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.
Really? Who was "keeping it from the public"?
I remember seeing tons of stories about the rise in food stamps, which makes sense with high long term unemployment numbers.
Really? Who was "keeping it from the public"?
I remember seeing tons of stories about the rise in food stamps, which makes sense with high long term unemployment numbers.
but obama apologist on this forum were stating it rose more under bush than obama which apparently is not true.
Really? Who was "keeping it from the public"?
I remember seeing tons of stories about the rise in food stamps, which makes sense with high long term unemployment numbers.
a fact which the dems were able to keep from the public until after the election
Obama Admin Revised Food Stamp Participation Report to Show Larger Increase Than Under Bush 43 -- After the Election | NewsBusters
The number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased
by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
and even more rapidly (by 70 percent) between fiscal
years 2007 and 2011. During that latter period, spending
on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent. The
increase in the number of people eligible for and receiving
benefits between 2007 and 2011 has been driven
primarily by the weak economy. That increase was
responsible for about 65 percent of the growth in
spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. About
20 percent of the growth in spending can be attributed
to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors,
such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries,
both of which boost benefits.
Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.
The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.
In case you've forgotten, at the very end of Bush's term we went into a nosedive with the recession.
Idiot.
NewBusters ... Wow.
a fact which the dems were able to keep from the public until after the election
Obama Admin Revised Food Stamp Participation Report to Show Larger Increase Than Under Bush 43 -- After the Election | NewsBusters
So? You don't think it can be fallout from the economic disaster that happened at the end of the previous Administration?
Bush shit the bed and left town. Obama is still trying to clean up his mess.
NewBusters ... Wow.
a fact which the dems were able to keep from the public until after the election
Obama Admin Revised Food Stamp Participation Report to Show Larger Increase Than Under Bush 43 -- After the Election | NewsBusters
So? You don't think it can be fallout from the economic disaster that happened at the end of the previous Administration?
8 years of Bush and 4 years of Obama. It's not the why. It's why the July figures weren't adjusted to our knowledge till December 7th.
And if you read the article any revision made in the past two years was less than 20,000 and yet the July revision released in December after the election was a staggering 154,000.
Hell's bells if it wasn't done purposefully it still sucks. Because it means morons can't add at the USDA.
And they are in charge of your tax dollars. Think about it.
Bush shit the bed and left town. Obama is still trying to clean up his mess.
