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.
If there are 14 million people more on food stamps now than in January 2009 how in hell can you say there were more under Bush than now? I think your arithmetic skills are lacking just a bit.
SNAP national participation in October 2011 dipped by 43,428 people to 46,224,722 people—but still represented an increase of more than three million people compared with October 2010.
In December 2009, SNAP/Food Stamps participation continued to break records, rising to 38,978,382 people, an increase of 794,714 individuals from November 2009, the prior record level, and an increase of nearly 7.2 million people compared with the prior December.
I'm thinking wherever the op got his numbers, they are FALSE.
Quote:
There was an increase of 14,970,895 food stamp users under Bush. In 8 years.
There was an increase of 14,019,863 food stamp users under Obama. In 3 years.
14.2 Million in 3 years Obama and still growing. Possibly already pass the 14.7
The small details will get 'ya every time....
Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the
most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.
But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.
It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.
Splitting hairs at Gingrich's expense is no problem to me. But lets not pretend that Barack Obama is the Patron Saint of Social and Fiscal Responsibility.
The problem is that few presidents would have statistics to boast 'fiscal responsibility' under these circumstances.
I know people talk about cutting the size of government. The problem is, cutting the size of government would also cut the size of the workforce, which would just mean shifting people from paying jobs to the welfare rolls.
The real problem here with the deficit is that you/we have tax receipts that are down because people are 1) unemployed, 2) without income and 3) without credit, and 4) not spending because they're unemployed, without income, and without credit.
Another side of the problem is, those who do have money are paying about 15-20 percent of their income in taxes, which is less than what middle class income earners pay. And it's a lot less of their overall disposable income.
So you can blame Obama all you want -- and I'd even be willing to agree with you in some cases. But he's not the principle cause. The real reason for the mess is 30-35 years in the making, and until we get that and accept that we need to approach these debates constructively and end the dirty politics, we're not going anywhere as a country.
The U.S. is not a developing country, but among the world's developed countries, I think it's "un-developing" faster than any I can think of. It doesn't have to be this way.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.
110 Million households
99 Million households receive cable, satellite or both
46+Million households on Food Stamps
I'm still waiting for someone to muster up the courage to justify those numbers.
If 46+Million households are in such financial trouble that they cannot afford to buy food, then how in the hell can they afford cable, satellite or both?
Still waiting....
Mircea
Because they can get food for "free" so they prioritize their spending in other ways.
If I can get $700/month for food (family of 4) then why would I spend ANY of my money on food..that's $175/week..plenty enough money to buy food.
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.
