Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.
In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.
All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.
At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.
Nice link and still a substantially smaller increase than W.
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.
but the Left wants to know where this bad economy is????
of course that is the reason the Left keeps bringing up bush here; THEY WANT TO TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH. insisting on one hand that things are better off under obama then they were under Bush, and not just bush's last 2 years, in the face of evidence that says different
I'm just not saying anything you want to hear.When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.
In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.
All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.
At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.
Nice link and still a substantially smaller increase than W.
YAWN
as i noted this is an obama-friendly source from FACTCHECK.ORG
you just arent saying anything dummy
President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com) - In the fourteen fiscal years that preceded President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the tax receipts coming into the federal government’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund exceeded the benefits paid out, and the trust fund ran a surplus.
In each of the five fiscal years Obama has served as president, the trust fund has run a deficit as the number of people receiving disability benefits has surged. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund has never before run five straight years of deficits.
The hell you didn't.I "missed one chance."So? No one is saying baby boomers are 100% of the cause. Just that they are a major factor. You been told this before, but your brain is stuck on believing that 1.5 million is greater than 7 million. I can't help you there.how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?
your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%
ok dummy. you just missed one chance to say exactly how much
You crack me up, rightard.
I could post studies which attempt to designate a percentage, but first, you would have to convince me why it's worth my time trying to educate an abject moron who idiotically thinks 1.5 million is more than 7 million?
i never said that or implied it stupid
try again
You can always tell when Bedo's back is against the wall. He starts yawning and spamming random scat not directed toward any one point or poster. It's a tactic that just makes him look dumb.
First of all, learn the English language, I didn't say it was your source, I said it was the source you "REFERENCED," and you DID reference Faun's source. But you have to divert rather than admit you misrepresented the source.Actually, the WHOLE 2012 quote says that only 15% of the dropouts are of prime working age. It then makes a reference to what the future will show one way or the other. And so far the Barclays economists ARE being proven right, there has been no increase in LPR or unemployment in the years following the article!how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?
your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%
From the source you reference:
"According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.
This would be good for the bearish holdouts on the economic recovery.
Those skeptics say the dropping unemployment rate mostly is from a drop in able-bodied people quitting the job search (and lowering labor force participation). And, they say, when the economy does pick back up, those folks will want back in. So, when they re-enter, the falling unemployment becomes the rising unemployment rate.
But if the Barclays economists are right, and the labor-force participation decrease is from baby boomers retiring, then we won’t see a large increase in labor force participation later. Or a rise in the unemployment rate."
if you were paying attention you would have known that wasnt my source it was Faun's. i quoted the part he left out. i provided several other sources that use statistics like these to make the opposite argument; that the big jump in the LFPR cant be tied to the retiring of Baby Boomers, not even most of the rise
Just a much smaller explosion than W.my back isnt against the wall stupid
welfare, food stamps (a form of WELFARE) AND disability have exploded under obama
all you have are absurd excuses to offer; and that is both of you
Just a much smaller explosion than W.my back isnt against the wall stupid
welfare, food stamps (a form of WELFARE) AND disability have exploded under obama
all you have are absurd excuses to offer; and that is both of you
They expanded SNAP benefits as the need was larger than anytime since the great depression..
You all act like this president just had a run of the mill presidency with no worries.
You need to view all of this through the lens of where he started in Jan. of '09.
Just a much smaller explosion than W.my back isnt against the wall stupid
welfare, food stamps (a form of WELFARE) AND disability have exploded under obama
all you have are absurd excuses to offer; and that is both of you
They expanded SNAP benefits as the need was larger than anytime since the great depression..
You all act like this president just had a run of the mill presidency with no worries.
You need to view all of this through the lens of where he started in Jan. of '09.
um no it isnt smaller under obama; as i have shown
what is the name, the title of this thread left-wing idiots?
The rate of home ownership has slipped again since our last report, to its lowest point in more than 20 years.
As of the final quarter of 2014, the percentage of U.S. households who owned their own homes was 64.0 percent, according to the most recent release from the U.S. Census Bureau. That is lower than at any time since the third quarter of 1994.
Home ownership peaked at 69.2 percent in 2004, but it has declined 5.2 percentage points since then. Most of the decline — 3.5 percentage points — has taken place since Obama first took office.
this is from a very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG, run by obama's friends at the Annenburg Foundation
