Illegals, Unemployment and Food Stamps Down, Markets Soar

[danielpalos]

I took this off the net, it's probably correct:
SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.
Not sure why some people are always freaking out over food stamps since the money does go right back into the economy and food stamps do a lot of good, like feeding kids whose parents can't seem to do without assistance for whatever reason. Is there abuse with food stamps? For sure, there's abuse in all systems, even the department of "defense", which goes into the trillions.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage also means, less people on food stamps.

Only the right wing complains about both.

 

[danielpalos]

Markets are down hard today on Trump's saber-rattling on NK.

Just a One Percenter with recourse to our exorbitantly expensive superpower, financed with the Other Peoples' tax monies.

A True Capitalist would simply finance his own cruiser, and "look into things" in the Middle East.

 

[danielpalos]

As of May 11, Trump’s odds of being impeached during his first term were sitting at a whopping 60 percent.---https://www.inverse.com/article/26292-donald-trump-impeachment-odds

From such a reliable source.

The right wing is so droll. Odds are just that.

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, it was lousy public policies that allowed that to happen. Means testing is for those for whom merely solving for a poverty of money, may not be enough. For all of the rest, merely solving for a simple poverty money, is enough.

Blacks onetime had a close family unit. Then liberals have them welfare and made them slaves once again.

Unlike the crony capitalism of black codes?

 

[Faun]

I took this off the net, it's probably correct:
SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.
Not sure why some people are always freaking out over food stamps since the money does go right back into the economy and food stamps do a lot of good, like feeding kids whose parents can't seem to do without assistance for whatever reason. Is there abuse with food stamps? For sure, there's abuse in all systems, even the department of "defense", which goes into the trillions.

So Trump is screwing up by helping people get jobs and getting them off food stamps? No wonder you probably think Obama was a great success.

Oh? Which bill or executive order did Trump sign that is putting people to work?

 

[Faun]

Moron... again... SNAP participation is not an economic indicator. I responded to an idiot who falsely claimed the economy has picked up since the election by posting economic indicators to prove that idiot is an idiot. That apparently bothers you, so here you are trying to divert the conversion to be about SNAP participation, (which grew more under Bush than Obama anyway) which is not an economic indicator.

Most folks who went on it between 2008-2011 did so as a result of Bush's Great Recession anyway.

Never said it was.

One would expect SNAP to increase when unemployment increases. Only Obama dumbasses would expect it to go up when unemployment was going down. Doesn't work that way.

That was the conversation you injected your nonsense with. Pay attention next time.

It wasn't, as you claimed, stated to be an economic indicator.

Following a train of thought is a real problem for ya, isn't it? I never said you injected that into the dialog as an economic indicator.

A moron idiotically claimed the economy has picked up since the election. That's about the economy.

Using economic indicators, I proved he's a retard. That was a problem for you so you tried to divert to discussing SNAP participation, which fails miserably in refuting my post since it doesn't measure the economy.

SNAP has a direct relationship with employment numbers. You want people to believe that it suddenly becomes an inverse relationship when Obama is President. SNAP use isn't an economic indicator but it is an indicator of whether or not more or less people are working.

No, it doesn't. Work status is not even a qualifier, ya brain-dead con.

 

[Faun]

As of May 11, Trump’s odds of being impeached during his first term were sitting at a whopping 60 percent.---https://www.inverse.com/article/26292-donald-trump-impeachment-odds

From such a reliable source.

The right wing is so droll. Odds are just that.

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, if you're a racist, you're also a conservative.

Yet you show no proof of anyone being a racist.

Your own posts do that for me. You constantly make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue.

 

[Conservative65]

From such a reliable source.

The right wing is so droll. Odds are just that.

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, it was lousy public policies that allowed that to happen. Means testing is for those for whom merely solving for a poverty of money, may not be enough. For all of the rest, merely solving for a simple poverty money, is enough.

Blacks onetime had a close family unit. Then liberals have them welfare and made them slaves once again.

Unlike the crony capitalism of black codes?

The breakup of the black family unit can't be blamed on black codes or slavery. The black family unit was strong long after slavery and things like Jim Crow went away. The decline didn't start until the 1960s with LBJ's Great Society that enabled people to have kids without a father present and get paid for it.

 

[Conservative65]

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, it was lousy public policies that allowed that to happen. Means testing is for those for whom merely solving for a poverty of money, may not be enough. For all of the rest, merely solving for a simple poverty money, is enough.

Odds are they simply can't do any better and no amount of money will change what isn't related to money in any way.

It's not lousy public policy a black female can't keep her legs closed and produce bastard babies. It's a lousy personal policy. It's not a lousy public policy that blacks use food stamps at a 1 in every 3 1/2 rate. It's a lousy personal policy.

Dear, the laws of demand and supply do not stop working, not even for right wing fantasy.

Solving for a simple poverty of money on an at-will basis will solve our problems.

Because, Persons will no longer have that Excuse.

Has nothing to do with supply and demand. ....

Only in Right Wing fantasy.

It has to do with some people simply being born without the ability to do any better. Not my fault they were born that way nor does it make it my responsibility to offset it because they were.

 

[Conservative65]

From such a reliable source.

The right wing is so droll. Odds are just that.

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, if you're a racist, you're also a conservative.

Yet you show no proof of anyone being a racist.

Your own posts do that for me. You constantly make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue.

That's your opinion. I asked for proof and you use the typical BISSO explanation.

 

[Faun]

The right wing is so droll. Odds are just that.

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, if you're a racist, you're also a conservative.

Yet you show no proof of anyone being a racist.

Your own posts do that for me. You constantly make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue.

That's your opinion. I asked for proof and you use the typical BISSO explanation.

Nope, it's not my opinion that you make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue. You're doing it right now on another thread.

 

[Conservative65]

Depends on who is making the odds. Odds are when a black baby is born it will be a bastard. Odd are that blacks have a 1 in 3 1/2 chance of being on food stamps.

I guess odds are just that. Difference is my odds are verifiable and yours are speculation. Fact vs. opinion.

Odds are, if you're a racist, you're also a conservative.

Yet you show no proof of anyone being a racist.

Your own posts do that for me. You constantly make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue.

That's your opinion. I asked for proof and you use the typical BISSO explanation.

Nope, it's not my opinion that you make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue. You're doing it right now on another thread.

Like you said you know how Obama made good grades at Harvard yet provide no proof?

Still using the BISSO explanation.

 

[Meathead]

I took this off the net, it's probably correct:
SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.
Not sure why some people are always freaking out over food stamps since the money does go right back into the economy and food stamps do a lot of good, like feeding kids whose parents can't seem to do without assistance for whatever reason. Is there abuse with food stamps? For sure, there's abuse in all systems, even the department of "defense", which goes into the trillions.

So Trump is screwing up by helping people get jobs and getting them off food stamps? No wonder you probably think Obama was a great success.

Oh? Which bill or executive order did Trump sign that is putting people to work?

Look, we get the butt hurt part, but facts are facts and even the acute anal pain of a snowflake alters nothing.

 

[Faun]

Odds are, if you're a racist, you're also a conservative.

Yet you show no proof of anyone being a racist.

Your own posts do that for me. You constantly make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue.

That's your opinion. I asked for proof and you use the typical BISSO explanation.

Nope, it's not my opinion that you make issues about race even when race has nothing to do with the issue. You're doing it right now on another thread.

Like you said you know how Obama made good grades at Harvard yet provide no proof?

Still using the BISSO explanation.

Not like that at all as I offered proof of Obama's good grades at Harvard. How many times are you going to make false equivalencies?

 

[Faun]

I took this off the net, it's probably correct:
SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.
Not sure why some people are always freaking out over food stamps since the money does go right back into the economy and food stamps do a lot of good, like feeding kids whose parents can't seem to do without assistance for whatever reason. Is there abuse with food stamps? For sure, there's abuse in all systems, even the department of "defense", which goes into the trillions.

So Trump is screwing up by helping people get jobs and getting them off food stamps? No wonder you probably think Obama was a great success.

Oh? Which bill or executive order did Trump sign that is putting people to work?

Look, we get the butt hurt part, but facts are facts and even the acute anal pain of a snowflake alters nothing.

Translation: Meathead can't site a single such bill or executive order. Like Jim Jones' followers, he just b'lieves.

 

[danielpalos]

I took this off the net, it's probably correct:
SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.
Not sure why some people are always freaking out over food stamps since the money does go right back into the economy and food stamps do a lot of good, like feeding kids whose parents can't seem to do without assistance for whatever reason. Is there abuse with food stamps? For sure, there's abuse in all systems, even the department of "defense", which goes into the trillions.

So Trump is screwing up by helping people get jobs and getting them off food stamps? No wonder you probably think Obama was a great success.

By cutting taxes for the rich and cutting social benefits for the poor, so the right wing can "blame the poor" for that Institutional redistribution of wealth?

 

[danielpalos]

Moron... again... SNAP participation is not an economic indicator. I responded to an idiot who falsely claimed the economy has picked up since the election by posting economic indicators to prove that idiot is an idiot. That apparently bothers you, so here you are trying to divert the conversion to be about SNAP participation, (which grew more under Bush than Obama anyway) which is not an economic indicator.

Most folks who went on it between 2008-2011 did so as a result of Bush's Great Recession anyway.

Never said it was.

One would expect SNAP to increase when unemployment increases. Only Obama dumbasses would expect it to go up when unemployment was going down. Doesn't work that way.

That was the conversation you injected your nonsense with. Pay attention next time.

It wasn't, as you claimed, stated to be an economic indicator.

Following a train of thought is a real problem for ya, isn't it? I never said you injected that into the dialog as an economic indicator.

A moron idiotically claimed the economy has picked up since the election. That's about the economy.

Using economic indicators, I proved he's a retard. That was a problem for you so you tried to divert to discussing SNAP participation, which fails miserably in refuting my post since it doesn't measure the economy.

SNAP has a direct relationship with employment numbers. You want people to believe that it suddenly becomes an inverse relationship when Obama is President. SNAP use isn't an economic indicator but it is an indicator of whether or not more or less people are working.

subject to micromanagement, like our tax codes. it is not the fault of the People, Congress cannot find rational solutions. Any Infringement to Individual Liberty must admonished at every opportunity.

 

[danielpalos]

I took this off the net, it's probably correct:
SNAP benefits cost $70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied roughly 44.2 million Americans with an average of $125.51 for each person per month in food assistance.
Not sure why some people are always freaking out over food stamps since the money does go right back into the economy and food stamps do a lot of good, like feeding kids whose parents can't seem to do without assistance for whatever reason. Is there abuse with food stamps? For sure, there's abuse in all systems, even the department of "defense", which goes into the trillions.

So Trump is screwing up by helping people get jobs and getting them off food stamps? No wonder you probably think Obama was a great success.

Apparently they thought Obama was helping people by putting them on food stamps while claiming more people were doing something, working a job, that should produce a result of less use not more.

Social safety nets are supposed to "pick up the slack". Hooverville is Only worth, one term.

 

[Meathead]

Meathead[/USER] can't site a single such bill or executive order. Like Jim Jones' followers, he just b'lieves.

Meathead can "site" unemployment rates, food stamp recipients, illegals and markets. Oh, and your butt hurt which is quite a sight.

 

[Faun]

Meathead[/USER] can't site a single such bill or executive order. Like Jim Jones' followers, he just b'lieves.

Meathead can "site" unemployment rates, food stamp recipients, illegals and markets. Oh, and your butt hurt which is quite a sight.

You poor thing, bless your heart. What you can't prove is that Trump has had much, if anything at all, to do with it. The unemployment rate and SNAP participation was already falling before Trump was even elected; and merely continue to do so now. Markets were climbing before he was elected; and merely continue to do so now.

That's why when challenged to cite even one single bill or execute order he signed to contribute to the pre-existing trends, all you can do is bitch about butt hurt.

 

[JimBowie1958]

His work in office still effects the economy. New presidents do not have an effect on the economy for at least a year.

I had a lot of issues with Obama but the economy was the one thing he did right. Pulled us out of a recession.

I agree for the most part, but the techniques Obama used were sort of half Keynesian, half smoke and mirrors.

Trump has been able to boost the economy so quickly just by removing the dampers that Obama had placed on it through excessive regulation.