ComputerBreath wrote: Aren't there a lot more WWII baby boomers that are eligible for assistance?
Yes... Here are a few statistics:
Food stamp assistance is now formally known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. While some people do not consider food stamp assistance to be a form of welfare, statistics regarding the program are still useful to consider when discussing poverty.The United States Department of Agriculture reports:
•The average household size of food stamp recipient households is 2.3 persons and the average gross monthly income is $640.
•Children make up 51% of food stamp recipients, and 65% of them reside in single parent households.
•In total, 79% of food stamp benefits are awarded to households with minor children.
The racial breakdown of food stamp recipients is as follows:
•41% white
•36% African-American
•18% Hispanic
•3% Asian
•2% Native American
•1% unknown race or ethnicity
In 2008, poverty rates by age were:
•19% for people under 18 years
•11.7% among people 18-64 years
•9.7% for people ages 65 and older
In 2008, there were 39.8 million people living in poverty in the United States. This equates to a poverty rate of 13.2%
Then, Bush tanked the economy in 2008, and jobs were being lost at the rate of 750,000/month...before Obama ever took office...
Dang, don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of a good Rightie rant... So, yeah, I guess with a Recession that officially started in December, 2007, and jobs being lost at such an outrageous rate before the change of administration even happened, it's not unexpected that the rate continued to grow.
Too bad the GOP have been more interested in renaming post offices, passing anti-gay laws, and obstructing every attempt to create more jobs to get people off the rolls....
It might have been Pelosi who came to power in 2006 who tanked the economy, or it might even have been the normal business cycle or the housing bubble that both parties supported with artificially low interest rates.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.
Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.
But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
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.
LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, and by the way... The charge is a lie...
[snip]
I keep forgetting that there are "facts"...and there are TLGBT "facts"... They are not the same.
Oh, and by the way... you missed the topic of this thread and you are trying to deflect from the question I proposed.
"First off. Newt never used terms like "blacks, minorities, illegals" or any other label to designate who is receiving food stamps. He simply stated a documentable fact."
"If you see racism in that remark, then you spend too much time dividing our country into races, you spend too much time trying to read peoples minds and you spend too much time fabricating unsubstantiated stories... simply put... lies."
"Maybe white people need to be manufacturing a "make believe outrage" since according to the data, whites are the largest recipients of food stamp assistance. And maybe the rest of you that see race codes (isn't that a clever term, a list that anyone can add to as they see fit to manipulate the dialog) can tell us... what was racist about Newt's remark?"
Maybe you can get back on topic and tell me how Newts remarks are racists?
According to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, SNAP recipients rose by 14.7 million under the Bush administration while SNAP recipients rose by 14.2 recipients under the Obama administration. Further, the number of SNAP recipients has decreased in the past quarter. But don't let facts get in the way of a good outrage.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, and by the way... The charge is a lie...
[snip]
I keep forgetting that there are "facts"...and there are TLGBT "facts"... They are not the same.
Oh, and by the way... you missed the topic of this thread and you are trying to deflect from the question I proposed.
"First off. Newt never used terms like "blacks, minorities, illegals" or any other label to designate who is receiving food stamps. He simply stated a documentable fact."
"If you see racism in that remark, then you spend too much time dividing our country into races, you spend too much time trying to read peoples minds and you spend too much time fabricating unsubstantiated stories... simply put... lies."
"Maybe white people need to be manufacturing a "make believe outrage" since according to the data, whites are the largest recipients of food stamp assistance. And maybe the rest of you that see race codes (isn't that a clever term, a list that anyone can add to as they see fit to manipulate the dialog) can tell us... what was racist about Newt's remark?"
Maybe you can get back on topic and tell me how Newts remarks are racists?
Maybe you can change the title of the topic to reflect your deflection in regard to the "food stamp president" allegation.
But to help you along with your deflection, here is one example of Newt's views on the dependency of blacks on welfare:
"I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps,” said Newt Gingrich at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire.",
Inferring that they African-American community is presently demanding food stamps instead of paychecks. Where does he state that whites should demand paychecks instead of food stamps? Particularly when there are many more whites receiving food stamps than blacks.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Funny, I thought the Title of the thread was "Food stamp president a 'fact'"... We responded specifically to that, and proved it was a lie. If you want a different response to a different thread, perhaps you should start one. I don't read the content of your posts, and if the title is misleading, that's not my problem.
The specific statistics provided prove that Bush put more people on food stamps; and also proved that the largest group of people on food stamps were white...not black. But y'all have fun with all that deflection and lies. It seems to be the only thing you're really good at.
Something the Dog Said wrote: According to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, SNAP recipients rose by 14.7 million under the Bush administration while SNAP recipients rose by 14.2 recipients under the Obama administration. Further, the number of SNAP recipients has decreased in the past quarter. But don't let facts get in the way of a good outrage.
So Obama was able to put almost as many people on food stamps in 3 years as Bush did in 8 and you guys are proud about that?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
No one said anything about being "proud"... Given the crap economy and the recession that Bush handed to Obama, it's understandable. What we said is that the usual "talking point" about Obama having the "highest number of people on food stamps" is a lie...
When if ever will obama be blamed for his failed stimulus? High energy prices? Increased poverty level? He has done nothing to take credit for so he gets excused from the blame? Talk about a do nothing Congress, how about a do nothing president. Congress passed s budget and obama cant even get the Senate to vote on it. Day 1000 without a budget. What do the dems do in Dc? If you don't like the congressional budget, at least vote it down and negotiate a new one.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
