Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

[Wehrwolfen]

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term


by Warner Todd Huston
22 Jan 2013

One way to mark the legacy of a presidency is to tally statistics, and at least one stat is not very flattering for President Obama: the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by 11,133 people every day during his first term.

In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

That is an expansion of 11,133 people per day between January of 2009 and October of 2012.

The Congressional Budget office reports that SNAP enrollment increased 70 percent during that period, with the food stamp budget growing by $2.7 billion over fiscal year 2011.

Also, it is reported that "SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009--when SNAP was still known as the 'Food Stamp' program--the government spent $55.6 billion."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

 

[g5000]

The number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased
by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
and even more rapidly (by 70 percent) between fiscal
years 2007 and 2011. During that latter period, spending
on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent. The
increase in the number of people eligible for and receiving
benefits between 2007 and 2011 has been driven
primarily by the weak economy. That increase was
responsible for about 65 percent of the growth in
spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. About
20 percent of the growth in spending can be attributed
to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors,
such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries,
both of which boost benefits.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf

 

[WillowTree]

Check out the stats on how many government employees suddenly became "disabled" under his first four, it's astounding.

 

[g5000]

A 50 percent increase in Bush's first term. Followed by a 70 percent increase for the period including his second term and the first two years of Obama's first term.

Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994—nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.

 

[g5000]

Seeing as how the OP linked depended entirely on the CBO for its facts, we shall continue on with the CBO report I linked:

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

From my last post, we find that is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

And considering the Bush Recession was the greatest crash since the Great Depression, none of these figures being cited for the years following that crash should be the least bit surprising now that we have much more context in which to consider them.

 

[g5000]

Check out the stats on how many government employees suddenly became "disabled" under his first four, it's astounding.

I bet you have no idea why. You think you do, but you don't.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes definitely Bush's fault.

 

[g5000]

Check out the stats on how many government employees suddenly became "disabled" under his first four, it's astounding.

Those who are feeding you your piss only go back four years for a reason. This is what is known as a lie of omission.


A 2006 report: The Growth in the Social Security Disability Rolls: A Fiscal Crisis Unfolding

In 1985, 2.2 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 were receiving DI benefits, but by 2005 this fraction had risen to 4.1 percent. If recent entry and exit rates continue in the years ahead, then more than 6 percent of the nonelderly adult population will soon be receiving DI benefits.

The rapid expansion of the beneficiary population has three main causes.

First, a set of congressional reforms in 1984 to Disability Insurance screening led to rapid growth in the share of recipients suffering from back pain and mental illness. Because these disorders have comparatively low mortality, the average duration of disability spells—and hence the size of the recipient population—has increased. Second, a rise in the after-tax DI income replacement rate—that is, the ratio of disability income to former labor earnings—strengthened the incentives for workers to seek benefits. Third, a rapid increase in female labor force participation expanded the pool of insured workers. The aging of the baby boom generation has contributed little to the rise of receipt of disability benefits, while improvements in population health have likely reduced the incidence of disabling medical disorders.

So your masters' attempts to put the blame on Obama for the rise in disability recipients which was foreseen way before he took office is completely bogus.

 

[g5000]

Yes definitely Bush's fault.

It is only fair to say so when everything that happens on Obama's watch is said to be Obama's fault.

Therefore, anything that happened on Bush's watch is Bush's fault.

Now...do you dispute the CBO report I quoted from? It clearly shows that an increase in SNAP recipients for several years after a recession is normal.

We have to be consistent. The OP cited the CBO. So I cited the CBO and even provided a link, which the OP story did not.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes definitely Bush's fault.

It is only fair to say so when everything that happens on Obama's watch is said to be Obama's fault.

Therefore, anything that happened on Bush's watch is Bush's fault.

Now...do you dispute the CBO report I quoted from? It clearly shows that an increase in SNAP recipients for several years after a recession is normal.

We have to be consistent. The OP cited the CBO. So I cited the CBO and even provided a link, which the OP story did not.

If you live in the "fair" world.

Obama was to lead us out of the Bush years and has done nothing but blame them.

He is everything a leader isn't.

 

[g5000]

Yes definitely Bush's fault.

It is only fair to say so when everything that happens on Obama's watch is said to be Obama's fault.

Therefore, anything that happened on Bush's watch is Bush's fault.

Now...do you dispute the CBO report I quoted from? It clearly shows that an increase in SNAP recipients for several years after a recession is normal.

We have to be consistent. The OP cited the CBO. So I cited the CBO and even provided a link, which the OP story did not.

If you live in the "fair" world.

Obama was to lead us out of the Bush years and has done nothing but blame them.

He is everything a leader isn't.

I do not dispute that at all. Shit, those very words came out of my mouth just last night. "He is not a leader." I also tossed in, "He's a coward who hangs back and lets others do the heavy lifting."

Unfortunately, the piss drinkers are shooting at a ghost of their imagination instead of attacking Obama where he actually lives. That's why Obama keeps winning. He is surrounded by enemies even more stupid and more dangerous than he is. He is the luckiest dumb son of a bitch who ever lived!

 

[Clementine]

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term


by Warner Todd Huston
22 Jan 2013

One way to mark the legacy of a presidency is to tally statistics, and at least one stat is not very flattering for President Obama: the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by 11,133 people every day during his first term.

In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

That is an expansion of 11,133 people per day between January of 2009 and October of 2012.

The Congressional Budget office reports that SNAP enrollment increased 70 percent during that period, with the food stamp budget growing by $2.7 billion over fiscal year 2011.

Also, it is reported that "SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009--when SNAP was still known as the 'Food Stamp' program--the government spent $55.6 billion."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

He can't win votes by helping the economy, so he gets more supporters by buying them.

 

[SniperFire]

This massive vote buying will now begin to be defunded.

 

[WillowTree]

Check out the stats on how many government employees suddenly became "disabled" under his first four, it's astounding.

Those who are feeding you your piss only go back four years for a reason. This is what is known as a lie of omission.


A 2006 report: The Growth in the Social Security Disability Rolls: A Fiscal Crisis Unfolding

In 1985, 2.2 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 were receiving DI benefits, but by 2005 this fraction had risen to 4.1 percent. If recent entry and exit rates continue in the years ahead, then more than 6 percent of the nonelderly adult population will soon be receiving DI benefits.

The rapid expansion of the beneficiary population has three main causes.

First, a set of congressional reforms in 1984 to Disability Insurance screening led to rapid growth in the share of recipients suffering from back pain and mental illness. Because these disorders have comparatively low mortality, the average duration of disability spells—and hence the size of the recipient population—has increased. Second, a rise in the after-tax DI income replacement rate—that is, the ratio of disability income to former labor earnings—strengthened the incentives for workers to seek benefits. Third, a rapid increase in female labor force participation expanded the pool of insured workers. The aging of the baby boom generation has contributed little to the rise of receipt of disability benefits, while improvements in population health have likely reduced the incidence of disabling medical disorders.

So your masters' attempts to put the blame on Obama for the rise in disability recipients which was foreseen way before he took office is completely bogus.

You have so much angst!

 

[AquaAthena]

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term


by Warner Todd Huston
22 Jan 2013

One way to mark the legacy of a presidency is to tally statistics, and at least one stat is not very flattering for President Obama: the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by 11,133 people every day during his first term.

In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

That is an expansion of 11,133 people per day between January of 2009 and October of 2012.

The Congressional Budget office reports that SNAP enrollment increased 70 percent during that period, with the food stamp budget growing by $2.7 billion over fiscal year 2011.

Also, it is reported that "SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009--when SNAP was still known as the 'Food Stamp' program--the government spent $55.6 billion."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

Yes, just one of the reasons he was the lowest rated president during his first term, next to Jimmy Carter: BOOOOOO!!!!!!

"President Barack Obama averaged 49.1% job approval during his first term in office, among the lowest for post-World War II presidents. Only Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had lower job approval averages. Obama's first-term average is most similar to Bill Clinton's. Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower were the most popular first-term presidents.

Obama Averages 49% Approval in First Term

 

[Freewill]

Seeing as how the OP linked depended entirely on the CBO for its facts, we shall continue on with the CBO report I linked:

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

From my last post, we find that is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

And considering the Bush Recession was the greatest crash since the Great Depression, none of these figures being cited for the years following that crash should be the least bit surprising now that we have much more context in which to consider them.

Democrats were in control when the economy went down. The only thing that made it so bad is what we said, Obama. 6 tillion put on your grandchildren for 8 percent unemployment. Can't blame that on Bush.

 

[Contumacious]

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term]

And in conclusion , US Taxpayers PAID for Obama's second term. Now you know why he is so popular.

.

 

[tjvh]

Obama won a second term for the same reason that dog's rarely ever bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Noomi]

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term


by Warner Todd Huston
22 Jan 2013

One way to mark the legacy of a presidency is to tally statistics, and at least one stat is not very flattering for President Obama: the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by 11,133 people every day during his first term.

In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

That is an expansion of 11,133 people per day between January of 2009 and October of 2012.

The Congressional Budget office reports that SNAP enrollment increased 70 percent during that period, with the food stamp budget growing by $2.7 billion over fiscal year 2011.

Also, it is reported that "SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009--when SNAP was still known as the 'Food Stamp' program--the government spent $55.6 billion."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

Obama became President right before the recession, you idiot Republicans. People lost their jobs, so of course they needed a bit of assistance!

Are Republicans really that brain dead?

 

[Contumacious]

Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term


by Warner Todd Huston
22 Jan 2013

One way to mark the legacy of a presidency is to tally statistics, and at least one stat is not very flattering for President Obama: the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by 11,133 people every day during his first term.

In 2009, when Obama took office, recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) stood at 31,939,110 Americans; by the end of his first term, the latest tally numbered 47,525,329.

That is an expansion of 11,133 people per day between January of 2009 and October of 2012.

The Congressional Budget office reports that SNAP enrollment increased 70 percent during that period, with the food stamp budget growing by $2.7 billion over fiscal year 2011.

Also, it is reported that "SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009--when SNAP was still known as the 'Food Stamp' program--the government spent $55.6 billion."


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Food Stamp Recipients Increased 11,133 Per Day in Obama's First Term

Obama became President right before the recession, you idiot Republicans. People lost their jobs, so of course they needed a bit of assistance!

Are Republicans really that brain dead?

I agree with you that Obama became president at a point when the economy had hit rock bottom.

But the reason the economy crashed is precisely because the populace has allowed politicians to manage the economy. The electorate has been electing welfare/warfare politicians since , at least, 1935.

The appropriate thing to do would have been to vote for someone who was willing to separate the government from the economy. Not someone like Obama, who is going to continue to perpetuate addiction to government largesse.

.