There are a lot of things he could say to attach the down economy to the president. Food stamps seem a bit random. But, this is part of a larger body of rhetoric from Gingrich and other conservatives that argues Obama actually wants more people to become dependent on the government, and is thus actively trying to increase the number of people on food stamps, so he and his ilk can turn the US into some kind of fantasy socialist state. So, this is much less about the actual policy of food stamps than it is about subtly painting Obama as some sort of sinister mastermind who will usurp the US out from under the people.

 

As is no surprise, and I’m sure many will disagree vehemently, I’m also wont to point out what I perceive to be racial issues. I think this is applicable here too. There’s a long-standing belief among many conservatives that the reason blacks overwhelming support the Democratic party is because they are accustomed to handouts and want more of them. I could no doubt turn up evidence of this by searching through this forum or from Gingrich’s own rhetoric – he boasts that he will walk into the inner-cities and tell them how to get jobs. I therefore find little coincidence between Gingrich’s choice of label and this type of rhetoric on race and Obama. I think the “facts” of which president added more to food stamps or how need rises during recessions/depressions are irrelevant here. I think the bigger point is that he’s actually talking about these beliefs I just mentioned.

There are a lot of things he could say to attach the down economy to the president. Food stamps seem a bit random. But, this is part of a larger body of rhetoric from Gingrich and other conservatives that argues Obama actually wants more people to become dependent on the government, and is thus actively trying to increase the number of people on food stamps, so he and his ilk can turn the US into some kind of fantasy socialist state. So, this is much less about the actual policy of food stamps than it is about subtly painting Obama as some sort of sinister mastermind who will usurp the US out from under the people.

 

As is no surprise, and I’m sure many will disagree vehemently, I’m also wont to point out what I perceive to be racial issues. I think this is applicable here too. There’s a long-standing belief among many conservatives that the reason blacks overwhelming support the Democratic party is because they are accustomed to handouts and want more of them. I could no doubt turn up evidence of this by searching through this forum or from Gingrich’s own rhetoric – he boasts that he will walk into the inner-cities and tell them how to get jobs. I therefore find little coincidence between Gingrich’s choice of label and this type of rhetoric on race and Obama. I think the “facts” of which president added more to food stamps or how need rises during recessions/depressions are irrelevant here. I think the bigger point is that he’s actually talking about these beliefs I just mentioned.

 

I've got to find the article I read the other day about welfare recepients. I think people would be surprised at the real make up of people receiving social aid, and the reasons why.

There are a lot of things he could say to attach the down economy to the president. Food stamps seem a bit random. But, this is part of a larger body of rhetoric from Gingrich and other conservatives that argues Obama actually wants more people to become dependent on the government, and is thus actively trying to increase the number of people on food stamps, so he and his ilk can turn the US into some kind of fantasy socialist state. So, this is much less about the actual policy of food stamps than it is about subtly painting Obama as some sort of sinister mastermind who will usurp the US out from under the people.

 

As is no surprise, and I’m sure many will disagree vehemently, I’m also wont to point out what I perceive to be racial issues. I think this is applicable here too. There’s a long-standing belief among many conservatives that the reason blacks overwhelming support the Democratic party is because they are accustomed to handouts and want more of them. I could no doubt turn up evidence of this by searching through this forum or from Gingrich’s own rhetoric – he boasts that he will walk into the inner-cities and tell them how to get jobs. I therefore find little coincidence between Gingrich’s choice of label and this type of rhetoric on race and Obama. I think the “facts” of which president added more to food stamps or how need rises during recessions/depressions are irrelevant here. I think the bigger point is that he’s actually talking about these beliefs I just mentioned.

 

I'm not sure what Newt's motives are in particular. And perhaps they are exactly what you have laid out. I know I've heard numerous conservative types make these assertions, so that mindset is certainly there.

 

I am not of the opinion that President Obama has some kind of diabolical scheme to turn the United States into a socialistic nation. He has some policies that might lean that way, but not to the extreme that some make it out to be. I just think this current President, along with his predecessor, are/were clueless in economic matters.

[ATTACH]35581[/ATTACH]

 

Okay, here's what I found. If I'm accurately reading those years at the bottom of the chart, it seems to me that from 1996 to 2000 (Clinton's second term) there was a significant drop-off in people receiving food stamps. The legislation Clyde speaks of was enacted in 1996. Then there's a very slight decrease from 2000 to 2001, and then a very steady increase from 2001 to 2006. Then in 2008 it starts to climb rapidly again, until it reaches its current astronomical figure.

 

I feel like this makes my point...refuting the notion that Newt's legislation has helped cause this dramatic increase. Now, he does make a mistake is in saying that Obama has added more people to the food stamp program, because technically he doesn't hold the top spot. He's on pace to do so, but GWB holds that mark by about 450,000. Again though, GWB has two terms vs. Obama's one.

 

I just don't see the correlation between the 1996 legislation & how it caused food stamp needs to increase, because it didn't until 2001. And then the article I linked above also talks about how the Bush administration, at one point, made an effort to broaden eligibility.

 

 

My simplistic answer as to why the increase from 2001 on is the loss of manufacturing in this country. It was during the first decade of 2000 that many, many jobs left these shores (textiles, furniture, etc) and were not replaced at the same rate. This has led to thousands more on this kind of assistance that were not on it before. Not only did their jobs leave, but the type of jobs that these people did are gone. That's where I would start looking for some explanation.

I'm not sure what Newt's motives are in particular. And perhaps they are exactly what you have laid out. I know I've heard numerous conservative types make these assertions, so that mindset is certainly there.

 

I agree. I'm not a mind-reader, but I think it's worth pointing out the correlation I see. People can disagree, but I hope that they will at least consider it, think about it.

My simplistic answer as to why the increase from 2001 on is the loss of manufacturing in this country. It was during the first decade of 2000 that many, many jobs left these shores (textiles, furniture, etc) and were not replaced at the same rate. This has led to thousands more on this kind of assistance that were not on it before. Not only did their jobs leave, but the type of jobs that these people did are gone. That's where I would start looking for some explanation.

 

You may very well be right. What was the reasoning so much production left the country? I didn't really follow that kind of stuff in those days.

 

My overall point is that the cause of this wasn't legislation passed in 1996.

[ATTACH]35581[/ATTACH]

 

Okay, here's what I found. If I'm accurately reading those years at the bottom of the chart, it seems to me that from 1996 to 2000 (Clinton's second term) there was a significant drop-off in people receiving food stamps. The legislation Clyde speaks of was enacted in 1996. Then there's a very slight decrease from 2000 to 2001, and then a very steady increase from 2001 to 2006. Then in 2008 it starts to climb rapidly again, until it reaches its current astronomical figure.

 

I feel like this makes my point...refuting the notion that Newt's legislation has helped cause this dramatic increase. Now, he does make a mistake is in saying that Obama has added more people to the food stamp program, because technically he doesn't hold the top spot. He's on pace to do so, but GWB holds that mark by about 450,000. Again though, GWB has two terms vs. Obama's one.

 

I just don't see the correlation between the 1996 legislation & how it caused food stamp needs to increase, because it didn't until 2001. And then the article I linked above also talks about how the Bush administration, at one point, made an effort to broaden eligibility.

 

Unless the eligibility rules stay the same from 1996 to 2012 you cannot accurately compare. Twice , due to the economy, the rules were relaxed ie more people took advantage. Had they not relaxed those rules the chart would look different between the 96 to 2001/2 range to today. So you combine relaxed rules for the last 10 years with the logical increase due to the 1996 change and you get more people using food stamps.

 

The initial decline in the mid- to late-90s is due to the new act removing many illegals and an economy that was doing fairly well.

 

However, to present that declaration with the intention of making people believe its an apples-to-apples comparison when you helped change the rules is disingenuous.

 

My overall point is that the cause of this wasn't legislation passed in 1996.

 

No claim that this is THE reason has been made.

 

The point that was made is that legislation was passed to take away cash payments which logically says those poor had to go to food stamps to get their food. Many factors can be attributed to each year's participants.

 

Mr. Gingrich knows this yet states it as if every President has had the same laws/rules.

My simplistic answer as to why the increase from 2001 on is the loss of manufacturing in this country. It was during the first decade of 2000 that many, many jobs left these shores (textiles, furniture, etc) and were not replaced at the same rate. This has led to thousands more on this kind of assistance that were not on it before. Not only did their jobs leave, but the type of jobs that these people did are gone. That's where I would start looking for some explanation.

 

US has been losing manufacturing jobs since way before 2001 though.

Unless the eligibility rules stay the same from 1996 to 2012 you cannot accurately compare. Twice , due to the economy, the rules were relaxed ie more people took advantage. Had they not relaxed those rules the chart would look different between the 96 to 2001/2 range to today. So you combine relaxed rules for the last 10 years with the logical increase due to the 1996 change and you get more people using food stamps.

 

The initial decline in the mid- to late-90s is due to the new act removing many illegals and an economy that was doing fairly well.

 

However, to present that declaration with the intention of making people believe its an apples-to-apples comparison when you helped change the rules is disingenuous.

 

It's not a logical increase if it decreased the first five years after the legislation became law.

It's not a logical increase if it decreased the first five years after the legislation became law.

 

Did you miss the "last 10 years" qualifier that was tied to the changes made starting in 2002?

No claim that this is THE reason has been made.

 

The point that was made is that legislation was passed to take away cash payments which logically says those poor had to go to food stamps to get their food. Many factors can be attributed to each year's participants.

 

Mr. Gingrich knows this yet states it as if every President has had the same laws/rules.

 

Of course not every President has had this same laws/rules. But Clinton did. And those poor didn't go get their food stamps for five years.

 

They started to go when the economy tanked in 2001. And they started to go in droves much later when it continued to tank under the Bush/Obama administrations. Which goes to the overall point I think he's trying to make...that the current President cannot handle this economy effectively.

Did you miss the "last 10 years" qualifier that was tied to the changes made starting in 2002?

 

You said to combine it with the 1996 change.

You said to combine it with the 1996 change.

 

Alright.

 

As I stated:

 

The initial decline can be attributed to a. the removal of many illegals over the first few years and b. a good economy. So from 96 to early 2000s would seem like the time it would go down. Agreed?

 

The initial requirements were relaxed twice , 2002 and 2008, under President Bush. I assume those same requirements are still in place today. Taking that AND the economy would seem to indicate more would jump on the wagon.

 

So, we are not comparing apples to apples from the written rules. Mr. Gingrich knows that. Trying to compare either President Bush or President Obama to the previous 40 presidents is, again, disingenuous.

 

Do not get hung up on numbers. Think about it logically. Rules changed. Poor folk that got cash before now have cash reduced and have some of that cash replaced by food stamps. Logic says more food stamps will be used in an "everything stays the same" world.

I get your point. I just disagree with it.

 

In no way do I see how Gingrich is "culpable" as you stated in the first post. If the stiffer requirements enacted in 1996 were relaxed twice (2002 & 2008), that seems to further my argument. If it was an "everything stays the same" world, then yes...more food stamps are going to be needed under those economic conditions. But everything didn't stay the same. I concede that there may have been some effect in 2001-2002 before the laws or rules were loosened.

 

Now, how long did this 2002 relaxing last? Did it at some point revert back to 1996, or did it stay the same until 2008 & they were relaxed even more?