View Full Version : The regime's war on prosperity continues!

11-17-2010, 05:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(CNN) -- The number of Americans fighting off hunger stayed level last year, though food insecurity rates remain the highest they have been since the federal government began keeping track 15 years ago, a Department of Agriculture report released Monday found. <span style="color: #3366FF">Note to victims of public education ... this means higher than when Bush was POTUS.</span>

About 14.7 percent of U.S. households were "food insecure" in 2009, meaning they had difficulty feeding one or more of their members at some point last year due to a lack of financial resources, according to the report.

That equates to 17.4 million households total, or roughly 45 million people.

This year's rate marked a slight increase in percentage from 2008, when 14.6 percent of American households had trouble putting food on the table. <span style="color: #3366FF">Note to victims of public education ... that means the regime's policies aren't making things better, but worse.</span>

The situation was especially dire for more than one-third of those households -- 6.8 million total, equating to 5.7 percent of all U.S. households -- that the report's four authors classified as having "very low food security."

This number, too, changed little in 2009 compared to the previous year.

How to Help
A sampling of charities and organizations where you can contribute your time or money to help fight hunger:

-- Feeding America is a network of local and regional food banks across the United States.
-- The federal government offers volunteer opportunities through volunteer.gov, volunteeringinAmerica, serve.gov and nationalservice.gov.
-- You also can find volunteer opportunities through charityguide.org, idealist.org and volunteermatch.org.
-- A limited list of hunger- and poverty-related charities is at charity.com.
-- Organizations working on global hunger issues include Action Against Hunger, Food for the Hungry and Global Foodbanking Network. <span style="color: #3366FF">Note to victims of public education ... the regime is de facto admitting that the regime cannot fix the problem and is calling upon private charity. Imagine what private groups could achieve if some of the tax money wasted by the regime on ineffective programs were applied?</span>

A lack of resources prompted one or more members of these households to eat much less or otherwise adjust their eating patterns.

The typical household in this category struggled with food issues for at least a few days a month over seven months of the year, the report said.

Households headed by single parents were more likely to struggle with food insecurity than those with two parents at home.

Hunger-related issues were more prevalent among African-American and Hispanic households than white ones, the study found. <span style="color: #3366FF">Note to victims of public education ... the regime has made minority poverty worse and not better.</span>

Access to food was also more common in large cities than in rural areas, exurbs or suburbs. <span style="color: #3366FF">Note to victims of public education ... the regime is confirming that in areas with less state control the problem is less prevalent, while in areas with more state control the problem is worse.</span>

Most of those classified as "food insecure" reported getting benefits from the federal government's three main anti-hunger initiatives: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the National School Lunch Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC.

In a press release, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 18.7 percent more people had participated in the former program in 2009 over 2008. Rates also rose for the "free lunch" program (up 5.4 percent) and WIC (up 5.8 percent).

"This report highlights just how critical federal nutrition assistance programs are for American families," USDA Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Kevin Concannon said in a statement.
The annual report from the Economic Research Service extrapolated from surveys of 46,000 households conducted on the Department of Agriculture's behalf by the U.S. Census Bureau. People responded to questions such as their ability to afford balanced meals, whether they adjusted the size of meals due to lack of money, or if they ever went hungry due to a lack of financial resources.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/15/poverty.hunger/)


11-17-2010, 07:00 AM
Yes, yes, we get it. The world started in 2009 when Obama took over. Nothing that happened before the Obama inauguration is relevant.

Only a demented die-hard Obama hater can think the way you do.

"God said, here you go Barak, take over the country and do what you promised......there was just a few problems..........!

Budget defict.
A 12 Trillion Nat Debt - DOUBLED by GW BUSH!
2 wars to pay for.
Millions of Americans losing there house.
Rising unemployment.
A credit crisis.
A banking crisis.
etc, etc , etc , etc , etc , etc

Dream on Dorothy.


11-17-2010, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, yes, we get it. The world started in 2009 when Obama took over. Nothing that happened before the Obama inauguration is relevant.

Q </div></div>

Nope ... what I'm well aware of is that the US existed long before the Obama regime, and that it was a much better place to be.


11-17-2010, 06:49 PM
Ve vill wipe out prosperity so zat ve vill all be poor.
No, VAIT! Not all.
Just the Right Vingers!
Yah, dat's de ticket.

Ve vill take all ze rich Republican's munney and give eet
to poor Democrats and Lateenos and Mooslums so zat zis cuntry vill go down ze shitter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

11-17-2010, 06:50 PM
Before 2000? Right?

07-08-2011, 07:34 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON (Reuters) - <span style='font-size: 11pt'>U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months[/b</span>], dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>[b]the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves</span> ...

U.S. stock index futures fell sharply on the data, while U.S. bond prices rose. The dollar rose against the euro.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.</span>

The report shattered expectations the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year. It could prompt calls for the Federal Reserve to consider further action to help the economy, but Fed officials have set a high bar.

The U.S. central bank wrapped up a $600 billion bond-buying program last week designed to spur lending and stimulate growth. ...

"Today's report is more evidence that the misguided 'stimulus' spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month just to absorb new labor force entrants.</span>

The private sector added 57,000 last month, accounting for all the jobs created, with government employment <span style='font-size: 11pt'>shrinking 39,000</span> because of fiscal problems at local and state governments. ...

Construction employment fell 9,000 last month after declining 4,000 in May. Government employment declined for an eighth straight month as municipalities and state governments continued to wield the ax to balance their budgets.

The report also showed the average workweek fell to 34.3 hours from 34.4 hours. Employers have been reluctant to extend hours because of the uncertainty surrounding the recovery.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Average hourly earnings slipped a penny</span>, more evidence that wage-driven inflation is not a risk. </div></div>

Dear leader has blessed us with further gains in the war on prosperity ... while only costing the wage slave flyover bubbas a measly $0.01 per hour. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobs-barely-rise-dashing-rb-264540871.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=)


07-08-2011, 10:24 AM
This is disgustingly dishonest rhetoric from you.

As we've heard from you already, the government should have done nothing about these things, and the cure you recommend would have been a far worse situation, with far worse wages, hunger, and all the rest.

If only he'd let unemployment rise to 10.8% or so (as you thought was such a brilliant move when Reagan's first term saw this rise) and basically liquidate the nation, surely we'd then have resurrected, Phoenix-like. But of course it would have been drastically worse for some time.

Realistically, the president doesn't set the unemployment rate, nor have the ability to feed the nation, or make hunger a larger or lesser amount. So you attack this man for doing or not doing things you know he cannot do in any case.

07-08-2011, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Realistically, the president doesn't set the unemployment rate, nor have the ability to feed the nation, or make hunger a larger or lesser amount. So you attack this man for doing or not doing things you know he cannot do in any case. </div></div>If only we could believe in all that "Change" garbage he was feeding us a few years ago. What happened to that 8-8.5% unemployment he was so confident about? This is the same group of people who have estimated the costs of the horrendous HC bill they passed. How far off the mark will that be?


07-08-2011, 12:56 PM
What happened was that the 4Q'08 GDP figure came in 50% worse than anyone expected, at -6%+. The blue chip business forecasters, like the Obama team, figured it would be about -4% or less.

The 4th quarter numbers aren't available immediately at the end of the quarter, and take instead say something like 60 days to show up. Obviously, as O had started his exploratory committee and candidacy in roughly April '07, the branding of hope and change were in the context of the status quo ante, before the wheels came off the economy in October '08, as were his political and economic agenda.

I've seen one fanciful revised history of what would have been the outcome by now had McCain/Palin taken office. 14% unemployment nationally, 4 wars, a 23% approval rating for McCain, who was struggling to overcome the resignation of VP Palin, who said she could make more of a difference as a private citizen. Can't guarantee that would have happened, but I can't guarantee it wouldn't have, either.

We are in uncharted circumstances, and anyone who thinks there are any obvious reasons we could be doing a lot better at this point should provide some meat to that bare bone. It's not a normal recession, but a financial collapse, and what O and team fashioned in response was a wholly mainstream consensus of business and academic economists. Which might have been wrong, of course, but what else should the rookie have tried? Way out of the mainstream fringe concepts of... what, exactly?

07-08-2011, 05:29 PM
Actually ... the economy was still in growth until dear leader was elected, the 4Q 2008 number was about (2,5%) ... and the (6%+) was after dear leader's immaculation.

Face it, the democrooks "INHERITED" decent growth with low UE and a deficit of about 10% what it is now,