The Trump Presidency

[Syne]

Well, you know Einstien there is a reason why they call it "unemployment insurance" and not welfare. In the US it's an insurance program and not a welfare program. If you had ever been an employer, you would know that.

Welfare is generally considered to be either food or housing assistance; not unemployment insurance.

In the United States, unemployment benefits generally pay eligible workers up to $450 per week maximum.[33] Benefits are generally paid by state governments, funded in large part by state and federal payroll taxes levied against employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. This compensation is classified as a type of social welfare benefit. - wiki

Types of Welfare Available
The type and amount of aid available to individuals and dependent children varies from state to state. When the Federal Government gave control back to the states there was no longer one source and one set of requirements. Most states offer basic aid such as health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. - http://www.welfareinfo.org/​

Or is there a significant difference between taxing income to pay for welfare and taxing employer payroll to pay for unemployment? Both are aid administered by the government.

 

[timojin]

So people collecting unemployment aren't on welfare?

Unemployment benefits are social welfare payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. - wiki​

Have you been ever an employer ? then you would know that the employer contribute for every employe. On Chicago there is a head tax in addition that the employer have to pay.

 

[iceaura]

Or is there a significant difference between taxing income to pay for welfare and taxing employer payroll to pay for unemployment? Both are aid administered by the government.

When you used the term "welfare" to disparage a crowd at Obama's inaugural, you weren't referring to hardworking people laid off their jobs through Republican disaster, and getting unemployment benefits.

 

[Syne]

So whether or not unemployment is a social welfare payment is dependent on who we're talking about?

Nope. It's dependent on who's using the term "welfare".

When it's some wingnut attempting to disparage the huge crowd at Obama's inaugural, it isn't a reference to working class people laid off their hard jobs by Republican bankers.

So you feel free to arbitrarily decide the definitions of words based solely on the motives you imagine of the user. Got it.

Have you been ever an employer ? then you would know that the employer contribute for every employe. On Chicago there is a head tax in addition that the employer have to pay.

Yep, payroll taxes, just like income taxes fund things like food stamps, both government administered with their own criteria for eligibility.

When you used the term "welfare" to disparage a crowd at Obama's inaugural, you weren't referring to hardworking people laid off their jobs through Republican disaster, and getting unemployment benefits.

Didn't you just say that?

By definition, "hardworking people" are working.

 

[joepistole]

In the United States, unemployment benefits generally pay eligible workers up to $450 per week maximum.[33] Benefits are generally paid by state governments, funded in large part by state and federal payroll taxes levied against employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. This compensation is classified as a type of social welfare benefit. - wiki

Types of Welfare Available
The type and amount of aid available to individuals and dependent children varies from state to state. When the Federal Government gave control back to the states there was no longer one source and one set of requirements. Most states offer basic aid such as health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. - http://www.welfareinfo.org/​

Or is there a significant difference between taxing income to pay for welfare and taxing employer payroll to pay for unemployment? Both are aid administered by the government.

Why have you not provided a Wiki link to validate your reference? I'll do it for you:

Unemployment benefits (depending on the jurisdiction also called unemployment insurance or unemployment compensation) are social welfare payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. Benefits may be based on a compulsory para-governmental insurance system. Depending on the jurisdiction and the status of the person, those sums may be small, covering only basic needs, or may compensate the lost time proportionally to the previous earned salary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

In the US employers are required to pay unemployment insurance. Rates are based on industry claim records. If an industry or company has a track record of firing people, they will pay higher premiums for their unemployment insurance. That's how it works. It's a government run insurance program, but that doesn't make it welfare comrade.

"Unemployment Insurance
Subtopics

• Office of Unemployment Insurance
• Data & Statistics
• Performance Management

The Department of Labor's Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs provide unemployment benefits to eligible workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own, and meet certain other eligibility requirements.The following resources provide information about who is eligible for these benefits and how to file a claim."
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/unemployment-insurance

The "govement" also insures pensions. That doesn't mean pensions are social welfare payments either. Medicare, disability, and other insurance programs are administered by the state. That doesn't mean those programs are welfare either. Some of the richest people in the country are also receiving Social Security benefits. Your man the Donald, is probably receiving Social Security benefits. Facts matter, and I'll never get why right wingers have incredible difficulty understanding the concept of insurance.

In any case, if people are on welfare assistance or disability, they aren't out protesting. Because in order to get those benefits they are required to be looking for employment.

 

[Syne]

Why have you not provided a Wiki link to validate your reference? I'll do it for you:

I assumed you could use Google...and apparently you can. Good job.

In the US employers are required to pay unemployment insurance. Rates are based on industry claim records. If an industry or company has a track record of firing people, they will pay higher premiums for their unemployment insurance. That's how it works. It's a government run insurance program, but that doesn't make it welfare comrade.

In 1996, under the Bill Clinton administration, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gave more control of the welfare system to the states though there are basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Still, most states offer basic assistance, such as health care, food assistance, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[10] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.
...

Timeline
The following is a short timeline of welfare in the United States:[19]

1880s–1890s: Attempts were made to move poor people from work yards to poor houses if they were in search of relief funds.

1893–1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893–1894 recession.

1932: The Great Depression had gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The "Emergency Relief Act", which gave local governments $300 million, was passed into law.

1933: In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed Congress to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps.

1935: The Social Security Act was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.

1940: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) was established.

1964: Johnson's War on Poverty is underway, and the Economic Opportunity Act was passed. Commonly known as "the Great Society"

1996: Passed under Clinton, the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" becomes law.

2013: Affordable Care Act goes into effect with large increases in Medicaid and subsidized medical insurance premiums go into effect.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare_reform_.281990s.29​

And there's the link. Would want you to strain yourself.

All such government assistance programs are means-tested welfare.
welfare - statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

The "govement" also insures pensions. That doesn't mean pensions are social welfare payments either. Medicare, disability, and other insurance programs are administered by the state. That doesn't mean those programs are welfare either. Some of the richest people in the country are also receiving Social Security benefits. Your man the Donald, is probably receiving Social Security benefits. Facts matter, and I'll never get why right wingers have incredible difficulty understanding the concept of insurance.

In any case, if people are on welfare assistance or disability, they aren't out protesting. Because in order to get those benefits they are required to be looking for employment.

Pensions are benefits provided by employers, as incentive, whether public or private sector. SSI is payed into by the individual, who then draws on it in retirement.

"Your man the Donald" tells me you know nothing about my political views.

 

[joepistole]

I assumed you could use Google...and apparently you can. Good job.

In 1996, under the Bill Clinton administration, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gave more control of the welfare system to the states though there are basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Still, most states offer basic assistance, such as health care, food assistance, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[10] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.
...

Timeline
The following is a short timeline of welfare in the United States:[19]

1880s–1890s: Attempts were made to move poor people from work yards to poor houses if they were in search of relief funds.

1893–1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893–1894 recession.

1932: The Great Depression had gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The "Emergency Relief Act", which gave local governments $300 million, was passed into law.

1933: In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed Congress to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps.

1935: The Social Security Act was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.

1940: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) was established.

1964: Johnson's War on Poverty is underway, and the Economic Opportunity Act was passed. Commonly known as "the Great Society"

1996: Passed under Clinton, the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" becomes law.

2013: Affordable Care Act goes into effect with large increases in Medicaid and subsidized medical insurance premiums go into effect.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States#Welfare_reform_.281990s.29​

And there's the link. Would want you to strain yourself.

All such government assistance programs are means-tested welfare.
welfare - statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

Look Einstein, you are putting a lot of effort into obfuscating. First, you haven't provided the link I requested. Two, nothing you have posted changes the fact that unemployment isn't considered welfare. As previously explained to you, it is an insurance program. Premiums are based on loss rates and paid by employers. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. But right wingers like you really have trouble understanding this whole notion of insurance. It's truly remarkable. It really isn't that difficult.

The topic under discussion is your belief that all these unemployed people showed up at the women demonstration; remember? It's not about welfare. But as previously explained to you, if people are on welfare, they have to be either training for work or looking for work. If they are unemployed, they have to be looking for work, and they have to prove they have been looking for work.

Pensions are benefits provided by employers, as incentive, whether public or private sector. SSI is payed into by the individual, who then draws on it in retirement.

What does any of that have to do with pension insurance? Nothing. It has nothing to do with pension insurance.

For your edification:

SSI is Supplemental Security Income; it isn't Social Security and it's funded by the general fund. It isn't a retirement fund..oops.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and
https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

Social Security is a government insurance program. It's equally funded by Social Security taxes paid both by wage earners and employers. It's not a savings program.

 

[Capracus]

Speaking of welfare recipients in attendance of inaugurations.

Donald Trump, the welfare king

There is no shame in being on public assistance. The earned-income tax credit, which subsidizes low-income workers and has helped millions out of poverty, is the main reason for the 47 percent (though they still have state, payroll and other taxes). But the corporate welfare Trump receives is nothing to be proud of — not least because Trump has claimed to represent the American worker and has condemned corporate executives who “make a fortune” but “pay no tax.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2391ba52c91_story.html?utm_term=.2d9b29f213a7

 

[iceaura]

So you feel free to arbitrarily decide the definitions of words based solely on the motives you imagine of the user

I'm not defining any words. I'm pointing to your use of them. And it's your bigotries and blind spots, not your "motives", that so obviously influence that usage.

By definition, "hardworking people" are working

Not in 2009. Eight years of Republican administration had seen to that.

All such government assistance programs are means-tested welfare

Unemployment insurance is not means tested.

 

[Syne]

Look Einstein, you are putting a lot of effort into obfuscating. First, you haven't provided the link I requested.

Look Mortimer, you already found that link here.

The topic under discussion is your belief that all these unemployed people showed up at the women demonstration; remember? It's not about welfare. But as previously explained to you, if people are on welfare, they have to be either training for work or looking for work. If they are unemployed, they have to be looking for work, and they have to prove they have been looking for work.

Really Einstein? You should go double check that. I've been talking about the 2009 Obama inauguration. Apparently you don't remember.
Do you think "looking for work" is a full-time job? Proof is only a number of applications a week. And even those who do work, to meet the requirement, need only work 20-30 hrs/wk.

SSI is Supplemental Security Income; it isn't Social Security and it's funded by the general fund. It isn't a retirement fund..oops.
Social Security is a government insurance program. It's equally funded by Social Security taxes paid both by wage earners and employers. It's not a savings program.

Oops. But you seem to have understood that I meant Social Security, which is paid into by the individual (and yes, by employer too), who then draws on it in retirement. Who said anything about a "savings program"?

I'm not defining any words. I'm pointing to your use of them. And it's your bigotries and blind spots, not your "motives", that so obviously influence that usage.

Bigotries? Are you now associating "welfare recipient" with some minority ethnicity too?

 

[joepistole]

Look Mortimer, you already found that link here.

LOL....

Who do you think you are fooling?

Really Einstein? You should go double check that. I've been talking about the 2009 Obama inauguration. Apparently you don't remember.

Yeah....and......

Do you think "looking for work" is a full-time job? Proof is only a number of applications a week. And even those who do work, to meet the requirement, need only work 20-30 hrs/wk.

Yeah, if you are unemployed, looking for work is a full-time job. Proof varies by state, but that doesn't change the fact that unemployment insurance isn't welfare. And if you are working 20-30 hours per week, you by definition aren't unemployed.

Oops. But you seem to have understood that I meant Social Security, which is paid into by the individual (and yes, by employer too), who then draws on it in retirement. Who said anything about a "savings program"?

LOL....

So you are trying to weasel out of it now; that's not honest. You incorrectly conflated SSI with Social Security. You named SSI and then described it as Social Security. As I previously pointed out to you the two are not the same. And as I previously explained to you, individuals and employers fund the program with their taxes. But the Social Security program isn't a savings program. Taxpayers don't "draw down" on their accounts. You don't seem to understand Social Security isn't a savings program.

 

[iceaura]

Bigotries? Are you now associating "welfare recipient" with some minority ethnicity too?

I'm pointing to you associating "welfare recipient" with Obama's crowds, for whatever little reason you had, while forgetting who the mass of people with unusual amounts of time on their hands were, in 2009. Namely, people who voted for W, and used to have jobs.

 

[Syne]

LOL....

Who do you think you are fooling?

Apparently you're fooling yourself. Go check your own link for christ's sake. It ain't rocket science.

Really Einstein? You should go double check that. I've been talking about the 2009 Obama inauguration. Apparently you don't remember.

Yeah....and......

Oh, right. I really shouldn't expect you to keep up.

Yeah, if you are unemployed, looking for work is a full-time job. Proof varies by state, but that doesn't change the fact that unemployment insurance isn't welfare. And if you are working 20-30 hours per week, you by definition aren't unemployed.

Really? 40 hrs/wk put in filling out applications? Which state has that as a requirement?
Who said "welfare recipients" are all unemployed?

Oops. But you seem to have understood that I meant Social Security, which is paid into by the individual (and yes, by employer too), who then draws on it in retirement. Who said anything about a "savings program"?

So you are trying to weasel out of it now; that's not honest. You incorrectly conflated SSI with Social Security. You named SSI and then described it as Social Security. As I previously pointed out to you the two are not the same. And as I previously explained to you, individuals and employers fund the program with their taxes. But the Social Security program isn't a savings program. Taxpayers don't "draw down" on their accounts. You don't seem to understand Social Security isn't a savings program.

And? I just admitted to using the wrong name, agreeing with you that employers also contribute, and you're the only one referring to it as a "savings program."
And did I say "draw down"? Nope? Just a straw men?

Bigotries? Are you now associating "welfare recipient" with some minority ethnicity too?

I'm pointing to you associating "welfare recipient" with Obama's crowds, for whatever little reason you had, while forgetting who the mass of people with unusual amounts of time on their hands were, in 2009. Namely, people who voted for W, and used to have jobs.

Really? Are you saying "people who voted for W" were most affected...implying that those who didn't were already unemployed or on welfare?!

 

[iceaura]

Really? Are you saying "people who voted for W" were most affected...implying that those who didn't were already unemployed or on welfare?!

You forgot all about W's genuine unemployment disaster, but not the bogus "welfare" attribution to Obama's supporters - how is it that the rightwing amnesia always erases the reality, instead of the whack?

It's going to be really odd watching the Trump disaster evaporate from consciousness - unless, unless,

got it: Trump is going to be a retroactive liberal, and the final proof that government cannot ever work (because we'll have tried everything, see).

 

[Schmelzer]

The conflict between the truth and intentional lies is not the main issue at CNN and ABC ...
Trump, for example, lies continually. But he also says true things, mixed in there, quite often - as is common with bullshit. And CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc, have as much trouble with that as they do with the lying - in their show format of "both sides", that's a "side".

The problem with "both sides" in the modern media is not that they present both sides - with, obviously, one side being wrong - and leaving the decision who is right to the people. The problem is that above sides lie, and lie consistently, in the same direction, so that the lie is the consensus, and not what is argued about.

So, like in Hitler time you can imagine a "both sides" discussion between those who propose to gas Jews and those who propose to expel them to Madagaskar, you can have, today, argumentations how one should support Ukraine in their fighting against Russian aggression, or how to get rid of Assad. (Or how the state should fight racism or homophobia, forgetting that a liberal state should not care, not influence with taxpayer's money, what people think).

Maybe we are not that different here, because this is also an issue with "bothsides bullshit":

So it's not a matter of CNN, say, presenting honest attempts at reporting the "neutral" truth (it's not the truth that's neutral, in an honest news report). It's a matter of them learning how to do that - starting with distinguishing "neutrality" from "bothsides bullshit".

BTW, neutrality is not at all a necessity for a good "both sides" format. Fairness is.

 

[iceaura]

As of yesterday, of somewhere north of 650 administrative jobs requiring Senate confirmation, Trump had sent the following names to the Senate to be confirmed - none two (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/) have been confirmed as of this typing:

***That’s all fifteen members of the cabinet, three ambassadors — to China, Israel and the United Kingdom — the US Representative to the United Nations, a deputy secretary (Commerce), the Secretary of the Army, - - - the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Deputy Attorney General, the Adminstrators of the EPA and the SBA, the trade rep, the director of OMB, the CIA and Office of National Intelligence Directors, and the SEC chairman

That's about 30 people.
Note that Trump demanded resignations of all ambassadors and secretary level personnel as of Friday noon - so the US currently has no ambassadors to any country, and exactly three candidates named.

If Rick Perry is confirmed, he will initially and for however long it takes have no deputy level staff helping him oversee the nation's nuclear materials storage, handling, and disposal - a task he knows nothing about and was unaware was part of his job until a few days ago. For example.

There are also a few thousand other direct appointments - not requiring Senate confirmation - unfilled.

Among the missing: all the press contacts at all the Federal agencies large enough to have them. As far as I can discover there are no official or responsible media contacts at the SBA, the OMB, Veteran's Affairs, Medicare, anything to do with the National Parks, or FEMA. The normal flood season starts in about 50 days, although major floods have occurred in February along the Arkansas and Ohio rivers.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem with "both sides" in the modern media is not that they present both sides - with, obviously, one side being wrong - and leaving the decision who is right to the people. The problem is that above sides lie, and lie consistently, in the same direction, so that the lie is the consensus, and not what is argued about.

So, like in Hitler time you can imagine a "both sides" discussion between those who propose to gas Jews and those who propose to expel them to Madagaskar, you can have, today, argumentations how one should support Ukraine in their fighting against Russian aggression, or how to get rid of Assad. (Or how the state should fight racism or homophobia, forgetting that a liberal state should not care, not influence with taxpayer's money, what people think).

Maybe we are not that different here, because this is also an issue with "bothsides bullshit":

BTW, neutrality is not at all a necessity for a good "both sides" format. Fairness is.

Both sides of the media present truth, however both sides also use data tricks, to manipulate how their audiences interpret the truth. As an example, if I only pointed out bad things about you, an audience can be made to go against you. If it was properly proportioned truth that paints an accurate picture then the audience will see someone else. In this case, all the data can be true, but one sided truth does not paint a complete or balanced picture of you.

If I showed you nothing but plane crashes ,while ignoring millions of flight hours that are safe, people can get the impression flying is less safe, than the full data set suggests. I can compound the impact of this data stacking, if I have a fleet of experts, reinforcing the doom and gloom, but not the whole truth.

As another example, CNN will willingly report the Russian hacking of the DNC. This is true. However, you will not hear them say much about how Hillary and the DNC, never denied the authenticity and content of those hacked e-mails. The things in the emails, were truth that was never supposed to be released and are being ignored once again. That hidden truth changed the picture of Hillary and the DNC and had an impact on the election. Now CNN is trying to change that more balance picture, back to the victim card, with no mention of the scam artists behind the curtain. Like in a magic trick, the audience is induced to look over there, so the magician an his assistant, can do trick.

What Trump should do is make a distinction between freedom of the press and freedom of speech. All reporters and all news agencies have freedom of speech. However, if they exceed certain limits of balanced truth, they get their press credentials suspended for anywhere from days to years. They can still play the data game, as citizens, but will lose their license to deceive in an official press capacity.

One way to quantify this is to rate new agencies and news reporters based on what they have said, in the past,based on how history played out. For example, all reporters who said Trump will never get elected, get a D for that. Then we average the grades and post these for everyone to see. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to grade the media based on past performance in news reporting. If they like to pass gossip of truth this will lower their grade. The grading system will cause the free market to drift audience in the direction of higher news value. This will hit owners in the pockets, and they will makes changes based on being accurate and balanced.

We have the EPA to protect us from pollution of the earth, why not an agency to protect citizens from news pollution? Wouldn't it be better if you could tune into any news station and expect fair and balanced news, instead of propaganda wings of political parties?

On the other hand, people react better to entertainment than to education. Many people like lopsided news since it will induce emotions, which is part to the entertainment package they seem to crave. Many want their biases reinforced.

 

[Schmelzer]

We have the EPA to protect us from pollution of the earth, why not an agency to protect citizens from news pollution?

Because this predictably and essentially unavoidable would end in censorship. And even if agencies will only be "rated", that "rating" would end in propaganda.

 

[joepistole]

Apparently you're fooling yourself. Go check your own link for christ's sake. It ain't rocket science.

No, it isn't rocket science. You have been repeatedly asked for a link to your Wiki reference, and you have repeatedly been unable to do so.

Oh, right. I really shouldn't expect you to keep up.

And you really think that makes sense? You are quoting your self.

Really? 40 hrs/wk put in filling out applications? Which state has that as a requirement?
Who said "welfare recipients" are all unemployed?

Did I say 40 hour week filling out applications? There is a lot more to finding a job than filling out applications. Once more for your edification, if you are unemployed, finding employment is a full time job. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Unemployment isn't a paid vacation comrade.

So you don't remember writing, "
So people collecting unemployment aren't on welfare?
Unemployment benefits are social welfare payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. - wiki"

And? I just admitted to using the wrong name, agreeing with you that employers also contribute, and you're the only one referring to it as a "savings program."
And did I say "draw down"? Nope? Just a straw men?

Only now did you admit to using the wrong name. You equated SSI with Social Security. Where did I say or even hint that Social Security was as "savings" program? I didn't. I've been telling you now for several posts that Social Security wasn't a savings program because you have repeatedly asserted it was.

Two, parsing your words isn't honest, is it? You wrote, "draws on it": essentially the same thing as "draw down". That's not a straw man.

 

[Syne]

I'm pointing to you associating "welfare recipient" with Obama's crowds, for whatever little reason you had, while forgetting who the mass of people with unusual amounts of time on their hands were, in 2009. Namely, people who voted for W, and used to have jobs.

Really? Are you saying "people who voted for W" were most affected...implying that those who didn't were already unemployed or on welfare?!

You forgot all about W's genuine unemployment disaster, but not the bogus "welfare" attribution to Obama's supporters - how is it that the rightwing amnesia always erases the reality, instead of the whack?

It's going to be really odd watching the Trump disaster evaporate from consciousness - unless, unless,

got it: Trump is going to be a retroactive liberal, and the final proof that government cannot ever work (because we'll have tried everything, see).

You didn't answer the question. Are you afraid that your subconscious bigotry is showing...implying the those who didn't vote for W were already unemployed or on welfare?
I didn't forget about the recession at all. Are you saying those who voted for W made up the bulk of Obama's inaugural turn out? That would be an odd claim to make.

In 2008, Fewer Than 30 Million Used Food Stamps.
Unemployment in December 2008

In December, the number of unemployed persons increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2 percent.​

Obama's 2009 inaugural turn out was estimated to be 1.8 million people.
So are you saying that it's more likely that 1.8 million came primarily from the 11.1 million rather than the 30 million?