan where over 138 of the POTUS staff were convicted for irangate? or "W" bush for signing into law the patriot act and the NDAA act, and sending us to war against iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11?............you mean worse than those 3?
edit on 22-1-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Lets not forget that the October before Bush left office the stock market plunged some 6000 pts and the price on nearly everything in this country doubled. Also the price of gasoline more then doubled under Bush. With the six years that Republicans had full control under Bush they set this country back 50 years with their policies.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by solidguy
 


idk, why dont you go ask them? Im not a lefty...so how would i know?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
hey BH...don't you know that the recession ended on the first day obama was in office?

i guess obama should have started hiring people on that first day


It's been nearly 5 years since it started and the Obama adminsitration was sure voiciferous in their proclaimations that we were "recovering" in the 12-18 months leading up to the elections... despite all evidence to the contrary. I think at some point the American middle class who are still employed and paying for the rest of the country have every right to demand some results... even if we have become a minority of the nation.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think one of the biggest factors is the gap between CEO's and the average worker's pay. Not sure a conservative president would help that at all. In fact, I think it would be worse.

In 1980, a CEO made 42 times what his workers made. Today, he makes 380 times what his workers make.


I don't know. All we can look at are statistics. The last true conservative president the US had was Reagan. Under 8 years of Reagan CEO pay almost doubled. Under 4 years of Bush 41 it grew by about 60%. 8 years of Clinton saw the largest growth in CEO pay, witnessing it nearly triple in his second term. Bush 43's 8 years were a valley, major peak, then another valley for what amounted to a net loss. Since then it has been steadily climbing again. I guess Obama is great for corporate elite paychecks... or really, really bad for worker salaries, take your pick.
SOURCE



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Im confused why you singled out Obama like this? Oh, HE's really good for CEO paychecks, but the other 4 you mentioned right before weren't????

What is Obama supposed to do, make a law forcing all CEO's to take a 50% pay cut?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Would you say that the economic downfall of the USA is the reason these people are on food stamps?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Im confused why you singled out Obama like this? Oh, HE's really good for CEO paychecks, but the other 4 you mentioned right before weren't????

What is Obama supposed to do, make a law forcing all CEO's to take a 50% pay cut?


Well, every other president in this time span has served during at least a period of real growth. In other words, yeah, the CEO pay increased but alongside that, the middle class workers experienced pay growth. It isn't just about CEO pay... it is about the gap between CEO pay and worker pay. I honestly have no problem with CEOs making whatever they can negotiate. I do, however, have a major problem when we've been sitting in a holding pattern for 4 years watching real wages go down while this gap increases. In fact, Obama's policies have largely centered around expanding the gap even further.

Obama is "supposed" to do the one thing he has so far demonstrated a complete lack of ability for and absolute distaste towards... Take responsibility and LEAD the country. To date everything has been the other guy's fault and he's made excuse after excuse. That isn't leadership, it's spineless cowardice which relied solely on a combination of the privileged class and lower class gift recipients to get re-elected in spite of the core of America which has paid for all of his excessive gifting to both the elites and the poor.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by retirednature
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.



Little more math please:
When Obama took office there were around 305M people in the US. Now there are estimated to be around 313M people in the US (not counting the uncountables): en.wikipedia.org...

2008: 31M is ~10% of 305M
2012: 47M is ~15% of 313M

Digging a bit deeper -
2008: Households under the poverty line - 32M
2012: Households under the poverty line - 46M

www.census.gov...

What do you know? These things match up. Doesn't look like Obama was just handing out these welfare checks to any and everyone but was a direct result of the population increase between 2008 and 2012 contributing a larger growth in the "impoverished" segment.

Looks like under Obama, the percentage of people actually electing to receive benefits went down? How does that play in the calculation?

Regardless if you agree with Obama or not, understand that these numbers are a result of demographic shifts in the US and not "Santa Obama".



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 

You bring up some very good points. However I still disagree with you as we are not discussing the whole picture yet. We need to look at 2 things. What major events happened from Reagan-Bush JR and technology.
Most people do not currently understand the ramifications of technology and the information age we have entered.

With Reagan and bush, we had the end of the cold war. For the first time since the start of WW2, the world seemed to be at peace. The world was ready for change. Countries began to divert money and resources from the war effort towards more utilitarian ideas. We also left that situation with much better technology than when we entered it. (I would recommend checking out the Bush Sr Wiki. He really wasn't all that great for the economy.)

Only a few short years later, the internet was released for public use. This created one of the most dramatic periods of economic growth we've ever seen.

Marks my words, it did not matter that Clinton was president. The appearance of the internet would have been a "period of economic growth" for ANY president. Even a baboon could have presided over that.

Clinton also left office with a surplus.

That surplus was also quickly spent by the next president, Bush. He also raised the national debt by trillions. Of course that extra money being spent would spur the economy. But it's a magic trick. Borrowing money to spur short term economic growth does not necessarily ensure long term growth, especially if that money is poorly invested. But what else happened during this time? Oh yea the financial sector went all crazy. How much of that "economic growth" was the result of illegitimate financial transactions, mortgages, ect? The US really saw no meaningful growth during Bush Jr. Our country was certainly not better off after his presidency.

I dont think we need to rehash exactly what Obama inherited. We also dont need to rehash Job outsourcing and china. We both know whats wrong with those things.

Aside from all this political BS, people really need to come to terms with technology. I eat breath and sleep computer science. Do not be mistaken, we are going through a paradigm shift due to technology. Today, people carry around more computing power in their cellphone, than the shuttles had for the apollo missions. Everyday, more and more jobs are being replaced by software or robots. We have an increasing population and a decreasing need for workers.
Please read these links-
www.oregonlive.com...
www.cracked.com...




—Technology is being adopted by every kind of organization that employs people. It's replacing workers in large corporations and small businesses, established companies and startups, schools, hospitals, nonprofits and the military.
—The most vulnerable workers are doing repetitive tasks that programmers can write software for — an accountant checking a list of numbers, an office manager filing forms, a paralegal reviewing documents for key words to help in a case.


With the advent of the internet, it is becoming less and less profitable to have stores all over the country and employ unnecessary workers. Most forms of entertainment are now digitized and can be bought online from the comfort of ones home.




Work at a GameStop or some other video game store at the mall? The next consoles will download their games directly, no store needed. Work at a video store? Same thing -- Blu-ray is probably the last physical media we'll ever see. Work as a cashier? Forget self-checkout lanes taking your job -- soon they'll have RFID systems where customers can pile groceries into a cart and wheel it out the door, and sensors will bill their debit card on the fly. Work at Starbucks? What are you doing that a machine couldn't do? Work for the post office? You're just a human spambot at this point -- more than half of all mail is now unwanted junk that goes directly into the trash, because in a world with email, direct mailers are the only profitable customers the Postal Service has left.


To make matters worse, 3D printing is coming of age. Thats another reason not to have stores and hire people.
I kid you not, eventually you will be able to recycle your own plastic garbage in your house and use the resulting material as printing material.
Why would I go to the store to buy something when I can just download the plans and print it out much cheaper?

Why would I go to some restaurant when I can print my own steak?
news.cnet.com...

See, it doesnt really matter who is president. A new world and economy are coming.

My only advice, dont pursue employment in a career that can be automated!
.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

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? Maybe worse?


Shhhh!

Don't go making sense now.

My problem with the food stamp program isn't that it exists. It's that it measures it's swelling numbers as success.

We should be measuring it by how many people come off the program and into a better life. But so long as we have a crony distorted, retarded economy, I'm afraid the numbers are only going to get worse.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I'm not in the habit of blaming any particular president for everything that people do. My point is that people in high places (corporate executives) are greedy. Neither Obama nor any president sets CEOs' wages. This is something that isn't regulated by government. This is something that is happening because people's mindset is geared toward PROFIT and GREED. It's their first, last and only concern.

If a normal person can't make a living wage, then they have to have two jobs (or both people in a couple must work). If there are children involved, those kids don't get the care and attention they need. They look elsewhere for "guidance". They look to video games and violent movies for entertainment. They become obese and lazy and lonely because their care is lacking. They grow into angry, resentful young people and then go out and take it out on innocent people. (That's a VERY condensed version of my perception of "what's wrong with this country".)

A conservative president wouldn't have made a difference. The top execs would still get their money (maybe more, with a lower minimum wage in effect). Unless you're suggesting that a conservative president would have regulated the pay gap.
I don't think you're saying that.


reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Originally posted by burdman30ott6
In fact, Obama's policies have largely centered around expanding the gap even further.


How's that? What policies?
edit on 1/23/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
talk about beeting dead horses . Wont look for a job you say???
GIVE ME A BRAKE the few who still have something ((Ooo like a house a car health care seam to think the rest dont even deserve to earn ENOUGH to pay rent let along food
go get a job at a fastfood joint or walle world AND still be on food stamps worse if you get sick your totaly out of luck.
' give me a brake THERES A MINUM standered of living yea people HAVE THE RIGHT to expect to make a LIVING wage you just want another africa in america were only thouse with power eat??
BAAAA give me a job for even 12 dollors a hour ANY JOB ill take it keep it and STILL need health care but alest i could ooo i dont know get a car ((((A MUST have here in the stats A phone ((a MUST have in the stats then ill be MORE then happy to get off foodstamps!!!! For the love of we get 200$ a month!!!! try eating on that!!
GIVE ME A JOB FULL TIME 12 $A HOUR THEN complane IF I WONT WORK.
The rich3est country in the world SHOULD NOT have homeless people or people WORKING and still needing walfair



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by retirednature
 


Yep, the cold hard facts do show that US Citizens are more dependent on Nanny Govt.

Who is surprised?
You shouldn't be. It is all in the plan for Cloward-Piven.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
We're in a recession, what exactly do you expect?

Would you prefer people go hungry?

edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join