Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[BlueGin]

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.



Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.

In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?

Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.

Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.

Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.

If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.

We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.

It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.

Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.

In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."

I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.

Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.

I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.

The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans

Not true. Low income kid 18 and under can get free food during the summer months...
Summer Food Service Program | Food and Nutrition Service

 

[BlueGin]

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

Average household receives $287.00 per month in food stamps (SNAP).

By fraud, I include scamming the system. A couple with children are not married. The parent working part time or earning the least claims food stamps by not disclosing the significant other is earning $30,000 a year.

Or both apply using different addresses. Or one that would not qualify due to making too much ....will work under 40 hrs a week for two consecutive weeks and apply again..Then go back to full work weeks. (As taught to them by case workers).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

David Brooks, seconds ago

The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.

Despite government claims, the job market is still lagging. The poverty rate is on the rise, The Journal says. And federal laws passed under former President Clinton and further under Mr. Obama are actually driving the enrollment rate higher. Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps — the logic being that helping people before they reach crisis financial level will actually stimulate the economy, The Journal says.

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps

So, it's not the economy, it's the fact that qualification standards have loosened.

Exactly. Like I quoted Limbaugh earlier "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

What you have to understand about politics is each party want's to expand their tent. The Democrats rely on Victims and Government dependents for power. So how do you get more power? By expanding victims and government dependents.

You hear them all the time: Victims of big business, victims of the wealthy, victims of Big Pharma, victims of racial discrimination, victims of lower quality education, victims of guns, victims of the war on women, victims, victims, victims.

So how do you fight Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big money grubbers? With big government of course.

Next is government dependency. As the article I posted points out, it was Democrat Presidents who expanded the food stamp role. The Obama White House proudly announced it created over 20 million more new government dependents on Commie Care. Another 20 million more on food stamps. Think of it. Between those two programs alone, the Democrats created over 40 million more government dependents in a population of 315 million.

It was no accident and it had nothing to do with caring about people. It had to do with power.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rs aren't stupid about food stamps. They're mean.

They know it's kids and vets and military and elderly and the single moms are the ones getting help. They also know the system is NOT broken.

They're just plain man and love taking away from others.

Read TomParks he wants to control what they can buy. I've read RWNJs saying that you can't vote unless you have a job and own property.

You know, like the disabled vet who was willing to give his/her life for us but doesn't own property and can't work.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rs aren't stupid about food stamps. They're mean.

They know it's kids and vets and military and elderly and the single moms are the ones getting help. They also know the system is NOT broken.

They're just plain man and love taking away from others.

Read TomParks he wants to control what they can buy. I've read RWNJs saying that you can't vote unless you have a job and own property.

You know, like the disabled vet who was willing to give his/her life for us but doesn't own property and can't work.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

This has nothing to do with those that can't work. We Rs do support help for those who truly can't. But these programs are not exclusive to those who can't. They are expanded to those who can, those who make bad decisions in life, those who don't want to quit drugs to get a job.

Government handouts only encourage people not to try to better themselves, and that's a real shame. If anything, we should encourage people to try and do better. But you don't do that by giving them things they didn't work for.

If the liberals took over in four years and decided they would pay me what I make working, I would quit work. Why should I work if somebody pays me not to? I would love to stay home every day of the week, take vacations when I want, not have any financial worries. What a great life that would be.

 

[JonKoch]

Show us one on Entitlement spending son.

Sure cupcake

2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States


Most Federally Dependent States

Rank
(1 = Most Dependent)

State

Total Score

‘State Residents’ Dependency’ Rank

‘State Government’s Dependency’ Rank

1 Kentucky 76.16 6 5
2 Mississippi 75.59 7 1
3 New Mexico 73.88 3 17
4 Alabama 72.45 4 14
5 West Virginia 68.97 5 15
6 South Carolina 68.17 2 31
7 Montana 65.91 14 4
8 Tennessee 61.76 20 3
9 Maine 61.02 13 9
10 Indiana 59.18 7 23
11 Arizona 59.08 15 11
12 Louisiana 55.39 40 2
13 South Dakota 53.57 24 7
14 Missouri 52.66 31 6
15 Oregon 51.51 23 10
16 Georgia 49.81 34 8
17 Idaho 49.64 19 19
18 Vermont 49.56 18 20
19 Wyoming 48.80 26 12
20 Maryland 48.18 11 32
21 Oklahoma 47.78 21 18
22 Pennsylvania 46.15 17 30
23 Alaska 45.81 10 40
24 Rhode Island 45.05 36 16
25 Florida 43.84 27 22
26 Ohio 42.25 45 13
27 Arkansas 42.12 38 21
28 North Carolina 41.63 32 25
29 Hawaii 41.63 9 46
30 Iowa 41.38 33 26
31 Wisconsin 41.09 16 38
32 North Dakota 40.46 1 50
33 Michigan 40.43 35 27
34 New York 37.65 44 24
35 Texas 36.81 42 28
36 Washington 35.32 30 33
37 Colorado 35.20 29 34
38 Virginia 34.43 12 49
39 Nebraska 33.78 47 29
40 Utah 33.28 28 35
41 New Hampshire 31.11 37 36
42 Connecticut 27.80 22 48
43 Massachusetts 27.36 46 37
44 Nevada 26.94 25 47
45 Kansas 25.39 39 45
46 California 25.36 41 43
47 Illinois 23.96 48 41
48 New Jersey 23.84 49 39
49 Minnesota 23.09 43 44
50 Delaware 21.32 50 42

2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

Entitlement spending by President son. I cannot be side tracked.

Cupcake, why don't YOU present that since YOU want it.


But how about showing 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator policies versus Obama's?

How is that snowflake?

Yeah, that great maobama economy, all those people going to work, yet the welfare has remained constant. Explain how that works.

.

You mean the hole Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dug US into? Weird right? Care to explain why we should allow those "job creators" to keep their sustained lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate since before the GOP's first great depression, and Cheeto and Comp want to gut their taxes even more? Maybe those "job creators" who are going to get HUGE tax breaks (Walmart's Walton family alone a $52 BILLION further tax reduction) via Cheeto's policies need to create well paying jobs that get people off of Gov't teet? Instead of US continuing to subsidize them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You mean the hole Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dug US into? Weird right? Care to explain why we should allow those "job creators" to keep their sustained lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate since before the GOP's first great depression, and Cheeto and Comp want to gut their taxes even more? Maybe those "job creators" who are going to get HUGE tax breaks (Walmart's Walton family alone a $52 BILLION further tax reduction) via Cheeto's policies need to create well paying jobs that get people off of Gov't teet? Instead of US continuing to subsidize them?

The only way to create those great paying non-skilled labor jobs is if Americans decided to support them. But we don't. We support getting the lowest price goods we can get our hands on, and to hell where it's made.

We Americans have a choice of what we want. We want great paying jobs. We want low priced products, we want a strong stock market so our IRA's can grow to give us a comfortable retirement. But you can't have all three. Something has to give.

So we collectively support low priced products which results in lower paying jobs. We collectively support a strong stock market which also means low paying jobs or outsourcing. Perhaps if we make taxation and regulations a little more favorable to our producers, maybe we can still have lower priced products, a strong stock market and better paying jobs.

 

[JonKoch]

1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.

4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.

5) Any adult on food stamps has a job

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.

But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

Well....alrighty then, you're obviously a stupid, fucking republican...
because, when it comes to food stamps and facts,
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

In fact, you're so full of shit,
if you gave yourself an enema, you'd disappear!

In 2015, mandatory spending for safety net programs,
was $362 billion dollars, about 10% of the federal budget
104 billion dollars was for food assistance programs,
of which, $75 billion was spent on SNAP benefits alone!

The SNAP budget funds $2.4 billion in other food assistance programs,
including the block grant for food assistance
in Puerto Rico and American Samoa,
commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the country),
and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

This does not include WIC and other food assistance programs
which is part of the discretionary spending budget!

In 2008, there were an estimated
28,223 million food stamp recipients
to the tune of, 37,639 billion dollars...

in 2016, there were an estimated
44,219 million food stamp recipients
to the tune of 70,962 billion dollars

If the Recovery Act, aka, SCAM OF THE CENTURY, worked,
and the unemployment numbers were(N'T)
what Oshithead and the BLS, claimed they were ...
and, according to Oshithead in Feb of 2016....

“The United States of America right now
has the strongest, most durable economy in the world.”
(Which, even a fucking idiot should know, was a crock of shit!)

WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE STILL ON SNAP?

As of Jan. 12, 2016, unemployment was at 5%,
food stamp recipients increased 42%
and corporate profits increased 166%!

2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

Whose parents are in the stores buying soda,
candy, chips, cookies, ice cream, donuts, pizza rolls,
slurpies, cupcakes, twinkies, cheese sticks, cheese danish,...

yet, you bitches are crying about
changing the school lunch program under Trump
because of unhealthy food and obesity!

They get money to get groceries, yet, we have to feed them
breakfast and lunch year round too?!

Fuck off!

Few people even qualify for food stamps
because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor.

Bitch, the poorest of the poor, are not dressed in
decent clothes, driving nice cars and trucks,
carrying Coach purses and talking on IPhones!

They're homeless, sleeping on the street or in shelters
dressed in grubby clothes with worn out shoes from walking,
asking for handouts...BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET FOOD STAMPS

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant

The only complete asshole you should be concerned with, IS YOU!

Cupcake, Those things aren't mandatory as Cheeto's budget proposal shows they are DISCRETIONARY part of the budget


Those programs kept Millions out of poverty which is the reason for the spending!


If you want to know why the change from 2008 numbers, maybe look at the size of the hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dug for US???

As for the stimulus which unfortunately was 40% tax cuts to TRY to get a little GOP support (LMAOROG, AS IF) WAS A SUCCESS (*kept US out of GOP great depression 2.0)

What Debate? Economists Agree the Stimulus Lifted the Economy

The Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago — hardly a hotbed of liberal or Keynesian thought — regularly surveys a number of the leading American economists about a variety of policy issues. The economists surveyed constitute a good sample of the leading economists in the nation, and the panel was chosen to be geographically diverse, to include older and younger economists, and importantly, to include Democrats, Republicans and independents. The most important qualification is that these are top-notch economists: senior faculty at the leading economics departments in the United States who are also vitally interested in public policy.

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.

Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.


A follow-up question posed to the same expert panel asked whether the total benefits of the stimulus bill will end up exceeding the costs. The idea was to take account of all of the consequences, both positive and negative. On this question, there’s greater modesty, but still no raging debate. Of the 37 respondents, 25 agreed that the benefits exceeded the costs, while 10 were uncertain. Only 2 disagreed that the stimulus was worth it.


NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/...ts-agree-the-stimulus-lifted-the-economy.html


WAIT YOU SAY CORP PROFITS INCREASED 162%? AND THOSE "JOB CREATORS" ARE PAYING THE LOWEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATE SINCE THE FIRST GOP GREAT DEPRESSION? AND CHEETO WANTS TO GUT IT EVEN MORE?

WHY ARE WE GUTTING THEIR TAX "BURDEN"?

 

[JonKoch]

1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.

4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.

5) Any adult on food stamps has a job

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.

But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

Well....alrighty then, you're obviously a stupid, fucking republican...
because, when it comes to food stamps and facts,
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

In fact, you're so full of shit,
if you gave yourself an enema, you'd disappear!

In 2015, mandatory spending for safety net programs,
was $362 billion dollars, about 10% of the federal budget
104 billion dollars was for food assistance programs,
of which, $75 billion was spent on SNAP benefits alone!

The SNAP budget funds $2.4 billion in other food assistance programs,
including the block grant for food assistance
in Puerto Rico and American Samoa,
commodity purchases for the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the country),
and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

This does not include WIC and other food assistance programs
which is part of the discretionary spending budget!

In 2008, there were an estimated
28,223 million food stamp recipients
to the tune of, 37,639 billion dollars...

in 2016, there were an estimated
44,219 million food stamp recipients
to the tune of 70,962 billion dollars

If the Recovery Act, aka, SCAM OF THE CENTURY, worked,
and the unemployment numbers were(N'T)
what Oshithead and the BLS, claimed they were ...
and, according to Oshithead in Feb of 2016....

“The United States of America right now
has the strongest, most durable economy in the world.”
(Which, even a fucking idiot should know, was a crock of shit!)

WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE STILL ON SNAP?

As of Jan. 12, 2016, unemployment was at 5%,
food stamp recipients increased 42%
and corporate profits increased 166%!

2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

Whose parents are in the stores buying soda,
candy, chips, cookies, ice cream, donuts, pizza rolls,
slurpies, cupcakes, twinkies, cheese sticks, cheese danish,...

yet, you bitches are crying about
changing the school lunch program under Trump
because of unhealthy food and obesity!

They get money to get groceries, yet, we have to feed them
breakfast and lunch year round too?!

Fuck off!

Few people even qualify for food stamps
because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor.

Bitch, the poorest of the poor, are not dressed in
decent clothes, driving nice cars and trucks,
carrying Coach purses and talking on IPhones!

They're homeless, sleeping on the street or in shelters
dressed in grubby clothes with worn out shoes from walking,
asking for handouts...BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET FOOD STAMPS

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant

The only complete asshole you should be concerned with, IS YOU!

Jun 16, 2016

The U.S. Economy Is in Great Shape (Compared with Its Peers)
American economic growth and the U.S. labor market are healthier than other developed countries, a new OECD study says

WSJ

The U.S. Economy Is in Great Shape (Compared with Its Peers)

 

[JonKoch]

You mean the hole Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dug US into? Weird right? Care to explain why we should allow those "job creators" to keep their sustained lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate since before the GOP's first great depression, and Cheeto and Comp want to gut their taxes even more? Maybe those "job creators" who are going to get HUGE tax breaks (Walmart's Walton family alone a $52 BILLION further tax reduction) via Cheeto's policies need to create well paying jobs that get people off of Gov't teet? Instead of US continuing to subsidize them?

The only way to create those great paying non-skilled labor jobs is if Americans decided to support them. But we don't. We support getting the lowest price goods we can get our hands on, and to hell where it's made.

We Americans have a choice of what we want. We want great paying jobs. We want low priced products, we want a strong stock market so our IRA's can grow to give us a comfortable retirement. But you can't have all three. Something has to give.

So we collectively support low priced products which results in lower paying jobs. We collectively support a strong stock market which also means low paying jobs or outsourcing. Perhaps if we make taxation and regulations a little more favorable to our producers, maybe we can still have lower priced products, a strong stock market and better paying jobs.

"Perhaps if we make taxation and regulations a little more favorable to our producers, maybe we can still have lower priced products, a strong stock market and better paying jobs."

LMAOROG


LOWEST EFFECTIVE TAX RATES SINCE BEFORE THE FIRST GOP GREAT DEPRESSION, EFFECTIVE RATES ON BIZ IN THE LOW TEENS, RECORD CORP PROFITS, STOCK MARKET HAS TRIPLED SINCE IT'S LOW IN EARLY 2009

Perhaps we need to stop subsiding those "job creators" who off shore US jobs AND the ones refuse to pay a living wage to it's full time employees?

IF the right REALLY cared about the "free market" BS they claimed to care about, they would demand that Corp America stop sucking off out teet

The Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. federal government spends $100 billion a year on corporate welfare

Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business

Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business

 

[keepitreal]

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

I'd be worried if I were you!
You're so full of shit, you might die from constipation!

State Participation Rates- 2014 (USDA)

Red states and blue states

The top 10 states of food stamp(SNAP) recipients

1 Oregon - D

2 Vermont - D

3 Washington - D

4 Michigan - D (Trump)

5 Wisconsin - D (Trump)

6 Maine - D (Trump)

7 Delaware - D

8 Illinois - D

9 Tennessee - R

10 Iowa - D (Trump)

God forbid, these fucking agencies provide
current data, not to mention, annually, keep up with the data
but, rest assured, BLUE states still lead the pack!

You are the weakest link.... good bye thanks for playing

 

[JonKoch]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

You mean it doesn't matter how big of a hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies was?


The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%

U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion of net worth




August 17, 2015

Poverty was already on the upswing when Obama took office as the economy hurtled toward recession. Before George W. Bush took office, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent. When he left, it was 14.3 percent. So it's not as if Obama interrupted a rapidly improving poverty rate. In fact, as stated above, the trajectory of poverty has turned around under Obama, and it now appears to be falling.

Fact Check: Is It Obama's Fault That Poverty Has Grown?

 

[Thinker101]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

You mean it doesn't matter how big of a hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies was?


The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%

U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion of net worth




August 17, 2015

Poverty was already on the upswing when Obama took office as the economy hurtled toward recession. Before George W. Bush took office, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent. When he left, it was 14.3 percent. So it's not as if Obama interrupted a rapidly improving poverty rate. In fact, as stated above, the trajectory of poverty has turned around under Obama, and it now appears to be falling.

Fact Check: Is It Obama's Fault That Poverty Has Grown?

No kidding, 8 fricken years later it's still Bush's fault.

 

[JonKoch]

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

I'd be worried if I were you!
You're so full of shit, you might die from constipation!

State Participation Rates- 2014 (USDA)

Red states and blue states

The top 10 states of food stamp(SNAP) recipients

1 Oregon - D

2 Vermont - D

3 Washington - D

4 Michigan - D (Trump)

5 Wisconsin - D (Trump)

6 Maine - D (Trump)

7 Delaware - D

8 Illinois - D

9 Tennessee - R

10 Iowa - D (Trump)

God forbid, these fucking agencies provide
current data, not to mention, annually, keep up with the data
but, rest assured, BLUE states still lead the pack!

You are the weakest link.... good bye thanks for playing

SNAP participation rates differ greatly by state, partially due to to differences in eligibility requirements and how states administer SNAP.


Jan. 17, 2015


States with the most people on food stamps


States with the most people on food stamps:

7. Louisiana

• Number of food stamp recipients: 868,192

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 18.67%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state): Around $107.4 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $23.10

6. Tennessee

• Number of food stamp recipients: Just over 1.28 million

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.58%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $158.7 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.23

5. Oregon

• Number of food stamp recipients: 791,222

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.93%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $98 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.66 per person

4. West Virginia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 369,249

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 19.96%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $45.7 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.69 per person

3. New Mexico

• Number of food stamp recipients: 448,328

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.5%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $55.5 million

• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.60 per person

2. Mississippi

• Number of food stamp recipients: 650,911

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.74%

• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $80.5 million

• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.90 per person

1. District of Columbia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 144,768

• Percentage of the state's population on food stamps: 21.97%


CHEETO WON 5 OF THOSE STATES CUPCAKE

States with the most people on food stamps





2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States


Most Federally Dependent States

Rank
(1 = Most Dependent)

State

Total Score

‘State Residents’ Dependency’ Rank

‘State Government’s Dependency’ Rank

1 Kentucky 76.16 6 5
2 Mississippi 75.59 7 1
3 New Mexico 73.88 3 17
4 Alabama 72.45 4 14
5 West Virginia 68.97 5 15
6 South Carolina 68.17 2 31
7 Montana 65.91 14 4
8 Tennessee 61.76 20 3
9 Maine 61.02 13 9
10 Indiana 59.18 7 23
11 Arizona 59.08 15 11
12 Louisiana 55.39 40 2
13 South Dakota 53.57 24 7
14 Missouri 52.66 31 6
15 Oregon 51.51 23 10
16 Georgia 49.81 34 8
17 Idaho 49.64 19 19
18 Vermont 49.56 18 20
19 Wyoming 48.80 26 12
20 Maryland 48.18 11 32
21 Oklahoma 47.78 21 18
22 Pennsylvania 46.15 17 30
23 Alaska 45.81 10 40
24 Rhode Island 45.05 36 16
25 Florida 43.84 27 22
26 Ohio 42.25 45 13
27 Arkansas 42.12 38 21
28 North Carolina 41.63 32 25
29 Hawaii 41.63 9 46
30 Iowa 41.38 33 26
31 Wisconsin 41.09 16 38
32 North Dakota 40.46 1 50
33 Michigan 40.43 35 27
34 New York 37.65 44 24
35 Texas 36.81 42 28
36 Washington 35.32 30 33
37 Colorado 35.20 29 34
38 Virginia 34.43 12 49
39 Nebraska 33.78 47 29
40 Utah 33.28 28 35
41 New Hampshire 31.11 37 36
42 Connecticut 27.80 22 48
43 Massachusetts 27.36 46 37
44 Nevada 26.94 25 47
45 Kansas 25.39 39 45
46 California 25.36 41 43
47 Illinois 23.96 48 41
48 New Jersey 23.84 49 39
49 Minnesota 23.09 43 44
50 Delaware 21.32 50 42
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States

 

[JonKoch]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

You mean it doesn't matter how big of a hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies was?


The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%

U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion of net worth




August 17, 2015

Poverty was already on the upswing when Obama took office as the economy hurtled toward recession. Before George W. Bush took office, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent. When he left, it was 14.3 percent. So it's not as if Obama interrupted a rapidly improving poverty rate. In fact, as stated above, the trajectory of poverty has turned around under Obama, and it now appears to be falling.

Fact Check: Is It Obama's Fault That Poverty Has Grown?

No kidding, 8 fricken years later it's still Bush's fault.

Sorry, I forgot 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies stopped the day he left office, ALL policy from GOP Prez's do, EXCEPT Ronnie's 17 year economic miracle BJ Bill rode

 

[Thinker101]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

You mean it doesn't matter how big of a hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies was?


The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%

U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion of net worth




August 17, 2015

Poverty was already on the upswing when Obama took office as the economy hurtled toward recession. Before George W. Bush took office, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent. When he left, it was 14.3 percent. So it's not as if Obama interrupted a rapidly improving poverty rate. In fact, as stated above, the trajectory of poverty has turned around under Obama, and it now appears to be falling.

Fact Check: Is It Obama's Fault That Poverty Has Grown?

No kidding, 8 fricken years later it's still Bush's fault.

Sorry, I forgot 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies stopped the day he left office, ALL policy from GOP Prez's do, EXCEPT Ronnie's 17 year economic miracle BJ Bill rode

Apparently you forget a whole lot more than you remember.
Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers?

 

[JonKoch]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

David Brooks, seconds ago

The reason food stamps have expanded is not because of an expansion of the welfare state. It is because a lot of people are near poor due to a fundamental problem with the STRUCTURE of the US economy.

David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… Fact

I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

The U.S. Economy Is in Great Shape (Compared with Its Peers)
American economic growth and the U.S. labor market are healthier than other developed countries, a new OECD study says

Jun 16, 2016 - Lackluster economic growth in the United States remains theenvy of the developed world

WSJ
The U.S. Economy Is in Great Shape (Compared with Its Peers)

Sep 21, 2016

U.S. corporations earn record high profits, pay record low taxes

U.S. corporations earn record high profits, pay record low taxes


Jul 30, 2013

Profits At High, Wages At Low


If You're Wondering What's Wrong With America, Look At These Four Charts

CHART ONE: Corporate profits and profit margins are at an all-time high. American companies are making more money and more per dollar of sales than they ever have before.


CHART TWO: Wages as a percent of the economy are at all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" represent spending power for American consumers. And American consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So our profit maximization obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.

If You're Wondering What's Wrong With America, Look At These Four Charts

 

[JonKoch]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

You mean it doesn't matter how big of a hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies was?


The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%

U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion of net worth




August 17, 2015

Poverty was already on the upswing when Obama took office as the economy hurtled toward recession. Before George W. Bush took office, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent. When he left, it was 14.3 percent. So it's not as if Obama interrupted a rapidly improving poverty rate. In fact, as stated above, the trajectory of poverty has turned around under Obama, and it now appears to be falling.

Fact Check: Is It Obama's Fault That Poverty Has Grown?

No kidding, 8 fricken years later it's still Bush's fault.

Sorry, I forgot 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies stopped the day he left office, ALL policy from GOP Prez's do, EXCEPT Ronnie's 17 year economic miracle BJ Bill rode

Apparently you forget a whole lot more than you remember.
Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers?

There were more people on welfare than working in 2013.

WANT TO TRY AGAIN CUPCAKE, YOUR LINK DIDN'T PROVE WHAT YOU THOUGHT

 

[JonKoch]

David Brooks is a progressive shit stain… Fact

I thought he was a moderate conservative. It is true I think that rent-seeking in the Obama years did diminish economic growth to some extent, but that's what you get when your policies are unfavorable towards business investments.

OMG, you don't even know what rent seeking is. I know this because of your undocumented and based on nothing comment about Obama policies unfavorable towards business. The scourge of rent seeking began to rapidly expand during the Reagan administration and has pretty much grown unabated since then.

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

 

[Thinker101]

It's hard to understand how the number of people on food stamps rose from approx 30 million when Obama took office to around 44 million in 2015 and yet we are told how good the Obama economy was. Seems like a disconnect.

You mean it doesn't matter how big of a hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies was?


The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the beginning of the recession as December 2007. According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and GDP contracted by 5.1%

U.S. household wealth fell by about $16.4 trillion of net worth




August 17, 2015

Poverty was already on the upswing when Obama took office as the economy hurtled toward recession. Before George W. Bush took office, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent. When he left, it was 14.3 percent. So it's not as if Obama interrupted a rapidly improving poverty rate. In fact, as stated above, the trajectory of poverty has turned around under Obama, and it now appears to be falling.

Fact Check: Is It Obama's Fault That Poverty Has Grown?

No kidding, 8 fricken years later it's still Bush's fault.

Sorry, I forgot 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies stopped the day he left office, ALL policy from GOP Prez's do, EXCEPT Ronnie's 17 year economic miracle BJ Bill rode

Apparently you forget a whole lot more than you remember.
Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers?

There were more people on welfare than working in 2013.

WANT TO TRY AGAIN CUPCAKE, YOUR LINK DIDN'T PROVE WHAT YOU THOUGHT

Might want to consider reading the article, dumbass. Here, let me help, only because I know how fricken lazy you lefties can be, try reading last 2 paragraphs.