Average Quarterly Worker Income Up Lowest Since Records Began (1980)
Comments
-
Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
-
Gotta love Honda reporting 45 million on food stamps as if it's an improvement.
-
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
So let me get this straight. Under obama, foodstamp participation grew from 28 million to 47 million, then shrunk to 46 million. And that's a good thing?
-
Except I wasn't.CuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
He got kicked off by KimCuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
Read for comprehension.HuskyInAZ said:So let me get this straight. Under obama, foodstamp participation grew from 28 million to 47 million, then shrunk to 46 million. And that's a good thing?
-
Fuck off. 8th grade education, remember?RaceBannon said:
He got kicked off by KimCuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact. -
Someone pinched a nerve.2001400ex said:
Fuck off. 8th grade education, remember?RaceBannon said:
He got kicked off by KimCuntWaffle said:
It makes so much sense now why you were such a stout Sark defender on dawgbored.2001400ex said:
Nice work, you bitch about me cherry picking data, which I didn't do. Then you do what? Cherry pick data. Why don't you show a graph out a trend of SNAP? You'll see it increasing from 2007 through last year then decreasing. So your point of increasing handouts is false.HuskyInAZ said:Hijack threads and cherry pick data. That's what I like to do.
The OP showed how wages continue to fall in the obama economy. HRYK
Since you couldn't rationally argue with falling wages, you bring up unemployment. As was pointed out, if unemployment were actually falling, wages would go up. Pretty simple supply and demand.
Since you couldn't rationally argue that fact, you bring up foodstamps. And you do your best to cherry pick numbers, claiming that foodstamp participation has fallen. Month to month changes are meaningless.
In 2008, 28.2 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $37.6 billion.
In 2014, 46.5 million people were on food stamps, at a cost of $74.2 billion.
fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
For the OPs point, I addressed his point directly if you read my posts. Look at the information used to accumulate the data. Then I pointed out positive news from the exact same article which you dismiss.
You see the point yet? You are trying to argue the economy is dumpster fire when it's not. It's not the economy of the 90s, but it's much better than it was 7 years ago. And that's a fact.
