Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

5 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Guest


Guest

Now that's "Change you can BELIEVE in"


"For every job the White House claims to have created — 7.2 million now — two more Americans were added to the nation’s food stamp program, federal statistics reveal.
In January of 2009, more than 32 million Americans received help from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which doles out food stamps. In April 2013, that number grew to almost 48 million. That means almost 16 million more American have jumped on the food stamp bandwagon since President Obama took office in 2008, Breitbart reported."


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/25/obamas-economy-two-food-stamp-recipients-every-job/#ixzz2a3watKr7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:Now that's "Change you can BELIEVE in"


"For every job the White House claims to have created — 7.2 million now — two more Americans were added to the nation’s food stamp program, federal statistics reveal.
In January of 2009, more than 32 million Americans received help from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which doles out food stamps. In April 2013, that number grew to almost 48 million. That means almost 16 million more American have jumped on the food stamp bandwagon since President Obama took office in 2008, Breitbart reported."


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/25/obamas-economy-two-food-stamp-recipients-every-job/#ixzz2a3watKr7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

     And sadly at the local Commissary and others....they are collecting donations for military members that need help...it's a great program that is designed to take care of their own but it's shameful when those serving and WORKING to defend our freedoms are not being taken care of when it's known that there are many that are and have been ripping off the system for decades...

boards of FL

boards of FL

Hmm.  I wonder what these same numbers look like for the Bush administration?  I wonder how many people were added to the food stamp program for each job that was created during the Bush administration?

Oh!  That's right!  We lost 618,000 private sector jobs during the Bush administration!  I guess you guys completely forgot about that.  This is worth stating again.  Over the eight year period in which Bush was president, the US shed 618,000 private sector jobs.  That is, the job situation was so unprecedentedly bad during that time period, that we cannot even make a comparison for food stamp expansion vs jobs created, because jobs were actually lost.  Re-read that a few times so that it sinks in.   Meanwhile, you guys are knocking the labor market under the Obama administration because it only added several million jobs in a shorter period of time.

Further, the number of people who receive food stamps has been growing - coincidentally - since 2001.  It had been on a sharp decline over the preceding seven year period.  Imagine that!

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Food-Stamps-Yearly

Jobs numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:Hmm.  I wonder what these same numbers look like for the Bush administration?  I wonder how many people were added to the food stamp program for each job that was created during the Bush administration?

Oh!  That's right!  We lost 618,000 private sector jobs during the Bush administration!  I guess you guys completely forgot about that.  This is worth stating again.  Over the eight year period in which Bush was president, the US shed 618,000 private sector jobs.  That is, the job situation was so unprecedentedly bad during that time period, that we cannot even make a comparison for food stamp expansion vs jobs created, because jobs were actually lost.  Re-read that a few times so that it sinks in.   Meanwhile, you guys are knocking the labor market under the Obama administration because it only added several million jobs in a shorter period of time.

Further, the number of people who receive food stamps has been growing - coincidentally - since 2001.  It had been on a sharp decline over the preceding seven year period.  Imagine that!

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Food-Stamps-Yearly

Jobs numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/

      'boards'....It's more than DOUBLED under this administration...there's no need to 'wonder' about this....it's happening now....

boards of FL

boards of FL

newswatcher wrote:      'boards'....It's more than DOUBLED under this administration...there's no need to 'wonder' about this....it's happening now....

Define 'more than DOUBLED'.  I don't think 'more than DOUBLED' means what you think it means.

That said. This very quote from you goes a long way in explaining why you vote the way that you do. You are innumerate.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:Hmm.  I wonder what these same numbers look like for the Bush administration?  I wonder how many people were added to the food stamp program for each job that was created during the Bush administration?ta/

And that historical perspective means what? Oh that's right - it's all Bush's fault. How about living in the present for once? Who made all the promises? Oblamer. Who has made no substantive progress on those promises? Oblamer. Why is that? Because he is the President now - not Bush in case you failed to notice.

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Free-pass

Guest


Guest

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/27/175502085/moving-people-from-welfare-to-disability-rolls-is-a-profitable-full-time-job

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:And that historical perspective means what?

It adds perspective? It shows that, regardless of how you frame the situation of today, it is still a vast improvement over the guy that you likely voted for...twice.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:And that historical perspective means what?

It adds perspective? It shows that, regardless of how you frame the situation of today, it is still a vast improvement over the guy that you likely voted for...twice.

And what of the uninformed idiots who voted for Oblamer - twice? In spite of the overwhelming evidence he was not nearly qualified for the position, particularly in leading the charge to straighten out the economy. Of course being the sheeple you are you seem to feel any minuscule change is a marvelous confirmation of the correctness of having this misguided buffoon as President. Hillary should have beat the pants off him.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:And what of the uninformed idiots who voted for Oblamer - twice? In spite of the overwhelming evidence he was not nearly qualified for the position, particularly in leading the charge to straighten out the economy.

One more time for nochain.  The job market has expanded during the Obama administration.  Millions of private sector jobs have been added to the economy.  The economy was contracting at a rate not seen since the great depression at the changing of the guard.  It is expanding now, and has been expanding for several years.  Being that this is a vast improvement over the guy that you voted for...twice...you are hardly in any position to label anyone else an "uninformed idiot" based on how they vote.

You voted for a guy that oversaw a net loss in private sector jobs.  Without looking this up, I suspect he is the only president in history to oversee such a phenomenon.  You voted for him...twice.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:And what of the uninformed idiots who voted for Oblamer - twice? In spite of the overwhelming evidence he was not nearly qualified for the position, particularly in leading the charge to straighten out the economy.



You voted for a guy that oversaw a net loss in private sector jobs.  Without looking this up, I suspect he is the only president in history to oversee such a phenomenon.  You voted for him...twice.

Of course you are entitled to your uninformed opinion. I don't recall seeing you in the voting booth with me during ANY election. You can continue to cherry pick your "jobs" and "economy" numbers but the sad fact is most Americans are worse off now than they were even 2-3 years ago.

'Real' Jobless Rate Still Above 10% In Most States

"Two months from now, revised government estimates are likely to show that the economy is even bigger than the currently stated $15 trillion.

And while the numbers may make some blink or gasp, the mere size of gross domestic product won't hide the reality that in terms of actual growth, this is also the worst economy in 83 years.
GDP growth is in the midst of its longest sub-3 percent annual growth rate since 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression, according to Bespoke Investment Group. The economy hasn't topped 3 percent since 2005—before Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke took over—and is unlikely to do so this year.

So even if projections are correct that the economy is about 3 percent bigger than thought—say, another half-trillion dollars—the U.S. is still stuck in the slow-growth morass it has endured since the beginning of the Great Recession.

(Read More: The Economy May Stink, but the Market Doesn't Care)

Nowhere is that more apparent than in employment.

Though employment has risen by 1.3 million over the past year, unemployment that counts the discouraged and underemployed, as well as the jobless (often called the "real" unemployment rate) has remained stubbornly high, at 13.8 percent of the workforce, according to the most recent count.

In fact, a state-by-state look at the numbers, released a few days ago and current through the first quarter, shows that just six states have real rates below 10 percent."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100691168

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:Of course you are entitled to your uninformed opinion. I don't recall seeing you in the voting booth with me during ANY election. You can continue to cherry pick your "jobs" and "economy" numbers but the sad fact is most Americans are worse off now than they were even 2-3 years ago.

It is completely bizarre that you are accusing me of cherry picking jobs numbers, and then in the very same post you cherry pick jobs numbers.  This thread is about jobs and food stamps, so I directly responded with numbers for jobs and food stamps.  Now you are ignoring that and are instead looking at the unemployment rate.  Not only that, but you are cherry picking a very specific, alternative measure of the unemployment rate - the U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, cherry-picker.  Have it your way, hambone.  Let's look at the U6 unemployment rate.

January 2001 U6 unemployment rate: 7.3%

January 2009 U6 unemployment rate: 14.2%  

June 2013 U6 unemployment rate: 14.3%*

* - Sequestration kicked in in March 2013.  The U6 was at 13.8% at that time, so it had declined since the changing of the guard.

Well how about that?  The U6 unemployment rate almost doubled under the guy that you voted for...twice.  Hell, if we use NewsWatcher's definition of "doubled", we could say that it quadroupled under Bush.  Meanwhile, it fell during Obama's time in office and only recently - likely due to sequestration - increased and is now essentially unchanged.  Also note that it peaked at 17.1% when it was at its worst, so clearly it is on the decline.

Which is better, nochain, an increasing - doubling - U6 unemployment rate, or a decreasing U6 unemployment rate?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:Of course you are entitled to your uninformed opinion. I don't recall seeing you in the voting booth with me during ANY election. You can continue to cherry pick your "jobs" and "economy" numbers but the sad fact is most Americans are worse off now than they were even 2-3 years ago.

It is completely bizarre that you are accusing me of cherry picking jobs numbers, and then in the very same post you cherry pick jobs numbers.  This thread is about jobs and food stamps, so I directly responded with numbers for jobs and food stamps.  Now you are ignoring that and are instead looking at the unemployment rate.  Not only that, but you are cherry picking a very specific, alternative measure of the unemployment rate - the U6 unemployment rate.  Fair enough, cherry-picker.  Have it your way, hambone.  Let's look at the U6 unemployment rate.

January 2001 U6 unemployment rate: 7.3%

January 2009 U6 unemployment rate: 14.2%  

June 2013 U6 unemployment rate: 14.3%*

* - Sequestration kicked in in March 2013.  The U6 was at 13.8% at that time, so it had declined since the changing of the guard.

Well how about that?  The U6 unemployment rate almost doubled under the guy that you voted for...twice.  Hell, if we use NewsWatcher's definition of "doubled", we could say that it quadroupled under Bush.  Meanwhile, it fell during Obama's time in office and only recently - likely due to sequestration - increased and is now essentially unchanged.  Also note that it peaked at 17.1% when it was at its worst, so clearly it is on the decline.

Which is better, nochain, an increasing - doubling - U6 unemployment rate, or a decreasing U6 unemployment rate?

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

OK Poser Jr (are you and Sal the same person?) - round and round we go. This little exchange merely proves a point can be made in many directions. BTW, in your little example what happened to years 02-08? I think you may find they were not so bad until you get closer to 08 or so. The point of the thread in case you forgot is that while the unemployment rate is essentially dormant the number of food stamp recipients keeps growing. How sustainable do you think that is rocket scientist? It's this very fact that makes U6 data useful.

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Joltsu6911

Guest


Guest

Of those new recipients of food assistance, how many are active duty DOD or retired DOD?

The sound of one hand clapping?

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:BTW, in your little example what happened to years 02-08?

All of those years are included in the link that I provided. I merely highlighted what each president was dealt, and what they left us with.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

nochain wrote:

(are you and Sal the same person?)

No, I'm not boards, ...

... although I appreciate the compliment, ...

... and I do enjoy watching him hand your ass to you.

lol

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
nochain wrote:

(are you and Sal the same person?)

No, I'm not boards, ...

... although I appreciate the compliment, ...

... and I do enjoy watching him hand your ass to you.

lol

Hasn't happened yet Sally - your imagination is running away again. But since you two are joined at the hip politically your comment, although uninspiring and trite, is expected.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

newswatcher wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Hmm.  I wonder what these same numbers look like for the Bush administration?  I wonder how many people were added to the food stamp program for each job that was created during the Bush administration?

Oh!  That's right!  We lost 618,000 private sector jobs during the Bush administration!  I guess you guys completely forgot about that.  This is worth stating again.  Over the eight year period in which Bush was president, the US shed 618,000 private sector jobs.  That is, the job situation was so unprecedentedly bad during that time period, that we cannot even make a comparison for food stamp expansion vs jobs created, because jobs were actually lost.  Re-read that a few times so that it sinks in.   Meanwhile, you guys are knocking the labor market under the Obama administration because it only added several million jobs in a shorter period of time.

Further, the number of people who receive food stamps has been growing - coincidentally - since 2001.  It had been on a sharp decline over the preceding seven year period.  Imagine that!

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Food-Stamps-Yearly

Jobs numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/

      'boards'....It's more than DOUBLED under this administration...there's no need to 'wonder' about this....it's happening now....

Are you really that dense that you can't see the financial fallout from the worst president in our history? You could feel it in the air as soon as W took office...laissez-faire and caveat emptor. And if people really knew about his involvement with Enron, he would never have been "elected". He probably wouldn't have made it through his first term if it weren't for 9/11. That alone should give anyone pause.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:And what of the uninformed idiots who voted for Oblamer - twice? In spite of the overwhelming evidence he was not nearly qualified for the position, particularly in leading the charge to straighten out the economy.

One more time for nochain.  The job market has expanded during the Obama administration.  Millions of private sector jobs have been added to the economy.  The economy was contracting at a rate not seen since the great depression at the changing of the guard.  It is expanding now, and has been expanding for several years.  Being that this is a vast improvement over the guy that you voted for...twice...you are hardly in any position to label anyone else an "uninformed idiot" based on how they vote.

You voted for a guy that oversaw a net loss in private sector jobs.  Without looking this up, I suspect he is the only president in history to oversee such a phenomenon.  You voted for him...twice.

Here are a few more very distasteful facts for you to swallow.  This is the DECLINE in the Labor Participation. In other words, FAR fewer people are working today than when President Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created LaborForceParticipationRate512013-1

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

President Obama is a master of deception, have you noticed that the election is over and he has yet to govern...after nearly six years, but is still on the campaign trail.

Since he first announced his run for President, how many time has he focused on the economy?  And the best he can say is that he has cleared some debris?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
Here are a few more very distasteful facts for you to swallow.  This is the DECLINE in the Labor Participation.  In other words, FAR fewer people are working today than when President Barack Hussein Obama took office.

It's almost as if you haven't even the slightest inkling as to what economic terms and jargon actually mean, which makes it even more strange when you use those words incorrectly, and yet so confidently.

Markle, millions more people are working today than when Obama took office.  When someone is working, they are said to have a 'job'.  If the number of 'jobs' increases, one can conclude that more people are working.   I wish I could say this is Econ101, but it isn't.  This is grade school level english and math.

In January 2009, which is when Obama took office, there were 131,627,000 total, non-farm jobs in the US:  or, put another way, 131,627,000 people were working.  As of the last jobs report, there are 136,805,000 million jobs; or, there are 136,805,000 people working.

131,627,000 in 2009, and 136,805,000 today.  Which number is bigger, Markle?  Which number does the alligator eat?  Are more or less people working today?  Would you like to stand corrected?

Labor participation rate merely measure the rate at which people participate in the labor force - whether they happen to be employed or unemployed but seeking employment.  0 people could be working, but if everyone is actively seeking employment, the labor participation rate would be 100%.   Aside from that, the participation rate has been declining or stagnant for some time now, it isn't some sort of new phenomenon that began in 2009.

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1960_2013_all_period_M06_data



Last edited by boards of FL on 7/26/2013, 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

The numbers by BOF might be more impressive if the population had remained stagnant. Of course it hasn't so maybe this shows the real problem:

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Emp-to-Pop-ratio

Guest


Guest

[quote="boards of FL"]
Markle wrote:
H

In January 2001, which is when Obama took office,

Hmmm, I must be under the mistaken impression that he was first elected in 2008.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:
Hmmm, I must be under the mistaken impression that he was first elected in 2008.

Mea culpa. Fixed.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:The numbers by BOF might be more impressive if the population had remained stagnant. Of course it hasn't so maybe this shows the real problem:

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Emp-to-Pop-ratio

Go read my post to Markle. You're doing the same thing he did.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:The numbers by BOF might be more impressive if the population had remained stagnant. Of course it hasn't so maybe this shows the real problem:

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created Emp-to-Pop-ratio

No recovery.

We had another simular president that followed a simular patern

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum