49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit

[edthecynic]

Partisan made up bullshit

Of course it is partisan. How can it be any different? It as after all a Bush and a Cheney in charge of the enforcement arm of the government. A perfect example of how wealthy USA business people can screw up an economy due to incompetence backed with criminal minds.

Sure enough Bush and Cheney were in office at the time.

Blaming Bush can only go so far until the retaliation that maybe it was also obama's fault until then this mess will never get fix keeping people in power who help cause this mess.

Oh BULLSHIT!
You assholes are still blaming Carter and Clinton for Bush's fuck ups. Why is there only a time limit on blaming Bush???

 

[The T]

Blaming Bush can only go so far until the retaliation that maybe it was also obama's fault until then this mess will never get fix keeping people in power who help cause this mess.

The damage the GOP have done to the economy will take decades to fix, and then only if they can be stopped from interfering. We are paying nearly a half a trillion each year in interest on the GOP debt. We will be paying for the disabled vets from Bush's folly for decades. We will also be paying for Bush's unfunded Part D medicare also. Nearly all the debt over the last 3 years can be traced back to those 3 causes, but you knew that all along.

When were you offically declared insane?

He hasn't yet learned to look deeply into a mirror. But economic vampires wouldn't see themselves anyway.

 

[candycorn]

Its closer to 100%. The right just doesn't like to admit that they are on the dole as much as they, in fact, are.

All of us are warmed by fires started by others.

 

[newpolitics]

The increase is due to obama's changing policy by allowing more people on the government dependency programs.

Absolutel BS!

double repeat BS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

More bad news, but will it be mentioned in the mainstream media?

People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.

Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com

How much of that has to do with the increase of autism and other disabilities. Both my kids now get disabilities, we didn't qualify when they were younger though I'm told some doctors got disabilities for their kids, but then they had lawyers and knew how to lie and work the system. I don't lie.

Now both my kids are getting disbiality. Another kid on disability is living with us because his mom is, well, not a mom.

My son is 27 and likely will never marry or have a life of his own. What do you want me to do, kick him out on the street so that we won't be one of the 49% of homes where one person gets money from a federal government? No? You want me to support him and not collect medicaid and disbility for him. And when we lose our house because our insurance won't pay for his medical needs anymore, then what? Will you be happy?

So me not reporting this will some how change what has happen to you and your family? I am sorry if the truth hurts. posting the information will not change your life one way or the other. But covering it up and not reporting it will never fix the this mess. There has to be a better way than what we have right now.

 

[Steelplate]

More bad news, but will it be mentioned in the mainstream media?

People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.

Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com

How much of that has to do with the increase of autism and other disabilities. Both my kids now get disabilities, we didn't qualify when they were younger though I'm told some doctors got disabilities for their kids, but then they had lawyers and knew how to lie and work the system. I don't lie.

Now both my kids are getting disbiality. Another kid on disability is living with us because his mom is, well, not a mom.

My son is 27 and likely will never marry or have a life of his own. What do you want me to do, kick him out on the street so that we won't be one of the 49% of homes where one person gets money from a federal government? No? You want me to support him and not collect medicaid and disbility for him. And when we lose our house because our insurance won't pay for his medical needs anymore, then what? Will you be happy?

I empathize with you Sheila. I work with the developmentally Disabled. What the right wing doesn't understand is that the people most affected by their cuts are going to be those that can't speak up for themselves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The direct payments increasing, which they have done includes Social Security whereas the Baby Boomers started retiring early in GWB's first term and continue to escalate through Obama's term. Eight million have retired and were added to Social Security in the last ten years.
Social Security Online
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Another direct payment is the Unemployment Benefits and the unemployment rate speaks for itself, it should be noted that for every job opening there are 4.2 unemployed workers, now that's an improvement from 6.1 unemployed per job opening in June of 2009 but a far cry when it was 1.8 unemployed per job opening just before the recession of 2007 took hold.

Also, I think it's very easy to assume that if there were more jobs available, the numbers on Food Stamps would drop. But it isn't exactly so. Wages have been flat for decades and in most cases have not kept up with inflation. As the income needed to qualify for Food Stamps is adjusted for inflation and as wages have not kept up with inflation, more and more people are becoming eligible for Food Stamps and they are working for a living.

Te best solution for the huge dependence on unemployment and Food Stamps is the creation of jobs. Who creates jobs? In the last few years, corporations have seen huge and record profits, yet they aren't hiring. They are sitting on trillions of dollars of capital. The job creator class hasn't seen such low Capital Gains tax rates in decades, yet there is no job creation, at least domestically to speak off.

Is it because of regulations, yes and no. Is it because of the low cost of hiring offshore? That certainly plays into the game. Is it the US tax rate for corporations, again yes and no. Many type "C" corporations don't pat taxes or pay very little in taxes and type "S" corporations pass the tax responsibility onto the shareholders who pay at 15%.
Two Thirds of US Corporations Don't Pay Federal Income Tax: True But Horribly Misleading - Forbes

Is it government who is responsible for creating jobs or is it the private sector? It's a combination of both. Government policy dictates the private sector in many ways, such as regulations. Yet when the US had a very business friendly administration, the concept of off-shoring jobs hit it's stride, almost as many jobs were created offshore as were created domestically.

I surmise, based on history that's it's the private sectors obsession with the bottom-line that has created the overwhelming amount of people who are reliant on government. If a business can cut their most expensive cost of doing business (payroll) and still see record profits, why would they hire more wage earners?

Could it be U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate? Yes I think it could

PolitiFact Ohio | Sen. Rob Portman says the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit

At the start of the GWB administration that number was about 38 percent, by 2009 the number of households had risen to 45 percent. Using your ‘logic,’ Bush was responsible for that increase, even more alarming given the fact the increase occurred during a period of economic growth and low unemployment.

Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Are you saying obama hasn't lower the requirements for government food stamps?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. He didn't lower any requirements.

Correct. He didn’t lower the requirements; the income requirement is the same as it’s always been for years: 130 percent of the Federal poverty level.

More bad news, but will it be mentioned in the mainstream media?

The reason why responsible media won’t report it is because it’s idiocy, the increase has nothing to do with Obama’s ‘policies,’ it’s a consequence of recession and an aging population.

The capacity of the right to lie for perceived political gain is astonishing.

 

[Againsheila]

More bad news, but will it be mentioned in the mainstream media?

People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.

Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com

How much of that has to do with the increase of autism and other disabilities. Both my kids now get disabilities, we didn't qualify when they were younger though I'm told some doctors got disabilities for their kids, but then they had lawyers and knew how to lie and work the system. I don't lie.

Now both my kids are getting disbiality. Another kid on disability is living with us because his mom is, well, not a mom.

My son is 27 and likely will never marry or have a life of his own. What do you want me to do, kick him out on the street so that we won't be one of the 49% of homes where one person gets money from a federal government? No? You want me to support him and not collect medicaid and disbility for him. And when we lose our house because our insurance won't pay for his medical needs anymore, then what? Will you be happy?

So me not reporting this will some how change what has happen to you and your family? I am sorry if the truth hurts. posting the information will not change your life one way or the other. But covering it up and not reporting it will never fix the this mess. There has to be a better way than what we have right now.

I get the feeling you didn't post that just for it's information purposes.

 

[bodecea]

The rise in numbers is due to obamas lowering the standards for allowing people onto the government programs.

Bullshit!
It's due to Boomers retiring after paying into SS all their lives and maimed veterans from Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq.

What a fucking retard.

Well...you are certainly welcome to post some figures to show he is incorrect.


Especially about the Boomers retiring on SSN....that has been predicted for quite a while. But feel free to blame people getting old on this Administration too.

 

[g5000]

The direct payments increasing, which they have done includes Social Security whereas the Baby Boomers started retiring early in GWB's first term and continue to escalate through Obama's term. Eight million have retired and were added to Social Security in the last ten years.
Social Security Online
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Another direct payment is the Unemployment Benefits and the unemployment rate speaks for itself, it should be noted that for every job opening there are 4.2 unemployed workers, now that's an improvement from 6.1 unemployed per job opening in June of 2009 but a far cry when it was 1.8 unemployed per job opening just before the recession of 2007 took hold.

Also, I think it's very easy to assume that if there were more jobs available, the numbers on Food Stamps would drop. But it isn't exactly so. Wages have been flat for decades and in most cases have not kept up with inflation. As the income needed to qualify for Food Stamps is adjusted for inflation and as wages have not kept up with inflation, more and more people are becoming eligible for Food Stamps and they are working for a living.

Te best solution for the huge dependence on unemployment and Food Stamps is the creation of jobs. Who creates jobs? In the last few years, corporations have seen huge and record profits, yet they aren't hiring. They are sitting on trillions of dollars of capital. The job creator class hasn't seen such low Capital Gains tax rates in decades, yet there is no job creation, at least domestically to speak off.

Is it because of regulations, yes and no. Is it because of the low cost of hiring offshore? That certainly plays into the game. Is it the US tax rate for corporations, again yes and no. Many type "C" corporations don't pat taxes or pay very little in taxes and type "S" corporations pass the tax responsibility onto the shareholders who pay at 15%.
Two Thirds of US Corporations Don't Pay Federal Income Tax: True But Horribly Misleading - Forbes

Is it government who is responsible for creating jobs or is it the private sector? It's a combination of both. Government policy dictates the private sector in many ways, such as regulations. Yet when the US had a very business friendly administration, the concept of off-shoring jobs hit it's stride, almost as many jobs were created offshore as were created domestically.

I surmise, based on history that's it's the private sectors obsession with the bottom-line that has created the overwhelming amount of people who are reliant on government. If a business can cut their most expensive cost of doing business (payroll) and still see record profits, why would they hire more wage earners?

Outstanding post. I don't know how the whole "rep power" thing on here works, but I'd certainly throw you a few points.


This is how you back up your claims, folks. Instead of just throwing out a bunch of rhetoric, provide evidence. Otherwise you are just another hack.

 

[g5000]

The increase is due to obama's changing policy by allowing more people on the government dependency programs.

This claim requires evidence.

 

[g5000]

Bullshit!
It's due to Boomers retiring after paying into SS all their lives and maimed veterans from Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq.

This claim requires evidence.

 

[g5000]

Here is why we need to raise the retirement age:

As late as 1930, America's older population numbered less than 7 million—only 5.4% of the population.

The latest U.S. Census Bureau brief on data from the 2010 Census shows seniors increasing faster than younger populations, raising the nation's median age from 35.3 in 2000 to 37.2 in 2010, with seven states having a median age of 40 or older.

Between 2000 and 2010, the 45 to 64 population grew 31.5 percent to 81.5 million, and now makes up 26. 4 percent of the total U.S. population.

Demographics of Aging


Number of Americans 62 and older in 2000: 41,256,029 (14.9% of total population)
Number of Americans 62 and older in 2010: 49,972,181 (16.2% of total population)
Increase of Americans 62 and older between 2000 and 2010: 8,716,152 (21.2% increase)

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well here's one of obama's increases


DEPENDENTS NOW COVERED UP TO AGE 26 – Dependent children whose coverage ended, or who were
denied coverage (or were not eligible for coverage), because the availability of coverage ended before attainment
of age 26 are eligible to enroll under certain circumstances. Individuals may request enrollment for such children
for 30 days from the date of this notice. Enrollment will be effective December 1, 2010. An enrollment form is
included in this mailing. Please complete one form for each dependent you choose to enroll. Additional forms are
available on the Fund’s website at Indiana Laborers ::: Terre Haute, IN.

http://indianalaborers.org/welfarebenefitchangeNotice 10_10.pdf

 

[g5000]

Is Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents? Nearly Half Now Get Government Benefits - Investors.com

Within that link are two other links.

This one breaks down direct payments for 2010: http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2010/3-qtr/table2.xls

This one breaks down direct payments for 2008 on page 5: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p70-119.pdf



Everyone can do a side by side comparison for themselves.


Here is 2008:

Here is 2010:

 

[kiwiman127]

The direct payments increasing, which they have done includes Social Security whereas the Baby Boomers started retiring early in GWB's first term and continue to escalate through Obama's term. Eight million have retired and were added to Social Security in the last ten years.
Social Security Online
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Another direct payment is the Unemployment Benefits and the unemployment rate speaks for itself, it should be noted that for every job opening there are 4.2 unemployed workers, now that's an improvement from 6.1 unemployed per job opening in June of 2009 but a far cry when it was 1.8 unemployed per job opening just before the recession of 2007 took hold.

Also, I think it's very easy to assume that if there were more jobs available, the numbers on Food Stamps would drop. But it isn't exactly so. Wages have been flat for decades and in most cases have not kept up with inflation. As the income needed to qualify for Food Stamps is adjusted for inflation and as wages have not kept up with inflation, more and more people are becoming eligible for Food Stamps and they are working for a living.

Te best solution for the huge dependence on unemployment and Food Stamps is the creation of jobs. Who creates jobs? In the last few years, corporations have seen huge and record profits, yet they aren't hiring. They are sitting on trillions of dollars of capital. The job creator class hasn't seen such low Capital Gains tax rates in decades, yet there is no job creation, at least domestically to speak off.

Is it because of regulations, yes and no. Is it because of the low cost of hiring offshore? That certainly plays into the game. Is it the US tax rate for corporations, again yes and no. Many type "C" corporations don't pat taxes or pay very little in taxes and type "S" corporations pass the tax responsibility onto the shareholders who pay at 15%.
Two Thirds of US Corporations Don't Pay Federal Income Tax: True But Horribly Misleading - Forbes

Is it government who is responsible for creating jobs or is it the private sector? It's a combination of both. Government policy dictates the private sector in many ways, such as regulations. Yet when the US had a very business friendly administration, the concept of off-shoring jobs hit it's stride, almost as many jobs were created offshore as were created domestically.

I surmise, based on history that's it's the private sectors obsession with the bottom-line that has created the overwhelming amount of people who are reliant on government. If a business can cut their most expensive cost of doing business (payroll) and still see record profits, why would they hire more wage earners?

Could it be U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate? Yes I think it could

PolitiFact Ohio | Sen. Rob Portman says the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate

BUT, other countries don't have all the loopholes that are offered, so as Forbes Magazine stated 9see link in earlier post on this thread), many pay no tax or a much lower rate than the 35%. So, your statement is mute.

 

[g5000]

Unemployment rate, January 2001: 4.2 percent.

Unemployment rate, January 2009: 7.8 percent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The direct payments increasing, which they have done includes Social Security whereas the Baby Boomers started retiring early in GWB's first term and continue to escalate through Obama's term. Eight million have retired and were added to Social Security in the last ten years.
Social Security Online
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Another direct payment is the Unemployment Benefits and the unemployment rate speaks for itself, it should be noted that for every job opening there are 4.2 unemployed workers, now that's an improvement from 6.1 unemployed per job opening in June of 2009 but a far cry when it was 1.8 unemployed per job opening just before the recession of 2007 took hold.

Also, I think it's very easy to assume that if there were more jobs available, the numbers on Food Stamps would drop. But it isn't exactly so. Wages have been flat for decades and in most cases have not kept up with inflation. As the income needed to qualify for Food Stamps is adjusted for inflation and as wages have not kept up with inflation, more and more people are becoming eligible for Food Stamps and they are working for a living.

Te best solution for the huge dependence on unemployment and Food Stamps is the creation of jobs. Who creates jobs? In the last few years, corporations have seen huge and record profits, yet they aren't hiring. They are sitting on trillions of dollars of capital. The job creator class hasn't seen such low Capital Gains tax rates in decades, yet there is no job creation, at least domestically to speak off.

Is it because of regulations, yes and no. Is it because of the low cost of hiring offshore? That certainly plays into the game. Is it the US tax rate for corporations, again yes and no. Many type "C" corporations don't pat taxes or pay very little in taxes and type "S" corporations pass the tax responsibility onto the shareholders who pay at 15%.
Two Thirds of US Corporations Don't Pay Federal Income Tax: True But Horribly Misleading - Forbes

Is it government who is responsible for creating jobs or is it the private sector? It's a combination of both. Government policy dictates the private sector in many ways, such as regulations. Yet when the US had a very business friendly administration, the concept of off-shoring jobs hit it's stride, almost as many jobs were created offshore as were created domestically.

I surmise, based on history that's it's the private sectors obsession with the bottom-line that has created the overwhelming amount of people who are reliant on government. If a business can cut their most expensive cost of doing business (payroll) and still see record profits, why would they hire more wage earners?

Could it be U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate? Yes I think it could

PolitiFact Ohio | Sen. Rob Portman says the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate

BUT, other countries have all the loopholes that are offered, so as Forbes Magazine stated 9see link in earlier post on this thread), many pay no tax or a much lower rate than the 35%. So, your statement is mute.

The left wants to raise taxes and look at what happens when you do that.

 

[g5000]

I noticed the OP article jumps from third quarter 2008 to third quarter 2010 and that the topic starter blames Obama for the explosion of people on food stamps.

However, let's take a look at the second quarter of 2009 when Obama had been in office for just three months:

As you can plainly see, the explosion of people on food stamps was well under way. A 27 percent leap in six months! And that has to be ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL Bush, right? Since you guys were blaming Obama for people on food stamps, then it is only fair to blame Bush for the actual explosion which was underway when Obama took office.