Unemployment Rate Facts

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 13:19
VIEWED: 54220
PAGE 9 of 94

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The data in my Tables regarding Unemployment Rates are compiled from the BLS Reports.

Here is a link to the Reports, you may dig for and confirm/verify any data you choose:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm

I can see now why you were reluctant to go the extra mile. I had no idea that you were compiling data from that site.

Why do I get the feeling that this stuff is intentionally obfuscated?

There is nothing at all intuitive about that website. I applaud your efforts to try to put the data together. We'll have to figure out a way to make it intelligible outside of this forum.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The data in my Tables regarding Unemployment Rates are compiled from the BLS Reports.

Here is a link to the Reports, you may dig for and confirm/verify any data you choose:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/home.htm
I can see now why you were reluctant to go the extra mile. I had no idea that you were compiling data from that site.

Why do I get the feeling that this stuff is intentionally obfuscated?

There is nothing at all intuitive about that website. I applaud your efforts to try to put the data together. We'll have to figure out a way to make it intelligible outside of this forum.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Well, now that I've compiled the data from disparate source locations, it should be relatively easy to transfer to your preferred format template. Select the "reply with quote" function, select and move the text to a word processing document to work with it, delete the font commands that I added in, then most format templates will allow a merge of columns and rows into the format.

You could even command Courier New font, reduce Font Size to your liking (or use Landscape Orientation), and convert to PDF.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 21, 2018 3:46 AM

Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

[img] https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf[/img]

And I'll try to list some of that data here.

Figures in millions.

Year Particip Expndtr %Pop

2005 25.628
2006 26.549
2007 26.316
2008 28.223
2009 33.490
2010 40.302
2011 44.709
2012 46.609
2013 47.636
2014 46.664
2015 45.767
2016 44.219
2017 42.205 $68.108

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 23, 2018 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, April 23, 2018 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.

I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.

Sure. I know you're personally armed and that breaking into your home wouldn't end in a very favorable result by anyone foolish enough to attempt to do it, but really, do you want that hassle of calling the cops and having a hazmat crew come in and clean up the mess?

Do you have any idea how much a hazmat team costs per call? I actually do. It usually ranges between $10,000 and $15,000 per minor incident.

You're not going to be the one paying for that cleanup when it happens, so who pays for it? That's right. The American tax payer. So now you've just cost the American Taxpayer about 12 times the cost of a single person's maximum yearly food stamp benefits to clean somebody off of your walls and floor who used to receive the benefits.

And then next month when somebody else tries it, you're going to spend another dozen people's full year of food stamp benefits on a single cleanup procedure.

Wash, rinse, repeat...

Well.... that is assuming you never miss your target.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.
I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.

In the reports I was reading on the Food Stamp program, it was pointed out that about 1% of the population needed food assistance. But over 14% have been receiving it.

Providing the assistance to those who need it is an essential portion of the Social Safety Net.
The remaining abuse is wasteful spending on parasites, to the detriment of the truly needy and deserving.
Spurring participants to avoid gainful employment in order to get Free Government Money is wasteful spending.
Government handouts to Illegal Aliens is wasteful spending.

Wasting $65 Billion extra on a $5 Billion program does not seem truly beneficial.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.
I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.
In the reports I was reading on the Food Stamp program, it was pointed out that about 1% of the population needed food assistance. But over 14% have been receiving it.

Providing the assistance to those who need it is an essential portion of the Social Safety Net.
The remaining abuse is wasteful spending on parasites, to the detriment of the truly needy and deserving.
Spurring participants to avoid gainful employment in order to get Free Government Money is wasteful spending.
Government handouts to Illegal Aliens is wasteful spending.

Wasting $65 Billion extra on a $5 Billion program does not seem truly beneficial.

You've never been on them, so I think you have a very limited perspective of it. I'd say the same thing for anybody who wrote that report.

I don't think you have any idea what it means to live on a wage making around 10 to 12 thousand per year.

Fortunately, I don't have a mortgage or rent, and even more fortunately I don't have children to feed. I can only imagine that it's near impossible to raise and feed children on that kind of money. Especially if you're a single parent.

Feel free to sit back and judge other people for the positions they find themselves in because of the choices they've made. But that's not going to give them education or training they need to put themselves in a better one. It's not going to put food on the table either.

I do have to say that I liked that I was cut off after I wasn't working anymore. I don't think anybody should be getting food stamps if they're not willing to work 20 hours a week. And now that I am working again I make too much money to get them anyhow. I'm looking at clearing $14 in 2018 before taxes.

Talk to me about who needs food assistance the next time you make less than that in a year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Here is a linky to the Food Stamp data, recipients and expenditures. Apparently Libtards have been feverishly denying any and all numbers in this report, since it reflects badly upon Obama.

https://fns-prod.azure
edge.net/sites/default/fil
es/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
Obama got a late start in 2009, but kicked off 2017 with plenty of waste. From the years of Obamanomics 2009-2017, adding up all the participants comes to 391,601,000 participant-years. Accounting for 34% of the entire lifetime of the freeloading program.

The grand total of Food Stamp participants before Obama was only 749,396,000 from 1969-2008 (40 years).

The 16 years prior to Obamanomics (1993-2008) totalled 380,853,000.

The first 34 years of Food Stamps (1969-1992) summed to 368,543,000.
I don't consider it a freeloading program.

When I think about all of the wasteful expenditures of my tax dollars, providing food for people isn't one that particularly annoys me. Are there people who benefit from it that shouldn't? I'm sure the answer to that is yes. But there are a lot of people who depend on it.

It's amazing how quickly a "good person" could turn "bad" when they're starving. Unless you live in a gated and armed community, I would view paying for food stamps as one of the most sensible tax expenditures that you have as somebody fortunate enough to still have gainful employment in 2018.

It's one of the reasons your home isn't being broken into every other day.
In the reports I was reading on the Food Stamp program, it was pointed out that about 1% of the population needed food assistance. But over 14% have been receiving it.

Providing the assistance to those who need it is an essential portion of the Social Safety Net.
The remaining abuse is wasteful spending on parasites, to the detriment of the truly needy and deserving.
Spurring participants to avoid gainful employment in order to get Free Government Money is wasteful spending.
Government handouts to Illegal Aliens is wasteful spending.

Wasting $65 Billion extra on a $5 Billion program does not seem truly beneficial.
You've never been on them, so I think you have a very limited perspective of it. I'd say the same thing for anybody who wrote that report.

I don't think you have any idea what it means to live on a wage making around 10 to 12 thousand per year.

Fortunately, I don't have a mortgage or rent, and even more fortunately I don't have children to feed. I can only imagine that it's near impossible to raise and feed children on that kind of money. Especially if you're a single parent.

Feel free to sit back and judge other people for the positions they find themselves in because of the choices they've made. But that's not going to give them education or training they need to put themselves in a better one. It's not going to put food on the table either.

I do have to say that I liked that I was cut off after I wasn't working anymore. I don't think anybody should be getting food stamps if they're not willing to work 20 hours a week. And now that I am working again I make too much money to get them anyhow. I'm looking at clearing $14 in 2018 before taxes.

Talk to me about who needs food assistance the next time you make less than that in a year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 6:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?

I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.

Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 24, 2018 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I said there was no need.
$10-12k per year. That would be about $5-6 per hour for 40 hours per week, with no overtime or tips. Or about $10-12 per hour for 20 hours per week.
Of those who are the breadwinners in a family, how many in America do you think have income of $10-12k per year?
I wouldn't know. There's a lot of adults working jobs that children used to work these days. Many of them pay national minimum wage or very close to it. Most of them aren't full time and provide zero benefits. I've worked enough shitty jobs to know this.

I think maybe you need to slum it for a while and walk a mile in another man's shoes before you speak about things.

Either that, or start bitching about where your tax dollars are going other than to provide food for people who need it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I said breadwinners. Such as Head of Families.
If a person has no income and chooses to pile on expenses like housing and cable, how is that your fault or mine?

Do you really feel more than 3 Million American Citizens fall into that boat?

You must have not read any of my posts here since 2007. For Tea Party Patriots like myself, few topics are bitched about more than wasteful Government Spending, Federal Debt, Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and I am certain I have posted about it here.

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE