Sign in to follow this  

food stamp growth rate 58.7 times higher than employment rate.

Recommended Posts

I thought i would share this here. It's from my facebook page today.


TL;DR (too long; didn't read) version:

AS OF JAN 2013:

Food stamp growth is ~58.7 times higher than job growth, and there are ~13.3 to ~13.5 new people put on food stamps for every 1 new job created since Jan 2009.

If both food stamp growth, and job growth stay completely steady, food stamps will cost tax payers $37,716,835,780 more, and new jobs created will only bring in a total of $3,525,721,200 in 2016. Meaning and extra $34,191,114,580 will be paid for with credit from foreign countries.


Long Version:


So earlier I shared a friends photo which displayed a "fun fact" about Obama, stating that "For every one job created under Obama, 75 people went on food stamps." And was told by a friend, "Well that just seems grossly inaccurate, but ya know whatever." So, I HAVE DECIDED TO DO MY OWN RESEARCH and here's what i found:


In Jan 2009, there were

142,153,000 people employed in the US (Seasonally Adjusted) and

140,436,000 people employed in the US (Not Seasonally Adjusted)



In Jan 2013, there were

143,322,000 people employed in the US (Seasonally Adjusted) and

141,614,000 people employed in the US (Not Seasonally Adjusted)



If you subtract the amount of people employed within the US in 2009, from the people employed within the US in 2013, you get a total of;

1,169,000 when using Seasonally Adjusted Figures, or

1,151,000 when not using Seasonally Adjusted Figures, total new jobs that were added by the Obama administration.


In Jan 2009, there were

32,204,859 people on food stamps.



In Sep 2012, there were:

47,710,283 people on food stamps.



If you subtract the number of people on food stamps in Jan 2009 from the number of people on food stamps in Sep 2012 you get a total of:

15,505,424 new people on food stamps from Jan 2009 to Sep 2012.


If you divide the number of new people on food stamps by the number of new jobs created, you get

13.264 (rounded up) for seasonally adjusted figures or

13.471 (rounded down) for not seasonally adjusted figures.

Meaning that for every one job created, 13.264 (or 13.471) people were put on food stamps.


This would prove the claim that "For every one job created under Obama, 75 people went on food stamps." is FALSE.


HOWEVER if you were to ACTUALLY READ THE LINKED ARTICLE, you would find that it stated that "Food stamp growth 75x greater than job creation" (which, glancing at the data tables in the middle of 2012, and using seasonally adjusted data, is probably correct.)


So when you look at the rate of growth, you find that the number of people added on to food stamps since Jan 2009 has increased by 48.1% and that the number of people who have got a job has increased by 0.82%, meaning that the Food stamp growth is actually about 58.7 times higher than job growth, NOT 75.


So I apologize for using outdated data.

But 1:13 ratio for job creation to food stamp participation is still pretty damn bad.


Food stamp program cost tax payers:

$78,413,380,000 in 2012, up from $53,621,500,000 in 2009

If participation in food stamps continues to grow at the same rate, food stamp program will cost tax payers $116,130,215,780 in 2016. A difference of $37,716,835,780.

If job growth continues at it's current rate, the total number of employed persons in the US will be 144,497,240 in 2016. A difference of 1,175,240. if you take that number and assume that each and every one of them is going to make about $56,000/year and pay an effective tax rate (after tax rebates, deductions, etc) of $3000/year (a fellow crew member's earnings last year), that's a gain of only $3,525,721,200.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would'nt be suprized if Obama makes new by-laws, like if you store more than 1 months supply of food. You would be fined or sent to jail or both. If you had a big garden, a percentage would be taken from you by the government. Just to feed the rest of the sheeple population. Not trying to cause an sh!t here. Just a view of things that could/might happen.









In GOD I Trust, Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

you say tomato I say tOmAtO


The 58.7 versus 75% it is just a mater of time before your numbers jive because there are the under employed and the ones that have just flat quit trying to find a job not to mention if you have expended your unemployment

payments your no longer listed on the roles of the unemployed.


So things are way worse as in 15 % unemployed not the popular new number of 7.9% that number is a convoluted lie.


16.5 trillion in debt and 80 trillion in future unsecured debt is a looming vulture set to eat our liver

Yet we have nay sayers that say debt is not a problem well tell that to people who have lost everything job home vehicle etc.

No country has survived unrestrained debt.


for all you lefties and socialists CBS is well known for it's amicable views toward progressive politics so if they say things like

this about Zimbabwe then how can debt be a problem see how it has become a problem for them and I don't want to hear we are greater blah blah B.S. the higher you go the harder you fall and take a bunch with you.$217-left-in-the-bank/


once you start down hill first its a walk then a fast walk then a jog then running then leaping and then bada bing bada boom


I think we are in the running stage.


we have seen it all before as the price of commodities increases {foreign countries converting dollars into hard investments}

then the price of commodities falls as does the value of your money 1977 1983 1987 1999 2007 each floated by cheap interest

rates that supported the housing boom and the boom turned to bust where is the new tech or new innovation oil helped early on

then housing and the internet birth was a new and fantastic money train that crashed in 1999 what have we in the next chamber

of our gun? NOT ONE DAMN THING! green energy is a mess we have nat gas but we are a bit late on the trigger for that to work

as if we would have taken that path when obummer took over we could sell our gas and oil and a boom would be on again.


but alas another golden opportunity shot in the ass it's too late for biomass solar or jimmy neutron to save our ass it is over

but like an elephant with a heart the size of a basketball it take longer for it to die when shot through the heart.

I will give another analogy Crack the whip children used to play this game 6 or more children hold hands and do a horizontal

wave the child on the end as the wave gets stronger and more erratic get thrown about violently but he struggles to hold on

but the mas overcomes his strength and he literally is flung like a rag doll into thin air only to crash to the ground now the next in line is about to experience the same thing eventually everyone is tuckered out and fall down or is thrown to the ground

BUT everyone know they are going to fly or die but they hang on for dear life not unlike our present world financial situation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they talk about 7.9, that is the unemployment rate, which in my understanding is the number of people applying for unemployment benefits everything. the flat out unemployment population is somewhere in the area of 16% ish

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note:


Jan 2001- 137,778,000 employed

Jan 2004- 138,472,000 employed (+) 694,000

Jan 2008- 146,378,000 employed

Total of 8,600,000 jobs added from 2001-2008


Jan 2001- 17,233,964 people on food stamps

Jan 2004- 23,470,766 people on food stamps

Jan 2008- 27,689,880 people on food stamps

total of 10,455,916 people added to food stamp program from 2001-2008


for every 1 job added from jan 2001 to jan 2008, there were 1.2 people added to food stamps

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dam son looks like you did your research!:rolleyes:which is why I just ordered the Ruger American Rifle in 30.06-:)-no food stamps for us! lol, p.s., how come you wern't as thorough when doing your homework in high-screwel?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this