food stamps

[imawhosure]

I am old, so can someone figure out how to ask Google this question to shut up our leftist, Marxists?

QUESTION---------> Under the Reagan administration, what % of people were on foodstamps at 4. anything( .7 .8. 9. whatever) unemployment rate? Now match it to the Obama administration!

So once we get the answer, and conservatives KNOW what the answer is going to say if we can figure out how to ask Google the question----> Is Obama lying about how good the economy is doing since he has to give more foodstamps away than Reagan...........OR..........is Obama giving away foodstamps in an attempt to buy votes for the Democratic/leftist/Marxist party.........or........BOTH-)

 

[Siete]

What if it takes four years to find a job?

Under the Obama economy? No way Jose! The left has the economy humming, just ask them, they will tell you!

the decline in food stamps relates to unemployment being under 5%.

5%, my chubby white butt.

You leftists all should be cooking books for the Mafia, you're so full of shit.

That 5% doesn't include people who've been unemployed so long that they've given up on finding a job. It doesn't include people who are severely underemployed, ie. wanting full-time but working a paltry number of part-time hours - frequently at a job far below their actual capability - just to have an income at all. It doesn't include people who are unemployed but perform as much as 1 hour of work in a week, eg. mowing someone's lawn or cleaning their house.

When you factor all those people into the equation, as many as 30 million people are unemployed or severely underemployed. So you're either too brain-damaged to know this, or you know it and you're a lying sack.

so you have nothing but to offer but to troll ..

gee, who new.

Apparently, you think "troll" means "providing facts that I don't want to believe". Who "new"[sic]?

disputing your "facts" with facts ..

In the seven states -- Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and New Jersey -- aid is ending sooner than the government requires. They join eight other states that had discontinued waivers in prior years because of economic conditions or state action: Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Indiana, Wisconsin and Texas. Other states are ending waivers only for certain regions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Hey leftists, let me tell both of you something----> More right on foodstamps, more left? Makes no difference, and maybe that will push Trump out of office in 4 years.......but for those for years, regardless of what side of the aisle the foodstamp recipients are on, they are going to have to go GET A JOB!

I will take our chances, go GET A JOB, and I WILL SUPPORT any politician that does this, including a small financial contribution!

What if it takes four years to find a job?

Under the Obama economy? No way Jose! The left has the economy humming, just ask them, they will tell you!

the decline in food stamps relates to unemployment being under 5%.

5%, my chubby white butt.

You leftists all should be cooking books for the Mafia, you're so full of shit.

That 5% doesn't include people who've been unemployed so long that they've given up on finding a job. It doesn't include people who are severely underemployed, ie. wanting full-time but working a paltry number of part-time hours - frequently at a job far below their actual capability - just to have an income at all. It doesn't include people who are unemployed but perform as much as 1 hour of work in a week, eg. mowing someone's lawn or cleaning their house.

When you factor all those people into the equation, as many as 30 million people are unemployed or severely underemployed. So you're either too brain-damaged to know this, or you know it and you're a lying sack.

Who do you blame for the amount of unemployed or severely underemployed in the US? Please explain in concise yet clear detail as to who your finger points at and why you think they are culpable?

 

[Tom Horn]

I am old, so can someone figure out how to ask Google this question to shut up our leftist, Marxists?

QUESTION---------> Under the Reagan administration, what % of people were on foodstamps at 4. anything( .7 .8. 9. whatever) unemployment rate? Now match it to the Obama administration!

So once we get the answer, and conservatives KNOW what the answer is going to say if we can figure out how to ask Google the question----> Is Obama lying about how good the economy is doing since he has to give more foodstamps away than Reagan...........OR..........is Obama giving away foodstamps in an attempt to buy votes for the Democratic/leftist/Marxist party.........or........BOTH-)

Here ya go:

The major budget cuts of Reagan's presidency occurred early in his first year. Within seven months of Reagan's inauguration, Congress had enacted the largest spending and tax cuts in its history, slashing fiscal 1982 spending $35 billion below projected levels and reducing personal and corporate income taxes by $37.7 billion. About $25 billion in cuts—some 70 percent of the budget savings—were made in programs affecting the poor.3 Congress was not as receptive to Reagan's budget-cutting requests in the following years, although some cuts in poverty programs were enacted.

Perhaps the biggest change was to reduce benefits for the working poor and focus federal welfare assistance primarily on the non-working poor. Congress, for example, amended the major cash benefit program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), to eliminate most payments to working parents.4 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Of the 450,000 to 500,000 families with earnings estimated to be receiving AFDC at the time of the [1981 program] changes, about one-half are estimated to have lost eligibility because of [those changes]. Another 40 percent are estimated to have had their AFDC benefits reduced, and the remaining 10 percent to have received unchanged or higher benefits. The other …changes, which affect primarily non-earners, are estimated to have made at least another 100,000 families ineligible and reduced benefits significantly for another 100,000,”5

Savings Resulting from Welfare Changes

The Reagan administration takes pride in slowing the growth of federal programs for low-income individuals. “Between 1954 and 1981 the constant dollar cost of federal means-tested benefit programs increased eleven-fold—from $6 billion to $68 billion,” said the authors of the fiscal year 1985 budget document,7 “Although Congress has not adopted all of the reforms proposed by the administration, estimated 1984 current law real costs will be lower than 1981, as will the means-tested budget share of the GNP [1.8 percent compared with 1.9 percent in 1981].”

The CBO reported in August 1983 that the impact of the changes is even greater if the current spending figures are compared with the spending that would have occurred under the laws in effect at the beginning of 1981.8 CBO found that, compared with pre-1981 law, AFDC and food stamps for fiscal years 1982–1985 had been cut by almost 13 percent; child nutrition programs had dropped about 28 percent; housing assistance fell 4.4 percent; Medicaid was cut by 5 percent

Social Welfare Under Reagan

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Wow, only one out of three adult Americans require aid to put food on the table. What a wonderful economy Obama has.

Well simon, it seems you feel the need to editorialize once again. The need for Food Stamps has many fathers, and to blame President Obama simplified the issue, and sustains the opinion that you offer nothing but partisan hackerey.

Well, shitforbrains, it is Democrats who
hail the economy as being so great. And your EDITORIAL proves way too many people require aid to put food on the table.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Dufus says blacks are conservative.

 

[koshergrl]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Conservatives forced out of jobs and off their land by communist, punitive lefty policies.

You shut down their economy, then accuse them of hypocrisy because they're forced to go on fed programs..that you force them into.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Hey leftists, let me tell both of you something----> More right on foodstamps, more left? Makes no difference, and maybe that will push Trump out of office in 4 years.......but for those for years, regardless of what side of the aisle the foodstamp recipients are on, they are going to have to go GET A JOB!

I will take our chances, go GET A JOB, and I WILL SUPPORT any politician that does this, including a small financial contribution!

What if it takes four years to find a job?

Under the Obama economy? No way Jose! The left has the economy humming, just ask them, they will tell you!

the decline in food stamps relates to unemployment being under 5%.

the decline in food stamps relates to unemployment being under 5%.

That why 1/3 of adults in America require aid to put food on the table, dufus?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Thankfully, I don't think the way you do, if you can call what you do "thinking". So I fail to see how this is "bitchslapping" anyone.

facts are facts, you don't think at all, just troll.

care to inform everyone how/why food stamps are down and not as widely used as RW's profess them to be?

care to inform everyone how/why food stamps are down and not as widely used as RW's profess them to be?

Shitforbrains thinks 1/3 of American adults requiring aid to put food on the table is a sign of a good economy.

 

[Moonglow]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Hey leftists, let me tell both of you something----> More right on foodstamps, more left? Makes no difference, and maybe that will push Trump out of office in 4 years.......but for those for years, regardless of what side of the aisle the foodstamp recipients are on, they are going to have to go GET A JOB!

I will take our chances, go GET A JOB, and I WILL SUPPORT any politician that does this, including a small financial contribution!

The majority of recipients already have jobs...Maybe we could ask the rich to cut living expenses...

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Hey leftists, let me tell both of you something----> More right on foodstamps, more left? Makes no difference, and maybe that will push Trump out of office in 4 years.......but for those for years, regardless of what side of the aisle the foodstamp recipients are on, they are going to have to go GET A JOB!

I will take our chances, go GET A JOB, and I WILL SUPPORT any politician that does this, including a small financial contribution!

What if it takes four years to find a job?

Under the Obama economy? No way Jose! The left has the economy humming, just ask them, they will tell you!

the decline in food stamps relates to unemployment being under 5%.

By your own 'Facts'....it says ENROLLMENT has declined. That means new applications. Doesn't say squat about existing cases. Although you are right that it relates to unemployment......but on the same premise. 'New applications' are down

 

[pinqy]

Wow, only one out of three adult Americans require aid to put food on the table. What a wonderful economy Obama has.

The SNAP data is not just adult Americans....it includes children as well.

After the loss of all the full time jobs in 2008, replaced with all those part time jobs, .

People who usually work full time. December 2007: 121,042,000 December 2016: 123,570,000 change of +2,528,000
People who usually work part time: December 2007: 25,291,000 December 2016: 28,228,000 change of +2,937,000
So how are you seeing a replacement? It's all been replaced back.

Most folks don't realize that the government doesn't figure food into the consumer price index.

But they do: Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U. S. city average, by expenditure category

 

[koshergrl]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Not only that, but the majority of food stamp recipients are conservative. Fucking hypocrites

Hey leftists, let me tell both of you something----> More right on foodstamps, more left? Makes no difference, and maybe that will push Trump out of office in 4 years.......but for those for years, regardless of what side of the aisle the foodstamp recipients are on, they are going to have to go GET A JOB!

I will take our chances, go GET A JOB, and I WILL SUPPORT any politician that does this, including a small financial contribution!

What if it takes four years to find a job?

Under the Obama economy? No way Jose! The left has the economy humming, just ask them, they will tell you!

the decline in food stamps relates to unemployment being under 5%.

By your own 'Facts'....it says ENROLLMENT has declined. That means new applications. Doesn't say squat about existing cases. Although you are right that it relates to unemployment......but on the same premise. 'New applications' are down

It's all moot anyway, the stats are manipulated in a way that makes them meaningless.

For one thing, the poverty level standards change all the time. They keep going up.

And right, they don't count recertifications, and 3/4 of snap recipients recertify in the final month of their one year cert period. They don't wait until it closes to apply again.

 

[pinqy]

5%, my chubby white butt.

You leftists all should be cooking books for the Mafia, you're so full of shit.

That 5% doesn't include people who've been unemployed so long that they've given up on finding a job.

Time of unemployment is irrelevant. Someone who loses his job and doesn't look for work at all, or looks in his first week and then stops is not considered unemployed.
People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed, because if you're not trying to work, you won't work no matter how many jobs are available. So people not trying to work don't tell us anything about the actual job market.

That being said, people who stopped looking and are likely to start looking again are tracked. Adding them to the UE rate makes it 5.7%. Adding only those who gave up due to discouragement makes it 5%.

It doesn't include people who are severely underemployed, ie. wanting full-time but working a paltry number of part-time hours - frequently at a job far below their actual capability - just to have an income at all. It doesn't include people who are unemployed but perform as much as 1 hour of work in a week, eg. mowing someone's lawn or cleaning their house.

Why would you want to include people who are working as unemployed? As for minimum time, no one involuntarily works only one hour a week regularly...certainly not in dire circumstances when they need the money. but honestly, there's no practical way to have a minimum time as that makes a judgment call that people, who for that particular week don't work enough hours, are the same as not working at all.

When you factor all those people into the equation, as many as 30 million people are unemployed or severely underemployed.

Who taught you how to do math? Even if we count everyone who says they want a job, regardless of when they last looked (if ever) and regardless of whether they could even accept a job if offered, and everyone who worked less than 35 hours but was wanted to and was able to work 35+, that gives us a grand total of 18,789,000
Source for unemployed and not in the labor force want a job now: Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Source for part time for economic reasons: Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

 

[pinqy]

By your own 'Facts'....it says ENROLLMENT has declined. That means new applications. Doesn't say squat about existing cases. Although you are right that it relates to unemployment......but on the same premise. 'New applications' are down

Ok, let's go straight to USDA then: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Food and Nutrition Service
the numbers are the same, but they say "participation," not "enrollment." And enrollment doesn't mean new applications, it means participating. My children are enrolled in school.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bernie, The Donald and HRC all campaigned for a bill to renew, replace and repair our aging infrastructure. The Tea Party Caucus in The H. or Rep. (now, laughingly calling themselves the Freedom Caucus) have prevented investing in America, which would be an investment which would create jobs, and be of benefit for our posterity.

Conservative, austere supporting members of The Congress have established a single priority, their reelection. Notice that not one member of this caucus has authored a bill cutting the salary and or benefits of this elitist group of ne'er do wells.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Wow, only one out of three adult Americans require aid to put food on the table. What a wonderful economy Obama has.

The SNAP data is not just adult Americans....it includes children as well.

After the loss of all the full time jobs in 2008, replaced with all those part time jobs, .

People who usually work full time. December 2007: 121,042,000 December 2016: 123,570,000 change of +2,528,000
People who usually work part time: December 2007: 25,291,000 December 2016: 28,228,000 change of +2,937,000
So how are you seeing a replacement? It's all been replaced back.

Most folks don't realize that the government doesn't figure food into the consumer price index.

But they do: Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U. S. city average, by expenditure category



View attachment 106012

OK, only 1 in 4 Americans require assistance to put food on the table in this wonderful economy.

 

[owebo]

I keep hearing RW's yammer "food stamps", forcing me to bitch slap them with a fact ..

Wait....so you're saying Trump didn't win??

 

[pinqy]

OK, only 1 in 4 Americans require assistance to put food on the table in this wonderful economy.

SNAP PARTICIPATION OCT 2016
43,215,557
Population 15 October 2016
323,866,900

Now my math says that 323,866,900/43,215,557 =7.5

 

[Cecilie1200]

5%, my chubby white butt.

You leftists all should be cooking books for the Mafia, you're so full of shit.

That 5% doesn't include people who've been unemployed so long that they've given up on finding a job.

Time of unemployment is irrelevant. Someone who loses his job and doesn't look for work at all, or looks in his first week and then stops is not considered unemployed.
People not trying to work have never been considered unemployed, because if you're not trying to work, you won't work no matter how many jobs are available. So people not trying to work don't tell us anything about the actual job market.

That being said, people who stopped looking and are likely to start looking again are tracked. Adding them to the UE rate makes it 5.7%. Adding only those who gave up due to discouragement makes it 5%.

It doesn't include people who are severely underemployed, ie. wanting full-time but working a paltry number of part-time hours - frequently at a job far below their actual capability - just to have an income at all. It doesn't include people who are unemployed but perform as much as 1 hour of work in a week, eg. mowing someone's lawn or cleaning their house.

Why would you want to include people who are working as unemployed? As for minimum time, no one involuntarily works only one hour a week regularly...certainly not in dire circumstances when they need the money. but honestly, there's no practical way to have a minimum time as that makes a judgment call that people, who for that particular week don't work enough hours, are the same as not working at all.

When you factor all those people into the equation, as many as 30 million people are unemployed or severely underemployed.

Who taught you how to do math? Even if we count everyone who says they want a job, regardless of when they last looked (if ever) and regardless of whether they could even accept a job if offered, and everyone who worked less than 35 hours but was wanted to and was able to work 35+, that gives us a grand total of 18,789,000
Source for unemployed and not in the labor force want a job now: Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Source for part time for economic reasons: Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status

I didn't come up with this stuff out of my own ass, hon. All of the information I gave you is readily available from the BLS itself, and was taken from their own reports. You may take your objections and personal perceptions of what "you're sure" they do up with them.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Here's an explanation of the different types of unemployment they track, and how.

The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3

That is also available on the BLS site, although since it's a government site, it isn't as easy to locate there.

Your ability to cherrypick the charts that you like and ignore all the others impresses me not at all.