Under Obama, 10.7 Million More Use Food Stamps—A 32 Percent Jump

a reply to: seeker1963

Amen to that brother!

So you're telling me that the South could not adjust after 150 years? That is some ass backwards logic on economics and slavery.

The lesson that should have been learned by the South was to invest in education and products that shapes tomorrow. The fact that republicans/south continue to chase after the old economy of manufacturing/oil/gas is beyond me. That sh it is getting phased out with time and you need to be ready with the economy of tomorrow. Republicans/South are horribly ill prepared for this and is the reason why Trump is never going to bring jobs back to the rust/bible belt. You guys simply don't see the issue whether it be guns, climate change, or the economy.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Most of these welfare recipients are in "red" states who do absolutely nothing to improve their states' economies but would rather spend the time and effort to blame things on others. When are people going to learn.

originally posted by: xuenchen
As President Obama gets ready to vacate the White House, people are thinking about what he has done in 8 years.

One milestone is a 32% increase in food stamp recipients !!

Actually with the population increase it might be a little less.

Very significant.

More than 13% of the population.

What went wrong?

Why not a decrease?

Under Obama, 10.7 Million More Use Food Stamps—A 32 Percent Jump

As President Obama prepares to leave office, his legacy will include an increase in the number of Americans using food stamps.

The number of food stamps recipients went up by 10.7 million people, a 32 percent jump, since President Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

In 2009, 33,490,000 people received food stamp benefits. As of October 2016, the last month reported for FY 2016, 44,219,123 people received food stamp benefits, an increase of about 10,729,000.

The U.S. population as of October 1, 2016 was 324,607,826, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Therefore, the 44,219,123 people on food stamps represented 13.6 percent of the population.

Don't wanna be "that guy"....but the civil war did 2 things:

- freed slaves without having a plan for what to do
- ended in the Reconstruction Era that had effects that set up todays southern environment

Sure, freeing the slaves was awesome. But it killed half of the US economy in one fell swoop. The majority of this pain (actually, just about all of it) was felt by southern states. You don't recover from something like the civil war in just 2 or 3 generations. Especially when the former slaves were set up to struggle by both sides, either through negligent inaction, or malicious action

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I can't speak for other states, as i don't live there. In Texas, we have one of the world largest economies. And when oil does well, our economy does even better.

We'd love to have tourists. LOL, but the sand dunes aren't really all that interesting.

originally posted by: carewemust
Can they buy razors, toothpaste, soap, etc..?? I should have gotten on that gravy train!

No, food items only. In some stores, food and non food items have to be in separate purchases, while in others you can just swipe an EBT card to pay for the food, and then a debit card to pay for the remainder. Food items purchased with EBT aren't taxed.

Additionally, in most states there's a stipulation that you can't use them to purchase hot prepared meals which basically means you can't go into your grocery store deli and buy a roast chicken with EBT, but if that exact same chicken is cold you can buy it. The intent is that it prevents fast food and restaurants from accepting EBT. In California though, you can use EBT at either (if the business chooses to accept it). In a couple other states they've started allowing fast food purchases with EBT recently.

The amount received is different per state and is based on income. In Ohio for example, while the income thresholds have declined, letting more people onto the program, the amount has declined sharply. For example, 4 years ago I had a higher income than I do now and got $200/month. These days, with about 90% as much income I get $60/month. It's not really a gravy train. It covers some basic food items.

a reply to: xuenchen
You need to work on your reading comprehension.

There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

I don't think a 32% rise in foot stamp usage is particularly surprising.

It came during the worst recession of our lives and at a time when many decent hard working families saw their savings crushed by unemployment and/or low interest rates, poor returns on investments and either falling or stagnating property values. This all at a time when affordable credit became more difficult to obtain and when imports of cheaper foreign goods took it's toll on domestic manufacuring.

That plus the government had spent colossal sums propping up the banking system, the kinds of $$, ££ and €€ which makes the welfare budget pale into complete insignificance. The government had exhausted it's coffers before the effects of the recession even became apparent, leaving it no option but to borrow/create extraordinary amounts of money to keep the system going.

You can say all this about the USA. But the same is true about the EU and many other places too.

It's not welfare claimants who are the problem. The vast majority of those needing welfare have paid into the taxation system in one way or another. They're just dipping into a fraction of what taxes they've paid, simply in order to feed themselves and their kids.

So many of us bought into the dream of never ending good times, rising stocks, secure employment, galloping away house prices and a sun which never set. I did and many here did too. And we've been paying the price ever since.

It's not one politician we can blame, although sure some bear a heavy responsibility for where we all find ourselves. Instead it's the system itself which is to blame. The system we live under is just plain rotten from the core.

Blaming welfare claimants for our predicament is an easy shot, it's a shallow argument, one which plays right into the hands of those at the top who have screwed us all over.

a reply to: eisegesis

Why not keep their job in some form, while they look for something better or more suitable? Why does it have to be done on my dime?

Okay, except from experience, once a company begins to show signs of 'cutting back' and you work in that division or department that is getting the cut backs, its a matter of time before they take more action. Writing on the wall...

I begins with 'reorganization', shorter work week or hours, some people let go, others absorbed elsewhere. Theres this whole formula to let everyone down easy in stages. Take the hint...

and watch "Office Space", swan song of my era in silicon valley.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: tridalop
So this is why US national debt doubled over 8 years. Too much welfare.

More people on welfare is a reflection of how many are unemployed, not, "too much welfare".

Or underemployed thanks to years of stagnant wages and an increase in part-time jobs (so companies can milk employees).

Right. Part time employment is one way of saving money. They don't have to pay overtime or benefits for 'part time' employment.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: tridalop
So this is why US national debt doubled over 8 years. Too much welfare.

More people on welfare is a reflection of how many are unemployed, not, "too much welfare".

And it's likely unemployment is higher than ever...

source

Wow, 26 weeks? In my time it was a year before they cut you off. So, is that the corporate counter punch for increasing minimum wage?

The loser is always the employee.

Here, I know it may be harder than ever to find another job, but were gong to cut your unemployment benefits in half too... Merry Christmas.

a reply to: tridalop
.

a reply to: seeker1963

Do I have to pay extra for food poisoning from a robot?

originally posted by: xuenchen
As President Obama gets ready to vacate the White House, people are thinking about what he has done in 8 years.

One milestone is a 32% increase in food stamp recipients !!

Actually with the population increase it might be a little less.

Very significant.

More than 13% of the population.

What went wrong?

Why not a decrease?

Under Obama, 10.7 Million More Use Food Stamps—A 32 Percent Jump

As President Obama prepares to leave office, his legacy will include an increase in the number of Americans using food stamps.

The number of food stamps recipients went up by 10.7 million people, a 32 percent jump, since President Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

In 2009, 33,490,000 people received food stamp benefits. As of October 2016, the last month reported for FY 2016, 44,219,123 people received food stamp benefits, an increase of about 10,729,000.

The U.S. population as of October 1, 2016 was 324,607,826, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Therefore, the 44,219,123 people on food stamps represented 13.6 percent of the population.

US Population in 2009: 305 Million, 33.5 M on Food Stamps, 11%

US Population in 2016: 325 Million, 44.2 M on Food Stamps, 13.6%

Adjusting for population, that is a 2.6% increase.

It should also be noted Food Stamp use has FALLEN the last three years from post recession peak.

What states use the most Food Stamps?

1. Mississippi, 21.7% of the population there
2. New Mexico, 21.5%
3. West Virginia, 20%
4. Oregon, 20%
5. Tennessee, 19.5%
6. Louisiana, 18.6%
7. Kentucky
8. Alabama
9. Georgia
10. Florida

Definitely pain through Appalachia and the Southern States..It's gone down some in the past few years...let's see if Trump can fix it for those folks. So far what the GOP has proposed is simply cutting them off.

www.cheatsheet.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: intrptr

Less food assistance, less economic opportunity, stagnant wages and Food and Grocery bills that have steadily increased at a pace greater than inflation.

It's an issue and it is hammering Appalachia and Southern States most, but the country as a whole.

What conservative policy do you see fixing that?

Trumps Labor Nominee is a staunch opponent to increasing minimum wage.
Free markets have led the increase in food prices...and a crackdown on illegal farm workers or imports will accelerate food price increases.
GOP want to slash Food Stamp benefits as a matter of policy...

Trump promised a return of the Coal industry by deregulating it, but Fracking is killing coal not regulations.
He can get a few more jobs in coal...very, very few..but at lower wages and lower safety standards and not anywhere near the numbers that are needed. He isn't going to end Fracking, that will grow in the next 4 years. Fracking and native oil in the West is what is killing coal in Appalachia..

IMO - Appalachia and the south need NEW industry...and it will require gov. tax breaks and subsidies to encourage manufacturing arms of tech companies to set up shop there. It is geographically inconvenient and will need some serious carrots, but it is worth incentivizing. Aerospace contracts, New Energy (Solar Panels and Batteries) and the like...I just don't see a conservative gov. being able to commit to that.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I can't speak for other states, as i don't live there. In Texas, we have one of the world largest economies. And when oil does well, our economy does even better.

We'd love to have tourists. LOL, but the sand dunes aren't really all that interesting.

Putin signed an agreement with OPEC last month...first time they ever worked together..to limit oil production and output.

That will (and already has) increase the price per barrel. We are seeing the price rise in the winter months...which no one has seen before.

That will (A) Raise the price of gas in the USA significantly next year..which will depress the over-all economy, increasing commute costs, reducing real take home wages, increasing prices as cost of transporting and shipping increase...and (B) Make oil prospecting that was not cost efficient in places like Texas worth doing again...so expect the oil fields in your back-yard to pick-up again...while the rest of the country bitches about the wild price of gas.

OPEC has been flooding the market in the last few years in part to slow native oil production in the USA (it doesn't make money unless price per barrel is high)...so it is a trade-off..At least until technology catches up and we can get to the oil cheaper..hopefully that happens soon.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: tridalop
So this is why US national debt doubled over 8 years. Too much welfare.

More people on welfare is a reflection of how many are unemployed, not, "too much welfare".

And it's likely unemployment is higher than ever...

source

Wow, 26 weeks? In my time it was a year before they cut you off. So, is that the corporate counter punch for increasing minimum wage?

The loser is always the employee.

Here, I know it may be harder than ever to find another job, but were gong to cut your unemployment benefits in half too... Merry Christmas.

From the article and even some of the states I looked up specifically, it was always 26 weeks with the Emergency Order to extend them to 72 coming after the recession for a limited time. The Repulicans filibustered extending the Emergency benefits extension after the original date was up and the democrats wanted to extend it again.

I can't say I blame them for doing so. But I think it gave a lot of folks on unemployment reason to be upset. On another spectrum, when it expired it also helped Obama's numbers for unemployment since obviously those past the 26 or 72 week deadlines would no longer be eligible for benefits and as such were no longer registered as unemployed.

Obviously this gave Obama a bit of a nice bump in his claims to have been so great for unemployment....1.3 million people lost their benefits and eligibility on December 28, 2014. This year in particular was touted as the best year according to numbers since 2000. Just a tad bit disingenuous.

a reply to: Indigo5

Im thinking 10 years max before we move away from petroleum.

But im expecting 2017 to see sweet light/WTI in the range of $80bbl by summer

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

www.cnn.com...

The Midland Basin of the Wolfcamp Shale area in the Permian Basin is now estimated to have 20 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas, according to a new assessment by the USGS.

What the US needs are new refineries. That may actually be possible once Lisa Jackson leaves washington dc.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

Im thinking 10 years max before we move away from petroleum.

But im expecting 2017 to see sweet light/WTI in the range of $80bbl by summer

All politics aside...you are correct.

It's not a political debate anymore, it is the pace at which technology is advancing.

Solar panels are becoming more efficient and less expensive in keeping with Moore's law...the doubling of computing power on a regular trajectory. More powerful...smaller footprint...less expensive..

Battery storage technology is moving quick to.

Despite Trump promising to repeal fuel efficiency standards...that cat is already out the box and auto-manufactures will continue to make cars that need less gas...more so with gas prices increasing...which will also be a shot in the arm to electric vehicle technology.

Short term...Oil is back in business in the USA...but ya a decade from now..alternate energy tech will be good enough and cheap enough where it will be a pocket-book decision for Americans, not a cultural or political choice.