Welfare Recipients Now Outnumber Workers

[itfitzme]

Show us your numbers

The survey of*
all people * * * * * * * * *306,804 * Table 2
---------------------------------
Working * * * * * * * * * *143,319
....Full time 16+ * * * * * 141,067** Table 5
....Part time * * * * * * * * *2,252 * *Table 5
-----------------

means tested * * * * * * *108,502 * *Table 2

That is 141,067k full time workers out of Population of 306,804k people with 108,502k people receiving means tested benefits.

As the instructions for the survey data usage says that it cannot be compared directly to CPS and the survey has its own population estimate and employment estimate, why did CNS not just use the survey data?

BTW, there is nothing to suggest that some of those receiving benefits were also not working.


http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table2.xls
http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table5.xls

 

[itfitzme]

ouch

Though it is clear you and Vox both don't have a secondary education and have an IQ less than 100.

Fantasy insults are a clear indicator.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Hey
it is your story and you can tell it anyway you want

Note
the average IQ of women on welfare is below 100
the core of the Democratic vote
Truth- look it up

 

[Vox]

ouch

leftards always think about themselves as "smart" and "educated", even it is a bachelor's in liberal arts.
and then are parroting the yesterday's HuffPost talking points as a proof

 

[Neotrotsky]

Show us your numbers

The survey of*
all people * * * * * * * * *306,804 * Table 2
---------------------------------
Working * * * * * * * * * *143,319
....Full time 16+ * * * * * 141,067** Table 5
....Part time * * * * * * * * *2,252 * *Table 5
-----------------

means tested * * * * * * *108,502 * *Table 2

That is 141,067k full time workers out of Population of 306,804k people with 108,502k people receiving means tested benefits.

As the instructions for the survey data usage says that it cannot be compared directly to CPS and the survey has its own population estimate and employment estimate, why did CNS not just use the survey data?

BTW, there is nothing to suggest that some of those receiving benefits were also not working.


http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table2.xls
http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table5.xls

So you have not 'proven' anything
thanks for the update

 

[itfitzme]

Show us your numbers

The survey of*
all people * * * * * * * * *306,804 * Table 2
---------------------------------
Working * * * * * * * * * *143,319
....Full time 16+ * * * * * 141,067** Table 5
....Part time * * * * * * * * *2,252 * *Table 5
-----------------

means tested * * * * * * *108,502 * *Table 2

That is 141,067k full time workers out of Population of 306,804k people with 108,502k people receiving means tested benefits.

As the instructions for the survey data usage says that it cannot be compared directly to CPS and the survey has its own population estimate and employment estimate, why did CNS not just use the survey data?

BTW, there is nothing to suggest that some of those receiving benefits were also not working.


http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table2.xls
http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table5.xls

So you have not 'proven' anything
thanks for the update

143,319 > 108,502

So you can't do math.

We get it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The survey of*
all people * * * * * * * * *306,804 * Table 2
---------------------------------
Working * * * * * * * * * *143,319
....Full time 16+ * * * * * 141,067** Table 5
....Part time * * * * * * * * *2,252 * *Table 5
-----------------

means tested * * * * * * *108,502 * *Table 2

That is 141,067k full time workers out of Population of 306,804k people with 108,502k people receiving means tested benefits.

As the instructions for the survey data usage says that it cannot be compared directly to CPS and the survey has its own population estimate and employment estimate, why did CNS not just use the survey data?

BTW, there is nothing to suggest that some of those receiving benefits were also not working.


http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table2.xls
http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/qu...qtr/table5.xls

So you have not 'proven' anything
thanks for the update

143,319 > 108,502

So you can't do math.

We get it.

Sure
you still not have made any case
sorry that is just the way it it
Just like in your earlier postings
about Federal cash outlays to Red states
bogus on the implication to welfare


Maybe you need to go back that
Think tank of core obama voter with
an IQ below 100
to figure it out

 

[itfitzme]

So you have not 'proven' anything
thanks for the update

143,319 > 108,502

So you can't do math.

We get it.

Sure
you still not have made any case
sorry that is just the way it it

Maybe you need to go back that
Think tank of core obama voter with
an IQ below 100
to figure it out

That the thread article is bullshit and that you are an idiot. Two proofs in one thread. Simple enough.

 

[alan1]

From a man over 200 years ago,

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Ben was right and that day has arrived.

that is why there was a property census always.

nowadays it should be tax census - the ones who do not pay income taxes - do not vote.

There is something to be said about those with no skin in the game being able to tell others what to do. It is becoming quite common though, provided one is politically correct.

 

[Neotrotsky]

143,319 > 108,502

So you can't do math.

We get it.

Sure
you still not have made any case
sorry that is just the way it it

Maybe you need to go back that
Think tank of core obama voter with
an IQ below 100
to figure it out

That the thread article is bullshit and that you are an idiot. Two proofs in one thread. Simple enough.

Just as name calling, shows you can not support your claim
We know you "feel' it is wrong and try to allude to something
(but then the Left feels Obamacare will work)

But you do not really prove your point or support your claim.
simple enough to understand

Even for a person from the Dems's core voting group


Perhaps some links to extreme leftwing websites will help?

 

[Sunshine]

Show us your numbers

Read the tread, I posted it.

And, you should have followed the article back to the source.

Tables 2 and tables 5.

How do you post a "tread"?

 

[itfitzme]

Sure
you still not have made any case
sorry that is just the way it it

Maybe you need to go back that
Think tank of core obama voter with
an IQ below 100
to figure it out

That the thread article is bullshit and that you are an idiot. Two proofs in one thread. Simple enough.

Just as name calling, shows you can not support your claim
or really prove your point
simple enough to understand

Even for a person from the Democrats's core voting group

I'm an just pointing out the obvious to you. Someone should.

There was and article that made a claim. Anyone of intelligence would follow the article back to the data. The original data says the complete opposite of the article.

You used the second person pronoun first.

And you don't get the numbers and have to have the obvious pointed out to you. So, I informed you that you are an idiot.

Your failure to grasp the obvious is your failure. Idiots usually think they are right.

You should be thanking me for helping you understand that your an idiot.

 

[Sunshine]

ouch

leftards always think about themselves as "smart" and "educated", even it is a bachelor's in liberal arts.
and then are parroting the yesterday's HuffPost talking points as a proof

A few months back someone posted a poll on this forum to see who had graduate degrees. They were surprised to find that more of the conservatives who post here have graduate degrees than the liberals. It just makes sense, really. You can go to college and find work on a bachelor's. You can be a nurse with an ADN, you don't even have to have the bachelor's. But if you want in the game of big bucks in my profession, you need the graduate degree.

The only degree required to draw welfare is a degree of stupidity and laziness..

 

[itfitzme]

ouch

leftards always think about themselves as "smart" and "educated", even it is a bachelor's in liberal arts.
and then are parroting the yesterday's HuffPost talking points as a proof

A few months back someone posted a poll on this forum to see who had graduate degrees. They were surprised to find that more of the conservatives who post here have graduate degrees than the liberals. It just makes sense, really. You can go to college and find work on a bachelor's. You can be a nurse with an ADN, you don't even have to have the bachelor's. But if you want in the game of big bucks in my profession, you need the graduate degree.

The only degree required to draw welfare is a degree of stupidity and laziness..

Sure... and all the respondents had degrees in literature, didn't they.

The reality is that anyone with a degree can easily spot who doesn't have one. It isn't very hard.

 

[Neotrotsky]

ouch

leftards always think about themselves as "smart" and "educated", even it is a bachelor's in liberal arts.
and then are parroting the yesterday's HuffPost talking points as a proof

A few months back someone posted a poll on this forum to see who had graduate degrees. They were surprised to find that more of the conservatives who post here have graduate degrees than the liberals. It just makes sense, really. You can go to college and find work on a bachelor's. You can be a nurse with an ADN, you don't even have to have the bachelor's. But if you want in the game of big bucks in my profession, you need the graduate degree.

The only degree required to draw welfare is a degree of stupidity and laziness..

It is also a requirement that you can tell the difference between D and R
on voting day

 

[Neotrotsky]

That the thread article is bullshit and that you are an idiot. Two proofs in one thread. Simple enough.

Just as name calling, shows you can not support your claim
or really prove your point
simple enough to understand

Even for a person from the Democrats's core voting group

I'm an just pointing out the obvious to you. Someone should.

There was and article that made a claim. Anyone of intelligence would follow the article back to the data. The original data says the complete opposite of the article.

You used the second person pronoun first.

And you don't get the numbers and have to have the obvious pointed out to you. So, I informed you that you are an idiot.

Your failure to grasp the obvious is your failure. Idiots usually think they are right.

You should be thanking me for helping you understand that your an idiot.

I'm glad you think of yourself as smart.
No doubt you are following the Stuart Smalley standard

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY]Stuart Smalley's famous quote - YouTube[/ame]

Some would argue that the strong need to identify others as 'not smart’ is just a projection of
insecurity/self-doubt about their own intelligence.
Don't worry....
I would not be one of those people




Don't the hate the messenger

As I said
We know you "feel' it is wrong and try to allude to something
(but then the Left feels Obamacare will work)

But you don't really prove your point or support your claim.
Actual numbers from different credible sources to prove it
is not correct- no
Which is fine- but you have not proven that the article is
wrong.

Are we to believe then that gov't dependency is on the decline?

You have only expressed an opinion.
simple enough to understand
Even for a person from the Dems's core voting group

Perhaps some links to extreme left wing websites will help?

 

[Vox]

From a man over 200 years ago,

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Ben was right and that day has arrived.

that is why there was a property census always.

nowadays it should be tax census - the ones who do not pay income taxes - do not vote.

There is something to be said about those with no skin in the game being able to tell others what to do. It is becoming quite common though, provided one is politically correct.

yep. the problem is universal and known form the ancient times.
decisions for the common good are able to be done by those without any skin in the game.
therefore the tax code needs mandatory overhaul every 25-30 years - as there would be too much rust grown on the wheels by that time to make them roll and the social safety networks need mandatory overhauls every 25-30 years as well - taking into consideration the demographic and economic changes during that time.

well, and the ideal would be to somehow cut off all the lobbying on all the levels of the legislatures and executive power as well - but that is, probably, the most difficult task.

 

[Vox]

ouch

leftards always think about themselves as "smart" and "educated", even it is a bachelor's in liberal arts.
and then are parroting the yesterday's HuffPost talking points as a proof

A few months back someone posted a poll on this forum to see who had graduate degrees. They were surprised to find that more of the conservatives who post here have graduate degrees than the liberals. It just makes sense, really. You can go to college and find work on a bachelor's. You can be a nurse with an ADN, you don't even have to have the bachelor's. But if you want in the game of big bucks in my profession, you need the graduate degree.

The only degree required to draw welfare is a degree of stupidity and laziness..

true.
critical thinking skills come naturally to some, but, generally, they are being taught, and it takes the more difficult subjects to master to develop them.

Life lessons are also very good at those - and a big chunk of the populace is simply insulated from those altogether.

laziness and fat obliterate the brain cells function - this is a paraphrasing of what my mom used to tell me

 

[Nova78]

Wake-up America , your f@@ked ........

 

[Nova78]

25 years ago we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash & Bob Hope.
Now we have Obama, No Cash & No Hope.