youtube.com— Armed with facts, the Congressman has a little fun setting the record straight and despite the name calling, be concludes that "hunger knows no race or religion or age or political party. Hunger is colorblind."
Feb 9, 2012View in Crawl 4
While I love the fire and passion of the Congressman, we need to hold each other to higher standards of statistical literacy. These "facts" are presented without proper context and consideration. For instance, are these aggregate data (e.g. summative expenditures over the presidents time in office) or are they averages (e.g. expenses per year in office)? Without knowing the context of the data we cannot make an informed argument. Furthermore, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We cannot boil this argument down to: "If spending increased during a president's term, that means they MUST believe in increased spending." What about other economic factors? What was the state of the economy? What impact did Congress have? When we oversimplify a model, we often miss crucial components of that model.
Let me be clear: I support SNAP and federal programs for the poor and needy. However if we allow poorly presented data to sway our views even when we want to agree with someone, we are doing both ourselves and our country a disservice.
All valid. But I would argue, and I think Representative Gutierrez would argue, that it isn't the pure number he was presenting that were the point. It was the fact that it is disingenuous for Gingrich to single out Obama as "food-stamp president" or to blame him for its increases, when adding to SNAP has been seen as a valid tactic for combating hunger in previous administrations. His final point, about the potentially racial implications of Gingrich's obsession with food stamps, is also important.
Good point. However, I feel Rep. Gutierrez presented his data/argument in a "firing back at Newt" kind of way instead of simply illustrating the fallacy of calling President Obama a "food-stamp president." While I do understand the nature of the political game and you don't get on YouTube and Digg without some flare and interesting design for your stats, I am more swayed by statistics that were meticulously analyzed and properly presented. But I do see your point that Rep. Gutierrez had a specific point to make and he did make it.
maybe so, but it is also disingeneuous of some in the media, and in here to say that the claim is a racist claim when based on the numbers that newt was using, he was telling the truth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."
...when in fact there are far more white Americans on food stamps than black Americans.
I guess politically incorrect facts get buried. But facts don't know racism, just like hunger knows no race as the congressman put it in his presentation.
While I emphatically agree that Gingrich's statement let's his racism show, facts are indeed facts, and autokad made a simple statement of fact and was buried. Wolfram Alpha agrees:
that may be a fact, but he was talking to a group of black people, as such you talk to the community you are talking to! common sense says that if i go to a christian center to speak, i am going to be speaking to them about them, it doesnt make it racist at all
Why didn't he mention it to white people? Why did he use 'food stamps' and call our black president 'the food stamp' president? Why did he call Spanish the language of the ghetto? Why did he call Palestinians 'made up' people?
Are you really going to defend all his racist and ignorant remarks?
If the numbers and Gingrich's statements were made in a bubble I would agree with you, but with right wing radio, Internet and TV propaganda networks using food stamp recipients as a euphemism for poor, lazy black people who have too many children and mooch off of the system it changes the whole story. Context matters.
I think that is half of the problem as well. Everyone in america is LOOKING to be offended for something. I get offended when I am asked my race in job forms because it shouldnt matter what color I am.
but as for newt, he was talking to a group of black people, as such you talk to the community you are talking to! common sense says that if i go to a christian center to speak, i am going to be speaking to them about them, it doesnt make it racist at all
Everybody in America is looking for Republicans to give up on using race in politics so that racism as a political force can end for good. Sorry, but ever since Reagan when to Philadelphia, MS to talk about "states rights" and ever since Bush Senior made those Willie Horton ads and even since Bush Jr had his lackeys remove more than 40,000 legitimate black voters from voter registration rolls in 1999, and whenever another Republican is caught sending a racist email depicting Obama as a chimpanzee, everyone has been on the lookout. It is going to take words and real action to fix that harm to the Republican brand, and not a single Republican seems interested in doing a thing about it.
I dont disagree with the things you have said but i do have some issue with which seems to be the notion that its only republicans who can be racists. dont we remember obama saying "the republicans can come to, but they got to sit in the back of the bus" to me, that is a racist statement. And why is it racist when someone makes a photo of obama as a chimp, but theres nothing wrong with doing the same to a photo of bush? If its not PC to depict obama as an ape because "he is black and therefore the photo is racist" than how come it is perfectly fine to depict bush as a chimp "because he is retarded" but therefore you are insulting retarded people calling them apes
@ganja Obama has enough cred with the civil rights movement to be able to use that phrase and give it a completely different meaning than if say, Governor Jan Brewer were to say the same thing about Obama.
And Republicans earned the ire of Obama, congressional Democrats and the American people with their "burn it all to the ground" strategy for obstructing any and all progress from 2008 to 2010. Congressional Republicans deserved this slap across the face from the President and more.
I know I don't really need to explain to you why using a chimp, a spear, a bone through the nose, and all of the other despicable images spread around by disgusting Republican operatives are racist when applied to Obama but would not necessarily be so if applied to Bush. Nobody is that stupid.
My point is you are being selective in your outrage.
obama can say it because he is black...that is a copout. if it is a racist statement it is a racist statement simple as that, This notion that black people cannot be racist is absurd.
I wasnt making the claim that the bush pic was racist, but it was offensive to mentally challenged people.
look, I hate PC, I think PC is ruining this country, s**t i even own a shirt with the bush chimp picture on it.
My point is that everyone is always looking to be offended by something, no one can ever take things as a joke anymore, And it is damn near always one sided.
as for being obstructionist, people seem to have a very short memory, The system was intended to be this way for a reason, we should not be making rash decisions, we should not have to "vote on a trillion dollar spending bill before we can read it." ~ peloci When the democrats believe in something, they put up blocks, when the republicans believe in something so do they, the system works.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I made myself very clear that I was not trying to say that republican or retarded is a race, simply that bush as a chimp is still offensive even if its not racist therefore its still not PC... reading comprehension is your friend
Why didn't he mention it to white people? Why did he use 'food stamps' and call our black president 'the food stamp' president? Why did he call Spanish the language of the ghetto? Why did he call Palestinians 'made up' people?
Are you really going to defend all his racist and ignorant remarks?
But ya see, thoughtful and critical analysis of stuff doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or 20 second sound bite. Nor does it allow rabid idealogues to score points with an ignornant and ideology blinded electorate.
All of these are just questions; you're just assuming he's manipulating the statistics to support his argument because that's what 90% of people do. The fact remains that he's making a 5 minute speech, not writing a book. Perhaps he was fair with his presentation of the statistics, and perhaps he wasn't. I haven't seen anyone pointing out that they checked his sources and found his claims to be complete fabrications, so I'm inclined to believe that food stamps existed before Obama.
Regardless of the statistics, Gutierrez was calling attention to the fact that Gingrich is using loaded terms and claims to incite class warfare and garner votes. His main point was not actually based on his determination of who is the real "food stamp president," so I'm not looking for errors in his statistical methods. Find evidence of his abuse of math, and I'll get behind you. Otherwise, I think we can just agree that Newt's a dick.
I don't think there has been a President's term where spending HASN"T increased.
... this is due to the country getting larger and inflation and a host of other factors.
The only difference is the RATE of increase.
Bush got handed a surplus, and then royally screwed the economy, and any Republican who want's to debate relative merits of economies is talking out of their ass.
I really think he is one of the few people in congress who is really honest and true. He's from Chicago and he stands for a lot of progressive causes...gay rights, immigration reform, gender equality, and all types of civil rights. He's Puerto Rican but his district is mostly Mexican. He's often in the news here in Chicago.
no, no, you are bringing black, white, and GOP into a thread where they are talking about food stamps, and as the liberals on Digg have constantly said white comprise the largest percentage of people who use food stamps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Give it up. Newt and other idiot republicans s**t on the floor with foodstamp lies and now we're shoving your collective noses in it and you're whining like a bitch.
Self-responsibiility?
Just like diversity in the republican party... you lack it. Is it any wonder, assh**es?
Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.
a 45% increase in just 3 years, basically half again as many a Bush in 3 years. It is a straight up vertical graph. You have other figures post them.
"You and your idiot republican brethren like Newt only have yourselves to blame for this racial food stamp issue."
Unfortunately, for you and the rest of the lberal digg idiots, whites are the largest demographic of those who receive food stamps. Seems to me, it is the Democrats and liberalsl such a yourself who made Newts comments about race. His comments were plain fact. The largest increase in the shortest amount of time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Depends what you mean by "mix well".
It's true many more blacks identify and vote Democrat, but they are coming to and running as Republicans in greater and greater numbers. Their concerns, along with those of Hispanics align very well with conservative values.
It's been known for a long time that 40% of Americans are conservative, 40% are independent, and 20% are liberal. This 20% has had undue influence on politics for quite a while now, but this is changing. With the internet, talk radio, and Fox, Conservatives finally have news media that covers their interests. There will be no putting the cat back in the bag here. Liberal control of the narrative, political correctness, and calling anyone who disagrees with them racist, is dying a slow death.
Fox News, for example, has lead the news media in viewers for 10 years now, so it doesn't make since to call other networks the MSM (main stream media) anymore. Fox, with the largest viewership, is by definition, main stream.
So my point about the poll is demographics are changing and it will continue.
"It's been known for a long time that 40% of Americans are conservative, 40% are independent, and 20% are liberal."
Is this with a moving target definition of each of those political labels? I'm also curious where these numbers come from are they labeling people based on answers to specific policy questions like (Do you believe in Social Security and Medicare?, Do you think the government should regulate the environment? etc.) or just asking people are they liberal or conservative?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
> I have heard the stat for years but I did a
> search on my statement and this came up first
Those polls only show that conservatives are the loudest blowhards. These rest of us that they consider "libruls" are mostly moderates and we vastly outnumber them especially in cosmopolitan areas with better education and culture.
I don't consider myself a liberal, but conservatives will vehemently claim I am anyway. Just like they do with just about anyone else that disagrees with them. Oh, and "socialist", etc.
I don't think there's much to those numbers when it comes to people describing themselves as X,Y,Z. There should be criteria for X,Y,Z (like policy questions that are not likely to shift much over time). Then use those answers to categorize people. Can you be very conservative be believe in abortion right, or liberal and be pro-life?
Social and monetary issues should also be waited etc. For instance I bet most Republicans are not in favor of getting rid of Medicare and SS, two of the largest social spending parts of the budget. Does that make them fiscal conservatives, and thus conservative over all?
What about war spending? Separating Ron Paul conservatism from Bush conservatism etc.
Anyway, my long winded point is that if you polled people to ask them to identify themselves I think they are likely to use their stereotypes of what the labels mean rather than trying to figure out what they really believe and apply that label.
I have a similar issue with people who throw around the word RINO to describe political stances that more than 50% of the party agrees with, who is the real RINO?
I looked but couldn't find what specific questions were asked for determination of category.
I largely agree with you, I think. If asked questions based on both parties political platforms, I think many people would be very surprised which party their views place them in.
I found a quiz that attempts to do so. How useful it is is subjective, but I found it interesting.
tyho, that gotoquiz questionnaire is pure idiocy with loaded questions. Most rational people would need to select "I don't know" for the majority of questions because they are so black and white with no room for grey.
If anyone can answer most of those questions with certainly then they have a limited, conservative mindset no matter what the results claim to say.
> Hispanics align very well with conservative values.
Conservative values has become an oxymoron in American society.
I would also align very well with at least some conservative values if they were real. The majority of American conservatives certainly do not practice what they preach when it comes to ethics and proclaimed conservative values.
If they did, they certainly wouldn't find themselves in this situation where the overwhelming majority of the republican party are white.
>Liberal control of the narrative
Wow, I thought you were smarter than that for a while there.
If you think liberals control the mainstream media, then you are sadly misinformed and simply buying into the crock of s**t the corporatists are selling you.
While many educated people happen to lean more to the left and that's why the majority of reporters lean that way. It's certainly corporatists that control the narrative for most major media outlets. Corporatists control the editors.
Did you completely miss the "librul media" when they absolutely CHEERLEADED us into war with Iraq?
Have you taken a gander at the military contractors that own the major media outlets? Open your eyes.
Some will feign social liberal leanings to keep the masses preoccupied with squabbling over social issues. But, if you look at their ACTUAL reporting, it's entirely a pro-corporatist agenda.
How the hell does the 20% liberal have undue influence on politics for a quite a while now? Fox News has dominated news for at least a decade and conservative talk radio has DOMINATED radio for a few decades.
Conservative radio talk shows have the #1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 highest rated programs. Liberal talk shows do not even have one in the list of top 16. Most ‘liberals’ are typically watching network news or public programs on radio……even if you think they have a liberal bias it wouldn’t even compare to conservative programs. ‘Liberals’ like to get their news from sources that are just presenting the news and facts…unlike Conservatives who flock to shows that spout conservative ideas/opinions/hate.
If you seriously don't think the Republican candidates aren't spouting out racist or prejudice remarks, you are full of s**t.
Newt:
- “Obama is the most successful food stamp president” Why use an old and belittling term ‘food stamp’ to describe a black president?
- Palestinians are ‘invented people’
- Spanish is the language of the ghetto
- Implying poor people have no work ethic, poor school-age children should be janitors, then later referring to Obama as ‘food stamp’ president.
- "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age, they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
- "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.
- "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
- [T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us."
- Poor blacks fail to acquire wealth partly because of their "habits.
Santorum:
- “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money” (singling out black people as poor and saying black people shouldn’t get government aid)
- "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land."
- Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"
- The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"
- "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
Also:
Booing a gay solider, Cheering the hypothetical death of hospital patient, cheering when Newt responded to Juan Williams that he wasn’t making any racially charged comments,etc
a) its horrible to feed people who would otherwise be starving
b) its horrible to fund jobs programs to help people be able to feed themselves instead of relying on food stamps
c) its horrible to fund education so that people have the basic skills necessary to even start to look for a job
d) its horrible to fund birth control so that people who already can't feed themselves won't be having children who they also cannot feed
e) its preferable to place more of the tax burden in this country on those who can already not afford to feed themselves, rather than more of the tax burden on the fabulously wealthy who will never want for anything in their lives no matter what their tax rate is
f) its preferable to have more American's unemployed, homeless, and on food stamps if that means defeating Obama in 2012.
chickendove, you sound ridiculous. But understand you wanting to use a broad-brush approach as it keeps you from having to use critical thinking skills. Good job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Taking things out of context to play a partisan game appears to be what our politicians think they get paid for. He seems excited to think hes justified his job. Pretty sad that.
That both sides seem to think context should be lost to colored slides or cute sound bites is the ultimate insult to the American people.
or just that when Mr Conservative gets into office he spends like a blind drunken sailor, while his zombie republican army blindly defends him. Not even realizing the guy they are defending took a giant dump on their philosophy.
Hmm no context for how these "Statistics" were offered. I notice it's not a comparison between Obama's policies and the W 1 and 2's. But people haven't figured out that you can buy nearly anything with your Food Stamps, just like my friends in Brooklyn buy beer at the local bodega's before they go and protest the 1%... SNAP needs to be managed better than it is today, that is a fact...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
True it should be better managed, but these people aren't saying its mismanaged, they're saying it doesn't need to exist, which is false. Obviously, kids and seniors depend on this, and to take away their safety is cold and f**ked up (and UNAMERICAN)
It doesn't need to exist on a Federal level. The federal government has never managed anything without pork barrel spending getting involved, just ask the post office. Move the money and the power back to the states so they can each manage their own programs and the corruption can snake it's way into every home in America... Please thumbs down if you think that our current system is working. Thanks!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Some states, like Rick Perry's Texas, have done an abysmal job with food stamp and assistance programs. There's been an improvement with the voluntary assistance of food banks, replacing Perry's idiotic and corrupt privatization.
Purdy thanks for the link, it's good to see some people using evidence to back up their opinion. But what I am seeing is that you claim that Food Stamp and assistance programs in certain states are screwed up at the same time that they all pay into the federal food stamp system? Essentially your saying that the food stamp programs are in an abysmal state either way you look at it? And if the system is screwed up that private food banks step up to the challenge? I guess you just made my point, private institutions could handle what the Federal Gov has proven itself incapable of doing. The upside is that if one state isn't performing well, the populace of that state can choose to privatize it and put it on a yearly contract which they can choose not to renew. It's a lot easier kicking some contract selling corrupt state politician out than an HUGE bureaucracy that is 3000 miles away. We have to bring back the responsibility to our government, and the best way I know how is to bring the corruption home, closer to the tar and feathers...
I guess all the digg downs mean that you people agree with the status quo? You guys think that this system is working? Why have corruption when you can just rely on blind ignorance? Digg this down if you think that it's unAmerican to say that our system is screwed up!
"Yeah Im sure you have friends that qualify for food stamps and buy alcohol with it and that are part of the 1% protest!"
You are so full of s**t GOPbot!
Nice try!
Yep my little trolly, since you know nothing at all about me, your assumptions are awesome. I can make assumptions as well! Since you make presumptions about others you probably don't even know anything about yourself. You occupy your couch, I'll be out with my other "rich GOP" friends occupying Wall Street. http://www.vice.com/read/food-stamp-beer-reviews
Put your big boy pants little troll, we can do the man dance anytime my little pup.
Nice "airticle" Im sure you know all of those kids in it!
No one said the SNAP was not flawed just like any other system in the world has flaws being either Private or Government.
It needs to be fixed and not removed or privatised.
The "airticle" as you so in-eloquently put it is to bring a little levity to your trolling. But it does prove a point. The system is totally flawed if 15 year old kids can figure out how to break it. It's flawed, over 250,000 people have 2 cellphones paid by our tax money. Something is wrong there as well. People survived before the government saved them? How? Private shelters, churches, donations, all the things we could afford to do before the government taxed half of the middle classes income. The point is that the graft and corruption are impossible to control in such a bureaucracy.
So don't eliminate it, but trim it down, give it back to the states, and stop borrowing from China and printing inflation dollars. It's pretty simple. The reality is that the Federal government has no business in helping the poor except to keep the riots from tearing down their glass houses. Take a look at Roman history to understand what is going on. Google "Circuses and Bread," it's a simple concept. Give them football and food and they won't kick your corrupt butt out of office. The problem is that the monetary burden is placed upon the middle and upper middle class who are being kicked out of their homes.
They are the engine that drives this economy.
Something has got to give. The reason world leading nations collapse is social welfare programs and war. Argentina, the USSR and Rome all fell for the same traps. We are repeating history and I know you would see it if you took the time to look. We need to stop bombing people and return all that tax money to small businesses like mine that keep other's employed. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to use a fly fishing rod and a net and he might actually enjoy his job. Life is tough stop looking for handouts and lend a hand.
Those who need help can find it outside of the corruption that the few people in DC don't want to see end.
People and greed are the systems flaw.
Being that if its government controlled its less likelly that your greedy little hands gets to touch it. Thats the main difference!
big boy pants little pup? are you freaking retarded?
First of all reread your post here and tell me what you are trying to say in the first sentence. That makes no sense...And just because your logic is flawed doesn't mean that you have to call people retarded, that only makes you look petty. And your argument is that somehow I would get my hands on money makes no sense. I am not a tax collector, and I make enough money on my own I don't need yours kiddo. But I can see you are ok with corruption and greed as long as it's the government doing it? Your logic is flawed and honestly you are not equipped to have this discussion. Thanks for playing my little troll, I look forward to you next nonsensical rant where you call me names and try to make a point with a complete disregard for rules of English.
I understand where you coming from however do you really think that privatizing is going to end greed?
Name calling?
You belittled me calling me pup and bigboy pants?
I will admit I started with the GOPbot thing and I do apologize I normally recognize the GOPbos accurately by names and you are definitely not one of them as I otherwise had thought.
We just seem to have different points of view to the same good result we expect.
English in not my first language please try not to judge people on how they spell, but by the content that they try to put across, I know that doesn't apply here but just in case for the sake of your future arguments.
I was just generalizing that main flaws of all systems are greed and it will be there either being private or GOV the only solution is complete transparency to the public of all political and financial processes of our government and state with accountability.
I appreciate the response. Honestly I was having a bit of a problem understanding your point, obviously because of the language gap, so I had to make assumptions about what you were saying. As we can both tell we aren't bot's or retards so we can dispense with that talk. We both want the US to be better but take different approaches to get to the same end. I truly believe that there is no perfect answer to corruption but you can bring it down to a level where you can kick it out if you catch it. The federal government shouldn't be the fix to everything, time and time again it has proven that the people that run the Fed are out of touch with the people they claim they are helping. While no state is perfect, many of the local government's understand their local issues better than the people in DC. And while you will never get absolute transparency you can get accountability. Sadly that is probably the best we can hope for until everyone agrees to love each other and live in Utopia. (And I am not holding my breath for that...)
You definetly have an interesting aproach to bring it to a state level but I am afraid that the corruption on state level might run rampantly higher and freely without or with less government regulations.
I feel that the government is definetly completelly out of control, but the government as you said in a "perfect world" should litterrally be the voice of democracy/people. It needs to have the fat/corruption trimed that's for sure!
good to see that Pelosi has the Democratic SPIN machine working overtime on this. Gingrich must have surely touched a raw, exposed nerve with this seeing how she and the Dem congress that was voted in is the reason for the surge in food stamps. I wonder how many hundreds of congressional staffers are burning the midnight oil massaging the figures to make them fit the Blame it on Bush narrative. Oh SNAP!!!!!!!!!! I have another story for you that maybe someone will e mail the former Speaker.......
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. poverty rate rose to the highest level in almost two decades and household income fell in 2010, underscoring the lingering impact of the worst economic slump in seven decades. Data released by the Census Bureau today showed the proportion of people living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent last year from 14.3 percent in 2009 and median household income declined 2.3 percent. Shannon Pettypiece reports on Bloomberg Television's "InBusiness with Margaret Brennan." (Source: Bloomberg)
"Gingrich must have surely touched a raw, exposed nerve with this seeing how she and the Dem congress that was voted in is the reason for the surge in food stamps."
Wrong. Inferring causality here makes for a 'less than' intelligent argument. Show how it was those evil Democrats that were responsible? Was it not more the downturn in our economy? By the way, the downturn can not be blamed on one party or the other. This was building for decades.
I watched the video. I didn't get the 'clear message' as you state. Still, my point is that you seem to be indicating a 'causative' effect between Democrats being elected and a surge in Food Stamps. On that point, I believe you over play your hand.
It can not be any clearer that the stimulus has been a direct impediment to job creation. Obama left the drafting of said stimulus package to none other than Pelosii.
Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.
In 3 years Obama has added half as many to the food stamp rolls than were on those assistance programs under Bush. It can not be any clearer than that also.
Actually, thanks, I like to clean up grammar when possible. For some odd reason, when typing fast, I've been particularly bad with 'their' vs. 'there' lately.
I don't think Newt is going to have a problem with any of that. Conservatives already hate the Bushes for being mushy Neo-Cons. In addition to expanding food stamp programs, W also impose the medicare drug perscription plan and No Child Left Behind. He also signed the democrat spnsored TARP bill for which Obama and a majority of Dems voted but a majority of congressional Republicans did not. These are just three example of the many many ways Bush tried to curry favor with the left by compromising conservative principals. Newt wll have no problem explaining this to you if you if you have the basic decency to ask him to explain.
But for as bad as W was, Obama has doubled down on all these entitlement programs. Obama has earned the name "Foodstamp President" becdause he has taken the inflated program he inharited and grown it still more.
Clearly, the president under whom the most is being spent on foodstamps is *THE* foodstamp president. How can one argue against the rationale?
I don't understand the submitter saying "Hunger is colorblind". The comment never had anything to do with race. Why go there?
as someone who knows the welfare program, let me tell you, there has been no increase to the amount of food stamps or cash in the last 3 years. the income limit for fs did increase but it went up less than 10$. so it is a difference between 1444 to 1452. there has been no "double down". the program hasn't increased, the amount of people has because of the s**tty economy and you can't blame obama after two years, and you can't completely blame bush either
no, it being expanded would mean that the limits of the program have been shifted to the more benefit category. if you mean the expenditure on the program has increased, i'll give it to you but you seemed to mean that he make the program give more out per person than just more people. there are more people using it, more people using it does not mean that obama expanded the program. there are just record breaking amount of people getting benefits, and it has been going on for almost 4 years.
i heard a statement i like, if obama is the food stamp president, than bush is the terrorist victory president. it is just something that is happening on his watch.
So what if the foodstamp program has expanded? Are conservatives so mean-spirited that they want their fellow citizens to starve during a global recession? Funny - we didn't have conservatives getting their panties in a twist about trillion dollar wars. It's almost like conservatives prefer death, suffering, and destruction to... I don't know.... helping others out.... like you would expect from... errrr..... good christians.
The difference is important. Governments are meant to protect us from being harmed by others and to build those things that are impossible to build without the scope and authority government has. It is NOT their purpose to sustain us or care for us or "help" us.
Stop confusing government with society. Helping others is something people should choose to do on their own... OR NOT. That is called free will.
Confiscating the wealth of others is not remotely "christian"... not that that matters to me since I'm atheist.
You ask "so what"? In a very typical manner, you fail to pay any kind of notice to the actual argument made by conservatives. Aside from the fact that it's simply unconstitutional, the food stamp program establishes *dependency*. The more people that are dependent on government for there daily sustenance, the fewer there are contributing to society.
Yep.... hand waving excuses for being a greedy bastard. As long as you're ok, f**k the rest. If someone loses their job, you blame and vilify them as being 'lazy' and being 'entitled' and 'dependent' when they claim on social programs.
Unfortunately this is a rather short-sighted and destructive POV - having a large percentage of your population plunged into poverty is not conducive to the long term economic success of a nation. Sometimes, in life, extra-ordinary measures have to be taken, with companies, and people, to bring them back to economic productivity rather than write them off.
It all comes down to taxes for conservatives, you've never had it so good with taxes, they were higher than under previous conservative presidents. But when a liberal gets the presidency, suddenly taxes are way too high and you're screaming about how unreasonable it is to pull together in tough times.
It all comes down to FREEDOM for conservatives. But You can't vilify that so by all means, continue to ignore it.
Who exactly is doing the "hand waving"? The constitution FORBIDS things like Social Security and Medicare and HUD and dozens of other crap the federal government decided to do just because no one stopped them.
I wouldn't go that far. I feel like he hasn't really gotten the chance to exact his vision due to Republican obstructionism, but he has caved and failed in some areas he didn't have to soo.....yeah. Better than Bush, but by no means perfect
I feel bad for anyone you live with. You probably s**t your pants throw it on the ground then blame whoever you are with that they didn't clean up your diarrhea mess quick enough.
no actually i take responsibility for my actions, unlike those who like to blame everyone else for their s**tty life when its their own actions that cause it sounds more like obama, still blaming bush for his mistakes, its been over 3 years, its his economy, stop blaming bush
yeah, he is the current president, look at my history you will see me blaming bush when he was president, I said i take responsibility for MY own actions.... Not sure where me blaming obama for his bad policy has anything to do with my actions....
Exactly. So, we need to stop trying to show (once again) how one President or another destroyed us all. This has been long in the making and both party's hands are dirty.
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).
2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).
“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).
“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).
Obama is the food stamp President. The fact that the left makes that racial, is their problem not Gingrich. Their are more people than ever on food stamps right now and as long as Obama keeps making it impossible for people to get jobs there will continue to be way too many on food stamps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
White people comprise the greatest percent of those on assistance programs. It's the left who makes it racial with their blabbering idiocy of racial code words. There is a liberal sucker born every minute.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So GW Bush & his father cared more about the poor than the Democrats. Cool. I guess the Democrats were too busy making back office corporate deals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Darn right, DiggPigg.
We democrats are in this game for the money!
That's why we oppose child labor laws, regulating air, water
and food quality, or policing the financial market.
We want the money! And that means letting American elections
be guided by the wind of market forces and a wise consituency of corporations.
Heck, whenever I see a Republican weeping on the house floor for
the sorrows of the poor?
- I go to his desk and swipe his pens.
So why did GW Bush give more to the poor and not brag about it? Is it a vast right-wing conspiracy? Racism? Watergate? Corporate greed? Global Warming denial?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why, yes!
In 2003 we Bilderbergs met for a rumble with the Illuminati;
the winners would get to decide the 2008 election
and next year's skirt length.
We won; the illuminati had to surrender Australia
and detail our cars. Racism, Watergate, corporate
greed and global warming would continue another year.
But as for Bush?
- he gave a higher percentage of his extra wealth because he
was feeling more generous than was Mr. Obama that year.
Why do you ask?
Did you think that could pass for an argument,
that the policies of the Democratic Party were
based on getting money?
Or that the Republican corporate policies were to be ignored
because a rich man tossed gold coins to the crowd?
You are wise to babble about conspiracies.
They are the only chance you have, to disguise the truth.
Pornography leads to desire, bluto.
And desire leads to hope; and hope leads
to politics and the personal pleasure of Change.
And libraries are a socialist idea of Ben Franklin.
The government takes the hard-earned money
of job-producers and spends it on a warm place
for loafers and liberals to gather and peruse Marx
and Harry Potter.
That was fun!
Nonsense just seems to sound better
when it has a conservative accent.
Kapsiot generally throws in 'quick comments' requiring little or no thought. You'll note they Always attack Liberals and the President and rarely contain objective analysis.
Of course he is. I mean, look at the "facts" (as presented by the right wing): Black people are lazy, have too many children and are completely dependent on government entitlements not because they are unable to work or because there is a shortage of jobs, but because they LIKE it that way. Add to that "fact" Democrats support these programs ONLY because they want black to people to vote for them and Obama gets the double whammy: he's not only half black, but he's ALSO a Democrat. Of COURSE he's the food stamp President.
hallspaceFeb 9, 2012
While I love the fire and passion of the Congressman, we need to hold each other to higher standards of statistical literacy. These "facts" are presented without proper context and consideration. For instance, are these aggregate data (e.g. summative expenditures over the presidents time in office) or are they averages (e.g. expenses per year in office)? Without knowing the context of the data we cannot make an informed argument. Furthermore, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We cannot boil this argument down to: "If spending increased during a president's term, that means they MUST believe in increased spending." What about other economic factors? What was the state of the economy? What impact did Congress have? When we oversimplify a model, we often miss crucial components of that model.
Let me be clear: I support SNAP and federal programs for the poor and needy. However if we allow poorly presented data to sway our views even when we want to agree with someone, we are doing both ourselves and our country a disservice.
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012
Wow, someone else who understands statistics and how easily they are manipulated... might want to be careful asking questions like that around here...
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012
All valid. But I would argue, and I think Representative Gutierrez would argue, that it isn't the pure number he was presenting that were the point. It was the fact that it is disingenuous for Gingrich to single out Obama as "food-stamp president" or to blame him for its increases, when adding to SNAP has been seen as a valid tactic for combating hunger in previous administrations. His final point, about the potentially racial implications of Gingrich's obsession with food stamps, is also important.
hallspaceFeb 9, 2012
Good point. However, I feel Rep. Gutierrez presented his data/argument in a "firing back at Newt" kind of way instead of simply illustrating the fallacy of calling President Obama a "food-stamp president." While I do understand the nature of the political game and you don't get on YouTube and Digg without some flare and interesting design for your stats, I am more swayed by statistics that were meticulously analyzed and properly presented. But I do see your point that Rep. Gutierrez had a specific point to make and he did make it.
samthurstonFeb 10, 2012
"I am more swayed by statistics that were meticulously analyzed"
You are (and I am) in the vanishingly small minority in this regard.
Style over substance has been the rule and will continue to be until statistics education is mandatory in high school, and probably even after that.
jlaughFeb 10, 2012
Why would government want a population that can understand statistics? That would frustrate their ability to lie to the public.
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
maybe so, but it is also disingeneuous of some in the media, and in here to say that the claim is a racist claim when based on the numbers that newt was using, he was telling the truth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012
“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."
...when in fact there are far more white Americans on food stamps than black Americans.
autokadFeb 9, 2012
35% white and 22% black when there are around 6 times as many whites in the general population.
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012
That's true. I just mean, and Gutierrez means, that it's not a black problem. It's a poverty problem.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
math is hard....
if i had my EBT card we could take the metro to the casino and go shopping.
r0g3rFeb 10, 2012
I guess politically incorrect facts get buried. But facts don't know racism, just like hunger knows no race as the congressman put it in his presentation.
While I emphatically agree that Gingrich's statement let's his racism show, facts are indeed facts, and autokad made a simple statement of fact and was buried. Wolfram Alpha agrees:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/countries/united_states/p8/tm/ov/
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
that may be a fact, but he was talking to a group of black people, as such you talk to the community you are talking to! common sense says that if i go to a christian center to speak, i am going to be speaking to them about them, it doesnt make it racist at all
daimposterFeb 10, 2012
Why didn't he mention it to white people? Why did he use 'food stamps' and call our black president 'the food stamp' president? Why did he call Spanish the language of the ghetto? Why did he call Palestinians 'made up' people?
Are you really going to defend all his racist and ignorant remarks?
treehugger87Feb 9, 2012
If the numbers and Gingrich's statements were made in a bubble I would agree with you, but with right wing radio, Internet and TV propaganda networks using food stamp recipients as a euphemism for poor, lazy black people who have too many children and mooch off of the system it changes the whole story. Context matters.
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
I think that is half of the problem as well. Everyone in america is LOOKING to be offended for something. I get offended when I am asked my race in job forms because it shouldnt matter what color I am.
but as for newt, he was talking to a group of black people, as such you talk to the community you are talking to! common sense says that if i go to a christian center to speak, i am going to be speaking to them about them, it doesnt make it racist at all
treehugger87Feb 9, 2012
Everybody in America is looking for Republicans to give up on using race in politics so that racism as a political force can end for good. Sorry, but ever since Reagan when to Philadelphia, MS to talk about "states rights" and ever since Bush Senior made those Willie Horton ads and even since Bush Jr had his lackeys remove more than 40,000 legitimate black voters from voter registration rolls in 1999, and whenever another Republican is caught sending a racist email depicting Obama as a chimpanzee, everyone has been on the lookout. It is going to take words and real action to fix that harm to the Republican brand, and not a single Republican seems interested in doing a thing about it.
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
I dont disagree with the things you have said but i do have some issue with which seems to be the notion that its only republicans who can be racists. dont we remember obama saying "the republicans can come to, but they got to sit in the back of the bus" to me, that is a racist statement. And why is it racist when someone makes a photo of obama as a chimp, but theres nothing wrong with doing the same to a photo of bush? If its not PC to depict obama as an ape because "he is black and therefore the photo is racist" than how come it is perfectly fine to depict bush as a chimp "because he is retarded" but therefore you are insulting retarded people calling them apes
pc25Feb 9, 2012
you just blew them out of the water.
treehugger87Feb 9, 2012
@ganja Obama has enough cred with the civil rights movement to be able to use that phrase and give it a completely different meaning than if say, Governor Jan Brewer were to say the same thing about Obama.
And Republicans earned the ire of Obama, congressional Democrats and the American people with their "burn it all to the ground" strategy for obstructing any and all progress from 2008 to 2010. Congressional Republicans deserved this slap across the face from the President and more.
I know I don't really need to explain to you why using a chimp, a spear, a bone through the nose, and all of the other despicable images spread around by disgusting Republican operatives are racist when applied to Obama but would not necessarily be so if applied to Bush. Nobody is that stupid.
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
My point is you are being selective in your outrage.
obama can say it because he is black...that is a copout. if it is a racist statement it is a racist statement simple as that, This notion that black people cannot be racist is absurd.
I wasnt making the claim that the bush pic was racist, but it was offensive to mentally challenged people.
look, I hate PC, I think PC is ruining this country, s**t i even own a shirt with the bush chimp picture on it.
My point is that everyone is always looking to be offended by something, no one can ever take things as a joke anymore, And it is damn near always one sided.
as for being obstructionist, people seem to have a very short memory, The system was intended to be this way for a reason, we should not be making rash decisions, we should not have to "vote on a trillion dollar spending bill before we can read it." ~ peloci When the democrats believe in something, they put up blocks, when the republicans believe in something so do they, the system works.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ljseinfeldFeb 10, 2012
"Republican" is not a race... neither is "Retarded". But evidence suggests the two may be related.
ganjadude4391Feb 10, 2012
I made myself very clear that I was not trying to say that republican or retarded is a race, simply that bush as a chimp is still offensive even if its not racist therefore its still not PC... reading comprehension is your friend
daimposterFeb 10, 2012
Why didn't he mention it to white people? Why did he use 'food stamps' and call our black president 'the food stamp' president? Why did he call Spanish the language of the ghetto? Why did he call Palestinians 'made up' people?
Are you really going to defend all his racist and ignorant remarks?
unclefireFeb 9, 2012
But ya see, thoughtful and critical analysis of stuff doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or 20 second sound bite. Nor does it allow rabid idealogues to score points with an ignornant and ideology blinded electorate.
fitzal77Feb 10, 2012
All of these are just questions; you're just assuming he's manipulating the statistics to support his argument because that's what 90% of people do. The fact remains that he's making a 5 minute speech, not writing a book. Perhaps he was fair with his presentation of the statistics, and perhaps he wasn't. I haven't seen anyone pointing out that they checked his sources and found his claims to be complete fabrications, so I'm inclined to believe that food stamps existed before Obama.
Regardless of the statistics, Gutierrez was calling attention to the fact that Gingrich is using loaded terms and claims to incite class warfare and garner votes. His main point was not actually based on his determination of who is the real "food stamp president," so I'm not looking for errors in his statistical methods. Find evidence of his abuse of math, and I'll get behind you. Otherwise, I think we can just agree that Newt's a dick.
vitriolandangstFeb 10, 2012
I don't think there has been a President's term where spending HASN"T increased.
... this is due to the country getting larger and inflation and a host of other factors.
The only difference is the RATE of increase.
Bush got handed a surplus, and then royally screwed the economy, and any Republican who want's to debate relative merits of economies is talking out of their ass.
app3g3qsielvrfjfnr64e12d28b45fFeb 10, 2012
Food Stamps? How very socialist of you America.
Très chic.
jacobsjuniorFeb 9, 2012
I dont know who that Congressman is but I think he is my new hero! What a legend!
anomaly100Feb 9, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-luis-gutierrez/immigration-deportation-a_b_1184215.html
daimposterFeb 10, 2012
I really think he is one of the few people in congress who is really honest and true. He's from Chicago and he stands for a lot of progressive causes...gay rights, immigration reform, gender equality, and all types of civil rights. He's Puerto Rican but his district is mostly Mexican. He's often in the news here in Chicago.
laurahoustonFeb 10, 2012
really something sickening, how some people, a segment of our society- pick a target that can NOT fight back and demonise the hell on them.
It's their old 'nits make lice' evil crap all over again.
cowicideFeb 9, 2012
This fell on deaf ears.
Republicans & facts are like Republicans & blacks... they simply do not mix well.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
race card much?
cowicideFeb 9, 2012
Just stating the facts, pc25.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142826/republicans-remain-disproportionately-white-religious.aspx
You know, facts? Something that doesn't mix well with you.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
No, you are race baiting.
cowicideFeb 9, 2012
No, I'm stating facts. Something you hate.
Oh no... here they are again... FACTS:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142826/republicans-remain-disproportionately-white-religious.aspx
How will you survive?
Also... prove me wrong. Did this NOT fall on deaf ears in the republican party? What's the republican response to this, hmmmm?
pc25Feb 9, 2012
and by bringing black and white into the food stamp issue you are playing the race card,
cowicideFeb 9, 2012
No, I'm playing the FACT card and that's why it bothers you so much.
Oouch.....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142826/republicans-remain-disproportionately-white-religious.aspx
Can you take any more facts? Oh lawd...
You and your idiot republican brethren like Newt only have yourselves to blame for this racial food stamp issue.
But, like facts and blacks... republicans don't mix well with self-responsibility either... so you'll point your shaky, ignorant finger at me instead.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
no, no, you are bringing black, white, and GOP into a thread where they are talking about food stamps, and as the liberals on Digg have constantly said white comprise the largest percentage of people who use food stamps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 9, 2012
>no, no,
Give it up. Newt and other idiot republicans s**t on the floor with foodstamp lies and now we're shoving your collective noses in it and you're whining like a bitch.
Self-responsibiility?
Just like diversity in the republican party... you lack it. Is it any wonder, assh**es?
Ouch....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142826/republicans-remain-disproportionately-white-religious.aspx
DEAL WITH IT.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
really
Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.
a 45% increase in just 3 years, basically half again as many a Bush in 3 years. It is a straight up vertical graph. You have other figures post them.
http://news.investors.com/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=WEBstmp0126-[Converted].gif&docId=598993&xmpSource=&width=800&height=557&caption=
http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.ht
"You and your idiot republican brethren like Newt only have yourselves to blame for this racial food stamp issue."
Unfortunately, for you and the rest of the lberal digg idiots, whites are the largest demographic of those who receive food stamps. Seems to me, it is the Democrats and liberalsl such a yourself who made Newts comments about race. His comments were plain fact. The largest increase in the shortest amount of time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 10, 2012
pc - just because you call "the race card" does not make it so - I read the facts, disprove them.
Seems when backed into a corner, the right always pulls "the race card". A new original approach may be in order, this one is pretty stale.
tyhoFeb 9, 2012
Depends what you mean by "mix well".
It's true many more blacks identify and vote Democrat, but they are coming to and running as Republicans in greater and greater numbers. Their concerns, along with those of Hispanics align very well with conservative values.
It's been known for a long time that 40% of Americans are conservative, 40% are independent, and 20% are liberal. This 20% has had undue influence on politics for quite a while now, but this is changing. With the internet, talk radio, and Fox, Conservatives finally have news media that covers their interests. There will be no putting the cat back in the bag here. Liberal control of the narrative, political correctness, and calling anyone who disagrees with them racist, is dying a slow death.
Fox News, for example, has lead the news media in viewers for 10 years now, so it doesn't make since to call other networks the MSM (main stream media) anymore. Fox, with the largest viewership, is by definition, main stream.
So my point about the poll is demographics are changing and it will continue.
ncmusicFeb 9, 2012
"It's been known for a long time that 40% of Americans are conservative, 40% are independent, and 20% are liberal."
Is this with a moving target definition of each of those political labels? I'm also curious where these numbers come from are they labeling people based on answers to specific policy questions like (Do you believe in Social Security and Medicare?, Do you think the government should regulate the environment? etc.) or just asking people are they liberal or conservative?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tyhoFeb 9, 2012
I have heard the stat for years but I did a search on my statement and this came up first,
2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx
But for 2012 the numbers differ slightly:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspxComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 10, 2012
> I have heard the stat for years but I did a
> search on my statement and this came up first
Those polls only show that conservatives are the loudest blowhards. These rest of us that they consider "libruls" are mostly moderates and we vastly outnumber them especially in cosmopolitan areas with better education and culture.
I don't consider myself a liberal, but conservatives will vehemently claim I am anyway. Just like they do with just about anyone else that disagrees with them. Oh, and "socialist", etc.
I'm pretty much anti-idiot like most others.
ncmusicFeb 9, 2012
I don't think there's much to those numbers when it comes to people describing themselves as X,Y,Z. There should be criteria for X,Y,Z (like policy questions that are not likely to shift much over time). Then use those answers to categorize people. Can you be very conservative be believe in abortion right, or liberal and be pro-life?
Social and monetary issues should also be waited etc. For instance I bet most Republicans are not in favor of getting rid of Medicare and SS, two of the largest social spending parts of the budget. Does that make them fiscal conservatives, and thus conservative over all?
What about war spending? Separating Ron Paul conservatism from Bush conservatism etc.
Anyway, my long winded point is that if you polled people to ask them to identify themselves I think they are likely to use their stereotypes of what the labels mean rather than trying to figure out what they really believe and apply that label.
I have a similar issue with people who throw around the word RINO to describe political stances that more than 50% of the party agrees with, who is the real RINO?
tyhoFeb 9, 2012
I looked but couldn't find what specific questions were asked for determination of category.
I largely agree with you, I think. If asked questions based on both parties political platforms, I think many people would be very surprised which party their views place them in.
I found a quiz that attempts to do so. How useful it is is subjective, but I found it interesting.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/dennis_prager_s_are_you_a_liberalComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cowicideFeb 10, 2012
tyho, that gotoquiz questionnaire is pure idiocy with loaded questions. Most rational people would need to select "I don't know" for the majority of questions because they are so black and white with no room for grey.
If anyone can answer most of those questions with certainly then they have a limited, conservative mindset no matter what the results claim to say.
cowicideFeb 10, 2012
> Hispanics align very well with conservative values.
Conservative values has become an oxymoron in American society.
I would also align very well with at least some conservative values if they were real. The majority of American conservatives certainly do not practice what they preach when it comes to ethics and proclaimed conservative values.
If they did, they certainly wouldn't find themselves in this situation where the overwhelming majority of the republican party are white.
>Liberal control of the narrative
Wow, I thought you were smarter than that for a while there.
If you think liberals control the mainstream media, then you are sadly misinformed and simply buying into the crock of s**t the corporatists are selling you.
While many educated people happen to lean more to the left and that's why the majority of reporters lean that way. It's certainly corporatists that control the narrative for most major media outlets. Corporatists control the editors.
Did you completely miss the "librul media" when they absolutely CHEERLEADED us into war with Iraq?
Have you taken a gander at the military contractors that own the major media outlets? Open your eyes.
Some will feign social liberal leanings to keep the masses preoccupied with squabbling over social issues. But, if you look at their ACTUAL reporting, it's entirely a pro-corporatist agenda.
Don't take my word on it, check with some experts here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101
daimposterFeb 11, 2012
How the hell does the 20% liberal have undue influence on politics for a quite a while now? Fox News has dominated news for at least a decade and conservative talk radio has DOMINATED radio for a few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs
Conservative radio talk shows have the #1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 highest rated programs. Liberal talk shows do not even have one in the list of top 16. Most ‘liberals’ are typically watching network news or public programs on radio……even if you think they have a liberal bias it wouldn’t even compare to conservative programs. ‘Liberals’ like to get their news from sources that are just presenting the news and facts…unlike Conservatives who flock to shows that spout conservative ideas/opinions/hate.
If you seriously don't think the Republican candidates aren't spouting out racist or prejudice remarks, you are full of s**t.
Newt:
- “Obama is the most successful food stamp president” Why use an old and belittling term ‘food stamp’ to describe a black president?
- Palestinians are ‘invented people’
- Spanish is the language of the ghetto
- Implying poor people have no work ethic, poor school-age children should be janitors, then later referring to Obama as ‘food stamp’ president.
- "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age, they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
- "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.
- "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
- [T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us."
- Poor blacks fail to acquire wealth partly because of their "habits.
daimposterFeb 11, 2012
Santorum:
- “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money” (singling out black people as poor and saying black people shouldn’t get government aid)
- "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.' This is Israeli land."
- Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"
- The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"
- "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing."
Also:
Booing a gay solider, Cheering the hypothetical death of hospital patient, cheering when Newt responded to Juan Williams that he wasn’t making any racially charged comments,etc
assassyn360Feb 9, 2012
Play card games much?
assassyn360Feb 9, 2012
How dare he use facts to supplement his well constructed argument against newty. How dare he!
mjm6783Feb 9, 2012
Notice how many people are in the chamber?
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2012
Interesting that this doesn't seem to matter anymore. As long as someone's taping and it's a good show - it will make it to the masses.
notachickenhawkFeb 9, 2012
The Republican position in a nutshell:
a) its horrible to feed people who would otherwise be starving
b) its horrible to fund jobs programs to help people be able to feed themselves instead of relying on food stamps
c) its horrible to fund education so that people have the basic skills necessary to even start to look for a job
d) its horrible to fund birth control so that people who already can't feed themselves won't be having children who they also cannot feed
e) its preferable to place more of the tax burden in this country on those who can already not afford to feed themselves, rather than more of the tax burden on the fabulously wealthy who will never want for anything in their lives no matter what their tax rate is
f) its preferable to have more American's unemployed, homeless, and on food stamps if that means defeating Obama in 2012.
stevanoskiFeb 9, 2012
chickendove, you sound ridiculous. But understand you wanting to use a broad-brush approach as it keeps you from having to use critical thinking skills. Good job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
you dont need critical thinking in rainbow unicorn land where everyone is happy and nobody is sad.
nobody is judging you not even your mom or your dad.
just imagine, it can all be true.... thats a big bowl of ice cream, not a giant "progressive" pile of PooComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
Notice that the wingnuts here ^ have nothing except ad hominems to offer in response.
fitzal77Feb 10, 2012
In their defense, there are a lot of words to read.
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
True, I forgot to factor that in.
miklkitFeb 9, 2012
Nice summation of the republicon class war on the poor. Not to mention women and children.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
sure is
if you are not quite of voting age
stealthspcFeb 10, 2012
Republicans don't use facts. They were created by those evil scientists.
concusionFeb 11, 2012
Facts are just a theory :)
laurahoustonFeb 9, 2012
hehe finally the truth
cowicideFeb 9, 2012
This is brilliant.
shivabeachFeb 10, 2012
OMG Its true. There was a president named Bush.
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
He's between your legs right now!
BartMFeb 9, 2012
"Oh snap"...does anyone actually say that?
pc25Feb 9, 2012
Anomaly 2 of 7 and counting does
Donuts4UFeb 9, 2012
Taking things out of context to play a partisan game appears to be what our politicians think they get paid for. He seems excited to think hes justified his job. Pretty sad that.
That both sides seem to think context should be lost to colored slides or cute sound bites is the ultimate insult to the American people.
fauozFeb 10, 2012
So liberals should vote Republican when the facts are in.
concusionFeb 11, 2012
or just that when Mr Conservative gets into office he spends like a blind drunken sailor, while his zombie republican army blindly defends him. Not even realizing the guy they are defending took a giant dump on their philosophy.
fauozFeb 11, 2012
Think we are all misguided and lied to?
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Hmm no context for how these "Statistics" were offered. I notice it's not a comparison between Obama's policies and the W 1 and 2's. But people haven't figured out that you can buy nearly anything with your Food Stamps, just like my friends in Brooklyn buy beer at the local bodega's before they go and protest the 1%... SNAP needs to be managed better than it is today, that is a fact...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012
True it should be better managed, but these people aren't saying its mismanaged, they're saying it doesn't need to exist, which is false. Obviously, kids and seniors depend on this, and to take away their safety is cold and f**ked up (and UNAMERICAN)
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
It doesn't need to exist on a Federal level. The federal government has never managed anything without pork barrel spending getting involved, just ask the post office. Move the money and the power back to the states so they can each manage their own programs and the corruption can snake it's way into every home in America... Please thumbs down if you think that our current system is working. Thanks!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
Some states, like Rick Perry's Texas, have done an abysmal job with food stamp and assistance programs. There's been an improvement with the voluntary assistance of food banks, replacing Perry's idiotic and corrupt privatization.
Apparently they're not handled well in Georgia either. http://valeriebelew.hubpages.com/hub/FOOD-STAMP-BENEFITS-NOT-FOR-THE-LAZY-OR-FAINT-HEARTED
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Purdy thanks for the link, it's good to see some people using evidence to back up their opinion. But what I am seeing is that you claim that Food Stamp and assistance programs in certain states are screwed up at the same time that they all pay into the federal food stamp system? Essentially your saying that the food stamp programs are in an abysmal state either way you look at it? And if the system is screwed up that private food banks step up to the challenge? I guess you just made my point, private institutions could handle what the Federal Gov has proven itself incapable of doing. The upside is that if one state isn't performing well, the populace of that state can choose to privatize it and put it on a yearly contract which they can choose not to renew. It's a lot easier kicking some contract selling corrupt state politician out than an HUGE bureaucracy that is 3000 miles away. We have to bring back the responsibility to our government, and the best way I know how is to bring the corruption home, closer to the tar and feathers...
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
Well said
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
I guess all the digg downs mean that you people agree with the status quo? You guys think that this system is working? Why have corruption when you can just rely on blind ignorance? Digg this down if you think that it's unAmerican to say that our system is screwed up!
favuquadFeb 10, 2012
"Yeah Im sure you have friends that qualify for food stamps and buy alcohol with it and that are part of the 1% protest!"
You are so full of s**t GOPbot!
Nice try!
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Yep my little trolly, since you know nothing at all about me, your assumptions are awesome. I can make assumptions as well! Since you make presumptions about others you probably don't even know anything about yourself. You occupy your couch, I'll be out with my other "rich GOP" friends occupying Wall Street.
http://www.vice.com/read/food-stamp-beer-reviews
Put your big boy pants little troll, we can do the man dance anytime my little pup.
favuquadFeb 10, 2012
Nice "airticle" Im sure you know all of those kids in it!
No one said the SNAP was not flawed just like any other system in the world has flaws being either Private or Government.
It needs to be fixed and not removed or privatised.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
The "airticle" as you so in-eloquently put it is to bring a little levity to your trolling. But it does prove a point. The system is totally flawed if 15 year old kids can figure out how to break it. It's flawed, over 250,000 people have 2 cellphones paid by our tax money. Something is wrong there as well. People survived before the government saved them? How? Private shelters, churches, donations, all the things we could afford to do before the government taxed half of the middle classes income. The point is that the graft and corruption are impossible to control in such a bureaucracy.
So don't eliminate it, but trim it down, give it back to the states, and stop borrowing from China and printing inflation dollars. It's pretty simple. The reality is that the Federal government has no business in helping the poor except to keep the riots from tearing down their glass houses. Take a look at Roman history to understand what is going on. Google "Circuses and Bread," it's a simple concept. Give them football and food and they won't kick your corrupt butt out of office. The problem is that the monetary burden is placed upon the middle and upper middle class who are being kicked out of their homes.
They are the engine that drives this economy.
Something has got to give. The reason world leading nations collapse is social welfare programs and war. Argentina, the USSR and Rome all fell for the same traps. We are repeating history and I know you would see it if you took the time to look. We need to stop bombing people and return all that tax money to small businesses like mine that keep other's employed. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to use a fly fishing rod and a net and he might actually enjoy his job. Life is tough stop looking for handouts and lend a hand.
Those who need help can find it outside of the corruption that the few people in DC don't want to see end.
favuquadFeb 10, 2012
People and greed are the systems flaw.
Being that if its government controlled its less likelly that your greedy little hands gets to touch it. Thats the main difference!
big boy pants little pup? are you freaking retarded?
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
First of all reread your post here and tell me what you are trying to say in the first sentence. That makes no sense...And just because your logic is flawed doesn't mean that you have to call people retarded, that only makes you look petty. And your argument is that somehow I would get my hands on money makes no sense. I am not a tax collector, and I make enough money on my own I don't need yours kiddo. But I can see you are ok with corruption and greed as long as it's the government doing it? Your logic is flawed and honestly you are not equipped to have this discussion. Thanks for playing my little troll, I look forward to you next nonsensical rant where you call me names and try to make a point with a complete disregard for rules of English.
favuquadFeb 10, 2012
I understand where you coming from however do you really think that privatizing is going to end greed?
Name calling?
You belittled me calling me pup and bigboy pants?
I will admit I started with the GOPbot thing and I do apologize I normally recognize the GOPbos accurately by names and you are definitely not one of them as I otherwise had thought.
We just seem to have different points of view to the same good result we expect.
favuquadFeb 10, 2012
English in not my first language please try not to judge people on how they spell, but by the content that they try to put across, I know that doesn't apply here but just in case for the sake of your future arguments.
I was just generalizing that main flaws of all systems are greed and it will be there either being private or GOV the only solution is complete transparency to the public of all political and financial processes of our government and state with accountability.
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
I appreciate the response. Honestly I was having a bit of a problem understanding your point, obviously because of the language gap, so I had to make assumptions about what you were saying. As we can both tell we aren't bot's or retards so we can dispense with that talk. We both want the US to be better but take different approaches to get to the same end. I truly believe that there is no perfect answer to corruption but you can bring it down to a level where you can kick it out if you catch it. The federal government shouldn't be the fix to everything, time and time again it has proven that the people that run the Fed are out of touch with the people they claim they are helping. While no state is perfect, many of the local government's understand their local issues better than the people in DC. And while you will never get absolute transparency you can get accountability. Sadly that is probably the best we can hope for until everyone agrees to love each other and live in Utopia. (And I am not holding my breath for that...)
favuquadFeb 10, 2012
You definetly have an interesting aproach to bring it to a state level but I am afraid that the corruption on state level might run rampantly higher and freely without or with less government regulations.
I feel that the government is definetly completelly out of control, but the government as you said in a "perfect world" should litterrally be the voice of democracy/people. It needs to have the fat/corruption trimed that's for sure!
yvipoFeb 19, 2012
"I support eating poor people"
witney_in_memoryFeb 15, 2012
Oh snap realy.
markcalvinoFeb 10, 2012
This guy is my new here.
Shame Republicons think reality was created just to annoy them and their misguided beliefs...
pc25Feb 9, 2012
good to see that Pelosi has the Democratic SPIN machine working overtime on this. Gingrich must have surely touched a raw, exposed nerve with this seeing how she and the Dem congress that was voted in is the reason for the surge in food stamps. I wonder how many hundreds of congressional staffers are burning the midnight oil massaging the figures to make them fit the Blame it on Bush narrative. Oh SNAP!!!!!!!!!! I have another story for you that maybe someone will e mail the former Speaker.......
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/75271336/
Q
U.S. Poverty Rose to 17-Year High, Income Fell
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. poverty rate rose to the highest level in almost two decades and household income fell in 2010, underscoring the lingering impact of the worst economic slump in seven decades. Data released by the Census Bureau today showed the proportion of people living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent last year from 14.3 percent in 2009 and median household income declined 2.3 percent. Shannon Pettypiece reports on Bloomberg Television's "InBusiness with Margaret Brennan." (Source: Bloomberg)
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/13/obamanomics-u-s-poverty-rate-skyrockets-largest-number-since-census-began-keeping-track-in-1952/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 9, 2012
"Gingrich must have surely touched a raw, exposed nerve with this seeing how she and the Dem congress that was voted in is the reason for the surge in food stamps."
Wrong. Inferring causality here makes for a 'less than' intelligent argument. Show how it was those evil Democrats that were responsible? Was it not more the downturn in our economy? By the way, the downturn can not be blamed on one party or the other. This was building for decades.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_rDrd97sY&feature=player_embedded
CBO: President's "Stimulus" Hurts Long-Term Economic Growth
JustSayNoPartyFeb 9, 2012
I watched the video. I didn't get the 'clear message' as you state. Still, my point is that you seem to be indicating a 'causative' effect between Democrats being elected and a surge in Food Stamps. On that point, I believe you over play your hand.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
It can not be any clearer that the stimulus has been a direct impediment to job creation. Obama left the drafting of said stimulus package to none other than Pelosii.
http://news.investors.com/Article/598993/201201260805/entitlements-soar-under-president-obama.htm
Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.
In 3 years Obama has added half as many to the food stamp rolls than were on those assistance programs under Bush. It can not be any clearer than that also.
http://news.investors.com/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=WEBstmp0126-[Converted].gif&docId=598993&xmpSource=&width=800&height=557&caption=Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 10, 2012
You keep referring to Obama, what has the obstructionist congress done to address the issue?
stevanoskiFeb 10, 2012
Implying? instead of inferring. But good comment.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 10, 2012
Son of a....infer this. :0
Actually, thanks, I like to clean up grammar when possible. For some odd reason, when typing fast, I've been particularly bad with 'their' vs. 'there' lately.
stevanoskiFeb 10, 2012
been there
whiteravenFeb 10, 2012
I don't think Newt is going to have a problem with any of that. Conservatives already hate the Bushes for being mushy Neo-Cons. In addition to expanding food stamp programs, W also impose the medicare drug perscription plan and No Child Left Behind. He also signed the democrat spnsored TARP bill for which Obama and a majority of Dems voted but a majority of congressional Republicans did not. These are just three example of the many many ways Bush tried to curry favor with the left by compromising conservative principals. Newt wll have no problem explaining this to you if you if you have the basic decency to ask him to explain.
But for as bad as W was, Obama has doubled down on all these entitlement programs. Obama has earned the name "Foodstamp President" becdause he has taken the inflated program he inharited and grown it still more.
Clearly, the president under whom the most is being spent on foodstamps is *THE* foodstamp president. How can one argue against the rationale?
I don't understand the submitter saying "Hunger is colorblind". The comment never had anything to do with race. Why go there?
(Actually, I do understand. Mean-spirited minds seed "code" in the speech of others and jump to undeserved conclusions.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidhetrickFeb 10, 2012
as someone who knows the welfare program, let me tell you, there has been no increase to the amount of food stamps or cash in the last 3 years. the income limit for fs did increase but it went up less than 10$. so it is a difference between 1444 to 1452. there has been no "double down". the program hasn't increased, the amount of people has because of the s**tty economy and you can't blame obama after two years, and you can't completely blame bush either
whiteravenFeb 10, 2012
More people are using it... that means it's expanded.
whiteravenFeb 10, 2012
They funneled $20 billion from Obama's stimulus program into SNAP.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106307995
davidhetrickFeb 10, 2012
no, it being expanded would mean that the limits of the program have been shifted to the more benefit category. if you mean the expenditure on the program has increased, i'll give it to you but you seemed to mean that he make the program give more out per person than just more people. there are more people using it, more people using it does not mean that obama expanded the program. there are just record breaking amount of people getting benefits, and it has been going on for almost 4 years.
i heard a statement i like, if obama is the food stamp president, than bush is the terrorist victory president. it is just something that is happening on his watch.
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
So what if the foodstamp program has expanded? Are conservatives so mean-spirited that they want their fellow citizens to starve during a global recession? Funny - we didn't have conservatives getting their panties in a twist about trillion dollar wars. It's almost like conservatives prefer death, suffering, and destruction to... I don't know.... helping others out.... like you would expect from... errrr..... good christians.
whiteravenFeb 10, 2012
Wars are the responsibility of the government.
Food is not.
The difference is important. Governments are meant to protect us from being harmed by others and to build those things that are impossible to build without the scope and authority government has. It is NOT their purpose to sustain us or care for us or "help" us.
Stop confusing government with society. Helping others is something people should choose to do on their own... OR NOT. That is called free will.
Confiscating the wealth of others is not remotely "christian"... not that that matters to me since I'm atheist.
You ask "so what"? In a very typical manner, you fail to pay any kind of notice to the actual argument made by conservatives. Aside from the fact that it's simply unconstitutional, the food stamp program establishes *dependency*. The more people that are dependent on government for there daily sustenance, the fewer there are contributing to society.
delphium226Feb 14, 2012
Yep.... hand waving excuses for being a greedy bastard. As long as you're ok, f**k the rest. If someone loses their job, you blame and vilify them as being 'lazy' and being 'entitled' and 'dependent' when they claim on social programs.
Unfortunately this is a rather short-sighted and destructive POV - having a large percentage of your population plunged into poverty is not conducive to the long term economic success of a nation. Sometimes, in life, extra-ordinary measures have to be taken, with companies, and people, to bring them back to economic productivity rather than write them off.
It all comes down to taxes for conservatives, you've never had it so good with taxes, they were higher than under previous conservative presidents. But when a liberal gets the presidency, suddenly taxes are way too high and you're screaming about how unreasonable it is to pull together in tough times.
whiteravenFeb 15, 2012
It all comes down to FREEDOM for conservatives. But You can't vilify that so by all means, continue to ignore it.
Who exactly is doing the "hand waving"? The constitution FORBIDS things like Social Security and Medicare and HUD and dozens of other crap the federal government decided to do just because no one stopped them.
davidnivenFeb 9, 2012
Well, it's true that far more people have been put in food stamps during Obama's presidency than Reagan or Bush.
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012
Sure is messed up that Bush f**ked everything up and put those people on those food stamps, huh David?
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
sure is messed up that obama hasnt done anything to fix the problem and is continueing down the s**tty road bush paved huh dj?
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012
Yup (at least in some ways) *incoming*
ganjadude4391Feb 9, 2012
exactly, negating on promises made to us, record spending, ignoring the will of the people, he is no better than bush, and in many ways much worse
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012
I wouldn't go that far. I feel like he hasn't really gotten the chance to exact his vision due to Republican obstructionism, but he has caved and failed in some areas he didn't have to soo.....yeah. Better than Bush, but by no means perfect
concusionFeb 11, 2012
I feel bad for anyone you live with. You probably s**t your pants throw it on the ground then blame whoever you are with that they didn't clean up your diarrhea mess quick enough.
ganjadude4391Feb 11, 2012
no actually i take responsibility for my actions, unlike those who like to blame everyone else for their s**tty life when its their own actions that cause it sounds more like obama, still blaming bush for his mistakes, its been over 3 years, its his economy, stop blaming bush
concusionFeb 11, 2012
thats funny, cause everywhere I look around here you are blaming Obama. Take your own advice.
ganjadude4391Feb 11, 2012
yeah, he is the current president, look at my history you will see me blaming bush when he was president, I said i take responsibility for MY own actions.... Not sure where me blaming obama for his bad policy has anything to do with my actions....
autokadFeb 9, 2012
bush inherited his recession as did obama.
stevanoskiFeb 9, 2012
Exactly, and no progressive will admit it, but nine eleven could have easily turned into a financial disaster but Bush prevented it with his policies.
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
Lol.
concusionFeb 11, 2012
thanks for this tidbit of alternate history, nostradumbass.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 9, 2012
Exactly. So, we need to stop trying to show (once again) how one President or another destroyed us all. This has been long in the making and both party's hands are dirty.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
you mean the subprimes that Bush tried to reign in
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
"You see, what we want is for everybody in America to own their own home." W Oct 2002
Argue this source as biased - http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html
pc25Feb 9, 2012
he also tried to curtail the abuse of the subprimes
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).
2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).
becomes clear that the institutions are failing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).
“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).
“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).
July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as itComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theghoulFeb 9, 2012
Yeah, what happened to the economy between Clinton and Obama?
/s
JustSayNoPartyFeb 9, 2012
Are you inferring causation? Do you often look at things so simplisticly?
davidnivenFeb 9, 2012
Just using the same level of causality that the author of the article used.
grannysrightFeb 9, 2012
Obama is the food stamp President. The fact that the left makes that racial, is their problem not Gingrich. Their are more people than ever on food stamps right now and as long as Obama keeps making it impossible for people to get jobs there will continue to be way too many on food stamps.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
White people comprise the greatest percent of those on assistance programs. It's the left who makes it racial with their blabbering idiocy of racial code words. There is a liberal sucker born every minute.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grannysrightFeb 9, 2012
Yes there is and you are correct.
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
So GW Bush & his father cared more about the poor than the Democrats. Cool. I guess the Democrats were too busy making back office corporate deals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroFeb 9, 2012
ummmm....no. Nice try though.
crymtyphonFeb 9, 2012
Darn right, DiggPigg.
We democrats are in this game for the money!
That's why we oppose child labor laws, regulating air, water
and food quality, or policing the financial market.
We want the money! And that means letting American elections
be guided by the wind of market forces and a wise consituency of corporations.
Heck, whenever I see a Republican weeping on the house floor for
the sorrows of the poor?
- I go to his desk and swipe his pens.
miklkitFeb 9, 2012
LOL. :0)
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
So why did GW Bush give more to the poor and not brag about it? Is it a vast right-wing conspiracy? Racism? Watergate? Corporate greed? Global Warming denial?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012
Nope, they only call out the program as wasteful and unnecessary when it is politically beneficial (or in season with the electorate)
crymtyphonFeb 9, 2012
Why, yes!
In 2003 we Bilderbergs met for a rumble with the Illuminati;
the winners would get to decide the 2008 election
and next year's skirt length.
We won; the illuminati had to surrender Australia
and detail our cars. Racism, Watergate, corporate
greed and global warming would continue another year.
But as for Bush?
- he gave a higher percentage of his extra wealth because he
was feeling more generous than was Mr. Obama that year.
Why do you ask?
Did you think that could pass for an argument,
that the policies of the Democratic Party were
based on getting money?
Or that the Republican corporate policies were to be ignored
because a rich man tossed gold coins to the crowd?
You are wise to babble about conspiracies.
They are the only chance you have, to disguise the truth.
srastewartFeb 9, 2012
This post made my day. Thank you. :-)
assassyn360Feb 9, 2012
*Lmao in a public library while everyone looks at me all weird n s**t.*
That is what your comment caused.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
they are just used to you looking at porn at the libary
crymtyphonFeb 9, 2012
It's Bluto!
Or some thing equally hostile.
Conservatives are charitable people, bluto.
Not in their politics; but in their personal lives.
But what moves someone who who goes about
sharing the excrement of their personal failings
with the internet?
Is it political? Spiritual? Psychological?
Is it compensation for the bathroom mirror's morning rebuke?
Whatever it is, it's really really dull.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
what do you have against porn or libraries now?
crymtyphonFeb 9, 2012
Pornography leads to desire, bluto.
And desire leads to hope; and hope leads
to politics and the personal pleasure of Change.
And libraries are a socialist idea of Ben Franklin.
The government takes the hard-earned money
of job-producers and spends it on a warm place
for loafers and liberals to gather and peruse Marx
and Harry Potter.
That was fun!
Nonsense just seems to sound better
when it has a conservative accent.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
"Nonsense just seems to sound better
when it has a conservative accent."
maybe.... and i will just have to concede that.
but Retardation sounds downright awesome when flavored with a "progressive" twangComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonFeb 9, 2012
Why should you 'have' to conceed that?
You are unfettered by morals,
the desire to make sense or any ambition to be honest.
Is someone making you?
Are they there now?
All this time, have you been forced by crazed
strangers to repeatedly smash the face of your
dignity upon the keyboard?
Sad; but explains lots.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Nice to see a little honesty, :-p
Closed AccountFeb 10, 2012
OH snap? Are the ultra lefites stuck in the late 80s?
delphium226Feb 10, 2012
F-. Weak. Digg Parrots must try harder.
concusionFeb 11, 2012
and we wonder why there are no right wing comics
fitzal77Feb 10, 2012
It's a pun. Try to keep up.
KapsiotFeb 9, 2012
Obama is the food stamp president!
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012
It's not like "there's no place like home." You can't just repeat it til it's true.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 9, 2012
Kapsiot generally throws in 'quick comments' requiring little or no thought. You'll note they Always attack Liberals and the President and rarely contain objective analysis.
DiggPiggletFeb 10, 2012
What is your objective analysis?
treehugger87Feb 9, 2012
Of course he is. I mean, look at the "facts" (as presented by the right wing): Black people are lazy, have too many children and are completely dependent on government entitlements not because they are unable to work or because there is a shortage of jobs, but because they LIKE it that way. Add to that "fact" Democrats support these programs ONLY because they want black to people to vote for them and Obama gets the double whammy: he's not only half black, but he's ALSO a Democrat. Of COURSE he's the food stamp President.
/s
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
you read your own post to much...
it is causing you to rot
pc25Feb 9, 2012
is it humanly possible to include anymore histrionic. emotional hyperbole.
bluto36Feb 9, 2012
i dont know but if you did
you might turn into the lucky charms leprechaun except for feminine napkins