T Nation

Obama: Food Stamp Disgrace

'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”

Do you think that the increase in those requiring food stamps could be in anyway related to a rise in unemployment and a economic slump?

[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Do you think that the increase in those requiring food stamps could be in anyway related to a rise in unemployment and a economic slump?[/quote]

I don’t know. How many people on food stamps require them?

This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? That would be the headline on every media outlet. And right after that they’d be blaming him for high gas prices.

The media makes a huge difference in this election. And as I’ve said before is probably worth at least 3-4 pts in any poll.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Like whomever is elected President does not impact the rest of the world?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

What was left of journalistic integrity died in 2008.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.[/quote]

And that’s the type of attitude that the democrats want you to have.

As Governor Mitt Romney lowered taxes 19 times in Massachusetts!

He’s promised to end Obamacare and there’s no reason that he won’t do that as well. No upside for him in keeping it he needs the conservative base in 2016.

And as far as appointing Judges we won’t see the disgusting likes of Sotomayor under Romney.

We will also respect Israel once again…

If you don’t think that there are substantial differences between Obama and Romney you have not looked what you’ve done is swallow the liberal lie that the press and the dems want you to believe. Romney is light years better than Obama!

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.[/quote]

And that’s the type of attitude that the democrats want you to have.

As Governor Mitt Romney lowered taxes 19 times in Massachusetts!

He’s promised to end Obamacare and there’s no reason that he won’t do that as well. No upside for him in keeping it he needs the conservative base in 2016.

And as far as appointing Judges we won’t see the disgusting likes of Sotomayor under Romney.

We will also respect Israel once again…

If you don’t think that there are substantial differences between Obama and Romney you have not looked what you’ve done is swallow the liberal lie that the press and the dems want you to believe. Romney is light years better than Obama![/quote]

What do you think the biggest problem facing our country is right now that has a administrative solution? Also what don’t you like about Sotomayer so much? I don’t know much about her so not defending her, just asking since I have read anything really negative about her and she was first nominated by Bush.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

Obama’s deportation numbers are that high because Bush’s policies are still in place from his presidency. It’s not like Obama has done anything different.

CS

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Like whomever is elected President does not impact the rest of the world?[/quote]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will remember this.

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Or by inversion, you are American. Why aren’t you worried?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Like whomever is elected President does not impact the rest of the world?[/quote]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will remember this.[/quote]

Beat me to it Mak

'A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data, as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program.

This is straining already-stretched government finances while posing a long-term economic threat by creating an ever-growing pool of permanently dependent working-age Americans.

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the number of new enrollees to Social Security’s disability insurance program is twice the job growth figure. (See nearby chart.) In just the first four months of this year, 539,000 joined the disability rolls and more than 725,000 put in applications.

As a result, by April there were a total of 10.8 million people on disability, according to Social Security Administration data released this week. Even after accounting for all those who’ve left the program - about 700,000 drop out each year, mainly because they hit retirement age or died - that’s up 53% from a decade ago.

The explosive growth in disability enrollment also “helps explain some of the drop in the labor force participation rate,” noted economist Ed Yardeni on his blog.

In fact, the participation rate - the share of working-age people who have or are looking for a job - has fallen to 63.8% compared with 65.7% at the start of Obama’s term.

Ironically, this drives down the unemployment rate, which simply measures how many people are looking for work but haven’t been able to find it. When people quit looking or sign up for disability benefits, they no longer count as unemployed.

The problem is that few people who get on disability will ever participate in the labor force again. In fact, the vast bulk of those who exit Social Security Disability Insurance do so either because they hit retirement age or died.

As a result, the swelling ranks of the disabled can become a drag on the economy.

the explosive growth in enrollment is not only increasing the financial strain on the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund - which is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2018 - it’s boosting costs for Medicare as well, since SSDI enrollees can qualify for Medicare after two years. SSDI now accounts for more than 16% of Social Security’s budget and more than 15% of Medicare’s.’ - John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily

I personally know a family where the husband is in the Navy and the wife goes to school while other people raise their 4 kids. They tried to get food assistance and I believe were successful, not sure though. The guy makes probably 3x as much money than I do. They have no qualms about buying under armour clothes for their 4yr old boy, though. My girlfriend’s white trash sister’s white trash husband is receiving social security benefits even though he is capable of working. Meanwhile, I work on average 60 to 70 hours a week to take care of my 2 kids while my girlfriend finishes her schooling. No help whatsoever from uncle Sam and to be frank, I don’t want or need it
. I feel we would just be contributing to the problem which is relying on the government to support us.

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

Obama’s deportation numbers are that high because Bush’s policies are still in place from his presidency. It’s not like Obama has done anything different.

CS
[/quote]

There has been a significant increase in funding/activity under the Obama administration. Bush was just working with Clinton’s policies, and so on. There has been no real work done on immigration for about thirty years. Keep in mind Bush did only enough to claim he was trying both as President and as Governor of Texas. The business community desires access to those workers and have the ability to influence law/policy at the federal level. Do not look for any real change any time soon.