(47692896-31939110)/31939110=49.3% increase, not a "4.7% increase". Simple math.
I've just been sent this. I think I agree with it.
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
(47692896-31939110)/31939110=49.3% increase, not a "4.7% increase". Simple math.
So it's OK to have a 49.3% increase in food stamp utilization when the economy is getting better. Cool beans.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
No its not OK, I would like the number to be zero!
When BushII left office the % of Americans getting Food Stamps was approximately 10.5% was that OK? Did you complain then?
In late 2012, towards the end of the greatest economic downturn in our lifetime the % of Americans receiving Food Stamps was approximately 15.2%
Thats approximately a 4.7% increase, I would prefer no increase but considereing the economy thats not too bad. As unemployment declines, so will the number of folks getting Food Stamps. It already has started to decline!
The funds that go into Food Stamps are not waisted, they are not invested, they are immediatly spent, it stimulates the economy, lowers hunger and crime. People need to eat, if they have no food, they will do what is neccesary to get it!
When BushII left office the % of Americans getting Food Stamps was approximately 10.5% was that OK? Did you complain then?
In late 2012, towards the end of the greatest economic downturn in our lifetime the % of Americans receiving Food Stamps was approximately 15.2%
Thats approximately a 4.7% increase, I would prefer no increase but considereing the economy thats not too bad. As unemployment declines, so will the number of folks getting Food Stamps. It already has started to decline!
The funds that go into Food Stamps are not waisted, they are not invested, they are immediatly spent, it stimulates the economy, lowers hunger and crime. People need to eat, if they have no food, they will do what is neccesary to get it!
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by the highly educated Doctor Steve!
Ok Steve you can add your name to Toms. Do you really need a Dyslexic to show you math!
Your "presentation" of the statistics makes the increased dependency on food stamps sound mild rather than what it really is. I realize you're doing that to serve your liberal agenda but get real.
You clearly come from the same school of thought that feels Paul Ryan's budget (which doesn't even balance the budget for 10 years!) is austere.
You clearly come from the same school of thought that feels Paul Ryan's budget (which doesn't even balance the budget for 10 years!) is austere.
A previous post you still haven't read or absorbed, the two number are not representing the same thing.
Yes both numbers are correct, but for different values. Yours is a percentage of people from the total population, mine is a percentage a of gain in people from a starting number. They are not the same.
One shows the change in percentage of the US population on food stamps, from 10.5% to 15.2% for an increase of 4.7%
The other shows the change in the number of people on food stamps from 31,939,110 to 47,692,896 a gain of 15,753,786, that represents a gain of 49.3%
One is a percentage gain, the other is a number gain as a percentage.
Holly shit. 'JC and the twist every word brigade' get everywhere and just like a cancer, completely take over, walk over and screw over every damn thread in this place these days.
No say for anyone who disagrees with the rhetoric, without being condemned as racists, homophobics and big bad industrialsts with nothing more than an evil scheme to crush the lazy (cough), I mean dis-advantaged.
Yohgurt knitting Sandal wearers.
No say for anyone who disagrees with the rhetoric, without being condemned as racists, homophobics and big bad industrialsts with nothing more than an evil scheme to crush the lazy (cough), I mean dis-advantaged.
Yohgurt knitting Sandal wearers.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to put up a graph to support that view otherwise it's completely subjective.
Mark, show me where you "have no say"
Honestly, do you really want a lungless old white guy to tell you how to discuss things properly on this board?
Mark?
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Oh dear. Mark - reading your posts you'll never get anywhere with these shits so take the advice I got from Ron Earp - use your ignore function. Now with this Australian twat as well, that's is four on my list. The fact they've posted something comes up but their stupid messages are blocked. QED.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Only Mark could see a debate with five to one odds and condem the "one" as a takeover.
Only Mark could see me called a Nazis, ignore it, and then say this about the "one"
"No say for anyone who disagrees with the rhetoric, without being condemned as racists, homophobics and big bad industrialsts with nothing more than an evil scheme to crush the lazy (cough), I mean dis-advantaged".
OK Mark, I was called a "Nazis" now show me where I called anyone a racist or homophobic?
OK Mark show me where I condemned industrialsts?
Only Mark could see me called a Nazis, ignore it, and then say this about the "one"
"No say for anyone who disagrees with the rhetoric, without being condemned as racists, homophobics and big bad industrialsts with nothing more than an evil scheme to crush the lazy (cough), I mean dis-advantaged".
OK Mark, I was called a "Nazis" now show me where I called anyone a racist or homophobic?
OK Mark show me where I condemned industrialsts?
Last edited:
Sure, there's a certain relief in putting someone on ignore, but how fascinating to watch a train wreck!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
What a buch of babies!
You guys start these politically oriented threads and then are outraged when someone has the nerve to disagree. So you brave men block the view you do not agree with.
If you want to make a statement, get a bumper stcker!
If you can't take views you do not agree with don't start the f**king discussions!
I have promised not to start one sided political threads and i will keep that promise, but I also reserve the right to comment on ones you start!
OK Mark, you jump into the thread and say that I call anyone who who disagrees with me racist or homophobic?
OK, show us where I called anyone racist or homophobic!
OK Mark show me where I condemned industrialsts?
I doubt mark will answer, he never does. I'm sure I never called anyone racist or homophobic and I never condemned industrialsts. Hell, I own two companies.
You guys start these politically oriented threads and then are outraged when someone has the nerve to disagree. So you brave men block the view you do not agree with.
If you want to make a statement, get a bumper stcker!
If you can't take views you do not agree with don't start the f**king discussions!
I have promised not to start one sided political threads and i will keep that promise, but I also reserve the right to comment on ones you start!
OK Mark, you jump into the thread and say that I call anyone who who disagrees with me racist or homophobic?
OK, show us where I called anyone racist or homophobic!
OK Mark show me where I condemned industrialsts?
I doubt mark will answer, he never does. I'm sure I never called anyone racist or homophobic and I never condemned industrialsts. Hell, I own two companies.
Last edited:
He does a pretty good job of ignoring his glaring errors. Pretty good with the snide comments too. Good to know he thinks of me as "the highly educated doctor". And yet somehow I feel a sharp stabbing sensation in my back.....
Jim,
I don't think anyone feels you don't have a right to express your opinions nor do I think anyone's outraged when you disagree. It's the way you express your opinion that, at times, is objectionable. While we're all guilty of it at times, you seem to be the most consistent:
1)Nearly every post has some insulting or condescending comment, often unprovoked, about another poster: "Posted by the highly educated Doctor Steve!"
2)You absolutely refuse to give an inch even when a poster clearly points out the fallacy of your argument: see Tom's posts on appropriate calculation on the rise in food stamp utilization.
3)You are so absolute in your ideology that you recognize no faults in the left/liberal view whatsoever. I've been on record here numerous times voicing displeasure over some of George Bush's policies (Medicare Part D which we can't afford) as have many other conservatives. Your rigid support of everything liberal and everything Obama is not only off-putting but it's absurd. The left (and the right) are certainly not right all the time.
Have you ever wondered why so few self-professed liberals on this forum chime in in support of your opinions? I believe some of it is in the way you present your argument and few want to be associated with it.
A more introspective and thoughtful approach would be better received.
