Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Food stamp usage is at an all-time high. Shouldn't this be going down since unemployment numbers are going down? OR is the government using fuzzy math with the unemployment numbers?
Yep, definitely shows what a well run social support system can do. You know, like allow for Americans to be able to feed their families in hard times.
Yep, definitely shows what a well run social support system can do. You know, like allow for Americans to be able to feed their families in hard times.
How about a well run economy? What would that do with regards to people supporting themselves?
How about punishing people for all of the mortgage crapola that got us into this mess?
A well run support system would have money set aside already, in the bank, to use for hard times. We don't have any money. We are in debt up to our ears in case you have forgotten.
By the way - the OP suggests we stay on topic - so no more talk of support systems - only jobless claim numbers are down and good vibes about the economy are allowed here.
How about a well run economy? What would that do with regards to people supporting themselves?
How about punishing people for all of the mortgage crapola that got us into this mess?
A well run support system would have money set aside already, in the bank, to use for hard times. We don't have any money. We are in debt up to our ears in case you have forgotten.
By the way - the OP suggests we stay on topic - so no more talk of support systems - only jobless claim numbers are down and good vibes about the economy are allowed here.
The thing is that the safety net programs are created when the economy is solid, and they are designed to be used at times when the economy is not solid. That's the whole idea. If someone opposes the idea of such programs, then the best time to get rid of them is when economy is solid. GOP had the WH, Senate and Congress, and all they did was expand those programs, and now that the programs have been activated, they cry about the cost. Go figure.
The thing is that the safety net programs are created when the economy is solid, and they are designed to be used at times when the economy is not solid. That's the whole idea. If someone opposes the idea of such programs, then the best time to get rid of them is when economy is solid. GOP had the WH, Senate and Congress, and all they did was expand those programs, and now that the programs have been activated, they cry about the cost. Go figure.
Uh, you need to stick to the topic. You are off topic on your own thread after telling me to stay on topic.
You say the GOP did not do well domestically for the country. Debatable, but OK - so what do we do now?
When you take away blaming someone else for the problems - then what? The situation is what it is. In the end, it needs to be fixed - how?
The 30% on the extreme left and the 30% on the extreme right aren't interested in getting this fixed. They are worried about their own interests. Someone has to be the adult - stop blaming others, and actually find some solutions and turn things around.
A well run support system would have money set aside already, in the bank, to use for hard times. We don't have any money. We are in debt up to our ears in case you have forgotten.
Thank you for making a point, I've spoken about for years. Remember, how budget surplus was to be discarded in favor of tax cuts, on the assumption that it will result in debt being paid off by 2010 and full employment? And yet, food stamps usage never stopped growing, with it, did it?
I would suspect food stamp usage will go down with unemployment.
Although there is a correlation between lower unemployment and lower numbers of people using foodstamps, it is not one to one.
People may gain employment but earn less than their previous job. People maybe part-time whereas before they were full time. People may gain unsteady contract or temp work with no consistent hours.
So it is very possible for unemployment to drop and for the number of people getting foodstamps to slowly increaseor level off.
In a welcome sign of recovery for the job market, initial jobless claims blew past expectations and plunged to a nearly five-year low.
First-time claims for unemployment benefits plummeted by 37,000 in just one week, falling to 335,000 from 372,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the lowest since January 2008.
You ought to know by now that when you post crap like this I'm going to come here and rip it apart.
Uh, you missed the fine print....
UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 555,708 in the week ending January 12, an increase of 2,360 from the previous week. There were 525,422 initial claims in the comparable week in 2012.
The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending December 29 was 5,821,966, an increase of 465,547 from the previous week. There were 7,826,846 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2011.
The number of initial unemployment claims increased 2,360 from the previous week --- that is not a sign of "economic recovery."
The number of initial claims was higher today than 1 year ago --- that is not a sign of "economic recovery."
The total number of people claiming benefits increased 465,547 from the prior week -- that is not a sign of "economic recovery."
The unadjusted data is the Real McCoy.
That's the data you use, not the seasonally adjusted data, which is someone's romantically idealized vision of what ought to be, or what might be, or what could be.
You do realize that in the last 90 days, you have suffered a net loss of 979,000 jobs, right?
Net loss.
Meaning in the last 90 days, not one single job has been "created."
Thank you for making a point, I've spoken about for years. Remember, how budget surplus was to be discarded in favor of tax cuts, on the assumption that it will result in debt being paid off by 2010 and full employment? And yet, food stamps usage never stopped growing, with it, did it?
That isn't my argument...
GDP is key in increased tax revenues for me.
Paying off debt is a matter of bring in more than we spend - and paying down the debt with the overage.
5 years later and where STILL looking for that silver lining.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
