Mitt Romney said He is Not Concerned about the Poors!

TXgolfer said:
The quote in your link says "give it back to the states"



Because the stimulus has not created the jobs Obama promised it would create. The number of people on food stamps has risen from 28 million to 47 million (roughly) in 4 years
Click to expand...

And most of the people living on foodstamps live in the red states. Hm.
 
About Obama and jobs - since someone brought that up,

"The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost.

...The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression."

If you wish to read the source, it's here
 
Cool link, I will share that article on my Facebook and see what everyone thinks of it. I personally haven't decided which of the republican candidates to vote for (some states allow you to vote in the Republican or Democrat primaries, regardless of which party you claim.) and need to do some more research.
 
DeafCaroline said:
About Obama and jobs - since someone brought that up,

"The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost.

...The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression."

If you wish to read the source, it's here
Click to expand...

Did unemployment exceed 8% after the stimulus?
 
No more excuses. Each and every voter must understand America can not wait four more years for relief from the situation we are in. We all can look and listen at the plans of those running for president and then decide if someone had a plan that will solve our situation. However, this is based on faith because you can not be sure.
Nevertheless, you can know that our president today plans are failures, it is there in black and white for all to see. The wise vote is not to continue a fail plan.
 
TXgolfer said:
You mean red states like the Gulf Coast states? :hmm: I wonder why they might be hurting.
Click to expand...

Just strikes me as funny that Republicans, notorious for being so anti-welfare and social assistance would make up the greater share of those on assistance.

Please do elaborate on how Obama is responsible for the Gulf coast states.
 
DeafCaroline said:
The answer is right there in the quote I posted.
Click to expand...

The blog you quoted is pretty inaccurate. First of all it was never about bringing unemployment down to 8%.....Unemployment was below 8% at the time. The 8% number was put out by Rommer on Jan 9, only 11 days before Obama took office while unemployment was still in the 7's. But if you want to stick with the "miscalculation" argument that's cool. Basically, by that argument, Obama rushed something through congress without having good numbers and the project failed to live up to expectations. And given that we should blame numbers instead of Obama. I disagree with that line of thinking.

As for the bold.....Can you name the project I am referring to? Unemployment, CLASS Act, Fast & Furious, GM Bailout, Stimulus, Solyndra, Spectrawatt, Solar Millennium, Ener1. They all fit. That is an Obama admin pattern.

Looks like that Obamamath is pretty bad.

As for the 2.4 million jobs gained...

A) Thank you "jobs saved" statistical invention

B) Is still less than the 3.6 million workers who became working age during the same time period.

C) Would equal $362,500 per job created given the $870b stimulus
 
I think you're way off and not able to step back and look at the big picture nor do calculations well nor able to see that Obama didn't cause the unemployment levels to go up. That's my opinion. Will just have to agree to disagree with you. No biggie.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Just strikes me as funny that Republicans, notorious for being so anti-welfare and social assistance would make up the greater share of those on assistance.

Please do elaborate on how Obama is responsible for the Gulf coast states.
Click to expand...

Umm.....First flaw, just because recipients are in a red state doesn't mean that THEY are republicans....Just that their state leans that way.

Second flaw (from prior post) Blue states have a much higher number of people on food stamps. Red states have a higher %., but Red States are much smaller in most cases.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I think you're way off and not able to step back and look at the big picture nor do calculations well nor able to see that Obama didn't cause the unemployment levels to go up. That's my opinion. Will just have to agree to disagree with you. No biggie.
Click to expand...

:cool2:
 
TXgolfer said:
In fact if you go by this chart State-by-State Welfare Assistance - Graphic - NYTimes.com and this definition of Red vs Blue Red states and blue states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (scroll down for list) The food stamp recipients for the top 10 red states vs Top 10 Blue states is..... (note 100's were not counted nor rounded)

Red States 4,316,000

Blue States 7,709,000
Click to expand...

That graph is from 2009. And their stats were only up to end of 2008. Obama was sworn into office when?

These are more recent stats: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=25&cat=1&sub=7&yr=197&typ=4

Secondly, there's a reason they went by percentages, not actual numbers of individuals per state. It sounds like a lot more when you compare numbers between red and blue but it doesn't show the expenditure per individual by state.

For example, Alabama, the number one top Red state received $1,492, 961,298. Current population of Alabama is 4,708,708.
That would be $226 per individual.

Top blue state which is Massachusetts, received $1,291,609,490.
Population is 6,587,536. That would be 196 per individual.

Massachusetts' population is 1.3% bigger than Alabama yet they are receiving 86% less in food stamps benefits.

California is a blue state, they do receive more benefits than Alabama.

California received 6,484,037,875$ in benefits, which is nearly 4.5 times the amount Alabama received. California's population is 8 times that of Alabama.

Total benefits per individual in California is $175. That's 77% less than Alabama per individual.

That's why percentages bear a more accurate picture than counting numbers of individuals.
 
Last edited:
DeafCaroline said:
That graph is from 2009. And their stats were only up to end of 2008. Obama was sworn into office when?

These are more recent stats: Total Food Stamp Program Benefits - Kaiser State Health Facts

Secondly, there's a reason they went by percentages, not actual numbers of individuals per state. It sounds like a lot more when you compare numbers between red and blue but it doesn't show the expenditure per individual by state.

For example, Alabama, the number one top Red state received $1,492, 961,298. Current population of Alabama is 4,708,708.
That would be $226 per individual.

Top blue state which is Massachusetts, received $1,291,609,490.
Population is 6,587,536. That would be 196 per individual.

Massachusetts' population is 1.3% bigger than Alabama yet they are receiving 86% less in food stamps benefits.

California is a blue state, they do receive more benefits than Alabama.

California received 6,484,037,875$ in benefits, which is nearly 4.5 times the amount Alabama received. California's population is 8 times that of Alabama.

Total benefits per individual in California is $175. That's 77% less than Alabama per individual.

That's why percentages bear a more accurate picture than counting numbers of individuals.
Click to expand...

This does nothing to make the statement "Just strikes me as funny that Republicans, notorious for being so anti-welfare and social assistance would make up the greater share of those on assistance" true.

BTW.... since when is $175 77% than $226

Edit. You might also notice on your link. People receiving benefits in CA increased 12.4 % from 2010 to 2011. 4.5% more than the National average of 7.9% where as Alabama increased by 6.8% over the same period....or 1.1% less than the National avg.
 
TXgolfer said:
This does nothing to make the statement "Just strikes me as funny that Republicans, notorious for being so anti-welfare and social assistance would make up the greater share of those on assistance" true.

BTW.... since when is $175 77% than $226
Click to expand...

Greater share = greater percentage. And yep! It's true.

Ah, my typo, thanks for pointing it out, but I have a feeling you knew I meant that 175 is 77% of 226. the fact you had to be anal, inane and pedantic about this well, that strikes me as funny too.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Greater share = greater percentage. And yep! It's true.
Click to expand...

:lol: there is no way of knowing the political beliefs of those receiving benefits

Ah, my typo, thanks for pointing it out, but I have a feeling you knew I meant that 175 is 77% of 226. the fact you had to be anal, inane and pedantic about this well, that strikes me as funny too.
Click to expand...

Actually I wasn't sure if it was that or the fact that you messed up the math on Alabama.....

$1,492, 961,298. Current population of Alabama is 4,708,708.
That would be $226 per individual.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top