Food Stamps up 39% since Obama took OfficeFollow

Well, it's precious that I know far more than you do. Because knowledge is precious :)

But, to restate, Pelosi and Reid managed to whip their caucuses into destroying America and all that's Good and Holy but Hastert and Frist found it too daunting to convince Republicans to save God's Chosen Land from the coming economic apocalypse?

Yeah... I'm not sure why anyone is arguing against the notion that the GOP is weak and ineffective.

Seems to be the case. If the leadership is that weak, you can't say the rank and file are pillars of iron strength. after all, those are the guys who chose Frist & Hastert to lead them.

Say what you will, it's tough to keep a caucus together, for anyone, with Olympia Snow, John McCain and Susan Collins on your side.

Breaking news: Mitt Romney's running for president. What a surprise. I had no idea he was interested.

If he were in the Senate, there'd have been a 4th name on my list of easily remember-able RINOs.

Universal Health Care for everyone!!

I'm not rationalizing anything. They're squarely to blame for not addressing the issue. Not for causing it, but for not correcting it. It's nice to be able to identify the contributing factors so people can try and avoid the same mistakes, though.

The same way you explain how unemployment can go up from 8.8% to 9.0% during the same time period. Noodle that one out, and you'll be a step closer to understanding the bigger picture when it comes to jobs, employment, and the effects that has on the economy as a whole.

You seem to have mistaken my hyperbole for my actual opinion on the Democrats or the causes of our current economic issues.


Well, as long as you have their show of complete apathy rationalized :D

Edited, Jun 2nd 2011 3:17pm by Jophiel

That people start looking for work again and get counted among the unemployed again? You mean, the sort of action that occurs during... a recovery? The unemployed were always there, it's not like they only reappear in society when we have job growth. That's still not "falling" in any way, just like how counting fewer of the unemployed doesn't mean the economy is getting better again.



Edited, Jun 2nd 2011 4:39pm by bsphil

Except that the source you linked shows that the total number of "marginally attached" workers didn't change over the period of time in question. Those are the people who could work, but have not looked for work in the previous 4 weeks and thus don't count as unemployed. The number of "discouraged workers" within that group (those who don't believe there is a job for them) has shifted downward, but the total has remained the same (about 2.4 million). Additionally, the percentage of those in the labor force to the total population didn't change either.

So that's not it. Or at least, that's not all enough of it. I'll give you a hint though. The US population grows over time. Think about it. We have to maintain a number of new jobs being created each month just to keep the employment rate even. Look a bit deeper on the tables and you'll see that total labor force increased by about 150k in April, but the ratio of labor force to total population stayed the same. It's population growth causing this. April happened to be an unusual month in that regard too, so we can hope that this is just a blip.

The point is that while we might be able to say we're "heading towards recovery", it's still to early to say that we're actually "recovering" right now. Ultimately, the measurements of whether we're actually recovering will be in the things affected by those employment figures (that's why I used the term "employment effects" earlier). And that's going to be about looking at things like food stamp usage, right?

Like I said, Moe understood.