It's becoming part of the stump speech now. "President Obama has put more people on food stamps than any President in history" or something to that effect.

 

Isn' this a bit misleading? Isn't Speaker Gingrich culpable in the number of people now collecting food stamps?

 

I heard an interview this morning that made me go to my Google machine to get more info.

 

Summary:

 

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program started in 1935. It gave money to poor families who had children. Ideally, that money was then used to buy food.

 

In 1996 when Mr Gingrich was Speaker a new act called Temporary Aid Need Families was passed. It placed a limit on the number of years you could receive cash, required one to get job within two years to continue with the assistance, and reduced the number of people that were eligible for food stamps.

 

This is still in place today.

 

So, under his leadership a rule was passed that by design reduced the cash welfare payments. So, with less cash from welfare payments how did you go about getting food ? Food stamps.

 

Unless the Speaker feels that the govt should not offer food stamps to anyone who needs food then isn't it his reform that forces more people to use food stamps than prior to 1996?

 

He fancies himself as a historian. I have doubt he knows history. That tells me he's trying to play us and play to our lack of knowledge.

 

Disingenuous.

Before BB or Cammando start railing against welfare let me say this thread is not debating the use of welfare dollars, problems with the system, who qualifies, should they qualify, do we need it, etc.

 

This thread is strictly aimed at a candidate's claim and IMO full well knowing it's a lie because he helped foster the situation.

Everything that comes out of Newt's mouth, including his "numerous witnesses" line regarding his ex-wife's claims, is a lie.

He may have helped foster the situation, but his original claim is still true for Obama. Didn't Clinton & GWB both have to work under the same laws?

It's becoming part of the stump speech now. "President Obama has put more people on food stamps than any President in history" or something to that effect.

 

Isn' this a bit misleading? Isn't Speaker Gingrich culpable in the number of people now collecting food stamps?

 

I heard an interview this morning that made me go to my Google machine to get more info.

 

Summary:

 

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program started in 1935. It gave money to poor families who had children. Ideally, that money was then used to buy food.

 

In 1996 when Mr Gingrich was Speaker a new act called Temporary Aid Need Families was passed. It placed a limit on the number of years you could receive cash, required one to get job within two years to continue with the assistance, and reduced the number of people that were eligible for food stamps.

 

This is still in place today.

 

So, under his leadership a rule was passed that by design reduced the cash welfare payments. So, with less cash from welfare payments how did you go about getting food ? Food stamps.

 

Unless the Speaker feels that the govt should not offer food stamps to anyone who needs food then isn't it his reform that forces more people to use food stamps than prior to 1996?

 

He fancies himself as a historian. I have doubt he knows history. That tells me he's trying to play us and play to our lack of knowledge.

 

Disingenuous.

A misleading statement from a politician. Must be a first.

It's becoming part of the stump speech now. "President Obama has put more people on food stamps than any President in history" or something to that effect.

 

Isn' this a bit misleading? Isn't Speaker Gingrich culpable in the number of people now collecting food stamps?

 

I heard an interview this morning that made me go to my Google machine to get more info.

 

Summary:

 

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program started in 1935. It gave money to poor families who had children. Ideally, that money was then used to buy food.

 

In 1996 when Mr Gingrich was Speaker a new act called Temporary Aid Need Families was passed. It placed a limit on the number of years you could receive cash, required one to get job within two years to continue with the assistance, and reduced the number of people that were eligible for food stamps.

 

This is still in place today.

 

So, under his leadership a rule was passed that by design reduced the cash welfare payments. So, with less cash from welfare payments how did you go about getting food ? Food stamps.

 

Unless the Speaker feels that the govt should not offer food stamps to anyone who needs food then isn't it his reform that forces more people to use food stamps than prior to 1996?

 

He fancies himself as a historian. I have doubt he knows history. That tells me he's trying to play us and play to our lack of knowledge.

 

Disingenuous.

 

So you are arguing we should just let them receive welfare indefinitely if they don't try and find a job/get a job?

A misleading statement from a politician. Must be a first.

 

Obviously, he's not breaking ground here.

 

It's current though and it's worse since he helped craft the bill.

So you are arguing we should just let them receive welfare indefinitely if they don't try and find a job/get a job?

 

No. Read it again.

He may have helped foster the situation, but his original claim is still true for Obama. Didn't Clinton & GWB both have to work under the same laws?

 

It is true?

Why isn't it?

Why isn't it?

 

Mr Gingrich claimed it's true. You claimed it's true. I'm asking you if it really is. I've read it's not true.

 

With that said, it's immaterial.

I had seen that it is, so that's disputable.

 

However, there's no way it's immaterial when other Presidents have had to deal with the same situation.

Where President Obama did add to the number of people accessing food stamps is through one of his stimulus bills.

I had seen that it is, so that's disputable.

 

However, there's no way it's immaterial when other Presidents have had to deal with the same situation.

 

So it's disputable.

 

It's immaterial to THIS THREAD since the point of the thread is the rules changed as a result of Speaker Gingrich and colleagues.

 

It's like saying Player A is a better 3 point shooter ignoring that he has a shorter distance to shoot from than Player B does.

USA Today article I'm reading says that there are more people on food stamps now than ever before. But it also says that GWB added more people to food stamps on his watch. Of course, that's over an eight-year period.