Under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million

Discussion in 'Politics' started by rdean, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,075
    Thanks Received:
    6,886
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,923
    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.

    Otherwise, current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130% of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four.

    The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

    Who gets food stamps?

    ••47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
    ••8% were age 60 or older.
    ••41% lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called "working poor."
    ••The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
    ••49% were white (non-Hispanic); 26% were black or African American; and 20% were Hispanic (of any race).

    Fact check: Gingrich's faulty food-stamp claim

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One statistic left out of the article is that 75% of those getting food stamps are families.

    Republicans keep insisting that people getting food stamps don't work, when nearly half live in families who are working. But these people simply can't support a family on what they make. So Republicans, the party that wants to deny birth control, tells them not to have kids. Not all kids are as fortunate as "Bristol Palin". Some need help. They ARE working. They just aren't making it. So Republicans say, "Let them die"?

    For many getting minimum wage, to those small businesses food stamps are a "business subsidy". Could you imagine how much worse this country would be if we really did follow "Let him die" and "Feed the poor and they'll breed". Republicans want to give subsidies to oil companies but not to struggling American families????

    [​IMG]

    Michele Bachmann: If anyone will not work, neither should he eat

    Michelle Bachmann says anyone who won't work should not eat. Who defines what "won't work" means? They are on unemployment? The don't have a job? They are losing their homes?
     
  2. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
  3. Peach
    Offline

    Peach Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,708
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,965
    Neither number is good. I do not begrudge tax money for aid to the poor, but the increase in poverty remains a failure.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Right you are and it's intolerable. But why penalize everyone else?
     
  5. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,075
    Thanks Received:
    6,886
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,923
    I'm curious. Looking at your link. What does this mean:

    The Right Views, Right Now.
    Conservative Opinion and Analysis

    Does that mean they make up their own facts? Or twist them to say what they want?

    Actually, it's a little screwy. If you look at the entire USDA report,

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Other/BuildingHealthyAmerica.pdf

    You get the "big picture".

    Half of SNAP participants in May 2004 were on the program for seven years. This is sizable increase from May 2001, when the median length of participation was four years.

    You could find a "gotcha" phrase no matter who you are.

    -----------------

    But that wasn't really the point. The point was that people don't get food stamps because they just sit around and live a life of leisure. As you can see from the statistics, nearly half are working. They just don't make enough. Republicans want to punish these people? Why not educate them?
     
  6. Peach
    Offline

    Peach Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,708
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,965
    It is a drain on others, that I cannot dispute. And though welfare benefits, LEGALLY expended, go into the US economy, more money would enter the economy if unemployment was not VERY, VERY high.
     
  7. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,754
    Thanks Received:
    6,619
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,086
    yes, there are more people than ever....But obama has not increased the percentage of recipients more than president bush increased the percentage of recipients....and the percentage increase is the only way to compare apples to apples T....especially with our increase in population. Obama is close to surpassing the percentage increase of Pres. Bush, but it hasn't happened yet and food stamp recipients started to go down from the peak the past 8 months....so he might not ever beat bush's percentage increase in recipients if this continues.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    why are you regurgitating this? we had this out when he said it....
     
  9. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    [​IMG]

    Because he can and is stupid as dirt?​
     
  10. Rozman
    Online

    Rozman Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    16,575
    Thanks Received:
    3,060
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    Ratings:
    +6,688
    Last time I checked Barack Hussein Obama was our President.
    He is currently accountable for all the unemployed,all the homeless,all those on welfare,all those on food stamps.

    Either he is or President Bush is not accountable for anything.

    You lefties can't have it both ways.
    Bush was responsible when he was President.
    Obama is responsible now that he is President.
     

Share This Page