The Real Facts about Food Stamps… and More

Somerset : NJ : USA | Feb 06, 2012 at 6:39 AM PST

By James A. Hamilton

XX XX

Views: Pending

Despite Republican presidential aspirant Newton Leroy Gingrich’s often-repeated, “dog-whistle” seeming campaign claims, more American families were added to the food stamp program under the George W. Bush presidency than under President Barack Obama, so far. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program, maintains monthly data on participation and shows that 14.7 million new participants were enrolled during the 8 years of the Bush presidency, and thus far, 14.2 added in the three years of President Obama’s tenure.

That’s a difference of only 444,574, however just as the loss of U.S. jobs grew progressively worse in the last 11 months under the Bush administration, food stamp participation correspondingly increased and continued right into the Obama presidency as the new administration gained its legs. More Americans are using the program now than ever before, but in recent months there has been a decline in the number of participants as the jobs outlook has improved.

Participation in the program is still at an all-time high, but Republican politicians and their surrogate supporters continually mince words in apparent attempts to mislead, or in campaign mode simply smear the Obama administration, even in the face of an improving economy that they haven’t aided in the slightest—except for their Congressional members’ bumbling performance since last summer, and their presidential candidates’ nomination campaigns that continue to resemble a traveling clown show.

Another fact sometimes lost to public perception and Newt Gingrich’s purposefully-worded sound-bytes, is that there have always been more majority group recipients of any form of government “welfare” when compared to any specific minority group. Additionally, over 40 percent of all recipients are “working poor” who go to work regularly, in low-paying jobs that make it difficult to make ends meet. Many of them often hold two or more jobs. The majority of fair-minded Americans regardless of color, culture or class have recognized that the habitual accusers of “class warfare” are actually responsible for attempts to cause it, which have helped the President’s favorability rating to increase in polls while those of his leading detractors decrease.

Lest we all forget, the Great Recession was already well underway; spiraling downward to hit hardest at the beginning of the Obama administration—and it was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. We should also remember the steady trek of state governors and city mayors to DC during the early Obama incumbency, requesting aid from the federal government that actually came in part from the stimulus programs that are so often criticized for adding to the national debt, but without which conditions would have undoubtedly become much worse, which opponents refuse to acknowledge. The irony, or hypocrisy, isn’t lost to many people’s memories that some of those same critics were among those trekking their way to DC seeking aid for their constituents.

The USDA’s Office of Research and Analysis’s study of trends of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), the official appellation of the food stamp program, found that it was the states’ and cities’ outreach efforts to distressed families that spurred additional enrollment in SNAP from 2002-2009. It should be noted that only slightly more than 50 percent of those who were eligible for the program actually participated in 2002, rising to more than 70 percent by 2009. An increase in the benefit amount’s dollar value also contributed heavily to the enrollment spurt, along with streamlined enrollment processes in the states, plus the elimination of actual stamps and their replacement with debit cards. However, as referenced previously herein, as the economy has improved in recent months, the number of SNAP participants has actually been declining.

Sources and resources: MSNBC, Fox News, CNN,

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/Trends2002-09.pdf

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_020412.html

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/economic-stimulus-package.html

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0903.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-18/fact-check-gingrich-obama-food-stamps/52645882/1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/number-of-americans-on-snap_n_1074344.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/447-million-americans-now-food-stamps-more-any-time-under-bush

1 of 2

Newt Gingrich's often used, purposefully worded sound bytes ignore the facts that the majority of SNAP participants are not ethnic minorities and more than 40% of them work regularly, holding one or more low-paying jobs.

James A. Hamilton is based in Somerset, New Jersey, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.

Report Credibility

Credibility
Reach

READ MORE: food stamps, snap, Gingrich, Obama, USDA, democrats, states, Stimulus, Republican, Jobs

More News From: Somerset : NJ : USA

Post a Comment Comments: 15

Posted By

Dava Castillo | over 1 year ago

Great reporting jimiham!

Food stamps are part of the safety net programs and, as you have shown, help the under-paid, unemployed and their children.

I saw a headline the other day that read: The Have nots, and have lots. I think that captures the inequality precisely. : (

Posted By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

Thank you, Dava. Distortions of facts by those who deem themselves clever is loathsome. It helps a to set the record straight a little bit.

Posted By

irvincohen | over 1 year ago

Dear jimiham,

I know as a “stoopid” conservative with a BA in the Classics, you know them thar ded lan-kwah-chehs, Latin and Greek, with French as my academic language, from the University of Southern California; with a semester abroad at Rome (in a Stanford University overseas program); and a semester in Paris at the (La) Sorbonne, L’Université de Paris - I recognize the fact that eyes jess two stoopid to question or criticize your article and its faulty numbers and even faultier conclusions.

But please bear with me and permit me to perpetrate a little Junior High School algebra herein.

It’s called “ratio, proportion and percentage.”

Your article reads “...14.7 million new participants were enrolled during the 8 years of the Bush presidency...”

Well, let's divide that number 14.7 by eight years. Which is roughly 1.8 million per year.

Now let's do the same with President Obama’s administration; which is 14.2 million in the past three years. Which gives us an annual, average rate of 4.7 million of additional food stamp recipients.

Now as a percentage that’s roughly 260 % greater per year than President Bush’s administration.

Numbers do not lie (only liars, spinners and deceivers do). President Obama has almost tripled the rate of growth of Americans on food stamp assistance in just three years of his presidency. As a ratio and trend that would mean at the end of eight years of an Obama administration, food stamps would increase another 23 million to a total aggregate of roughly seventy million or more. Which would mean that he would have roughly doubled and tripled food stamp usage in America. Again that’s that 260 percent increase.

Now I understand that there are many other factors which affect this calculus; nevertheless, your numbers and your interpretation of them, just do not justify your conclusions.

So I now must ask you who is “...minc(ing) words in...attempts to mislead...?”

Or, in the immortal words of Mark Twain (of which I must paraphrase here cause I can’t quote anyone to save my life): There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

While I’m at it, might as well throw in jerry-rigged, jimmied and plugged-in numbers too.

Irv,

Reply By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

Thank you, Mr. Cohen for reading and commenting. I presented the facts rather than attempt to hide or ignore data in the “numbers that don’ lie”; however neither do the numbers provide perspetive as to factors that caused the increase in participation, particularly the need of so many in this country who were/are in distress, which didn’t start for them on 01/20/2009, but the data fits a window from 2002-2009, which reasonably suggests it was still under influences begun under the Bush Administration.

Factors behind the numbers with promotion of SNAP by all levels of govt. that included advertising, appeals by not-for-profit organizations comprising the “safety net”; so I added a pespective that many readers would remember on their own. Even if “numbers don’t lie”, they have already been spun by others to fit their purposes. I believe my conclusions are well-supported in the report by the presentation of facts and factors that refute some politicians’, particularly Newt, whose carefully worded distortions of the facts truly fit the closing lines of your comment.

The great Samuel Clemens, whom you referenced, realized statistics rarely tell the whole story and my intent was to strip away the distortions. Readers can come to other conclusions, pro or con, on their own by anaylis and synthesis of the data and facts in conjuntion with their own life experiences.

Your analysis of the “numbers” are rational for any major and place of study, but the facts still remain that more Americans were added to SNAP under Bush than Obama, thus far.

Posted By

irvincohen | over 1 year ago

Dear Jimiham,

Nice try.

But the facts as posed by you, and the reasoning as proffered for them still do not justify the main thesis here that president Bush's numbers are higher as an absolute aggregate.

Of course they are higher as you selectively portray them, but by a very small percentage. But again that belies the fact that under President Obama the average per year is 4.7 million compared to President Bush’s 1.8 million. Now in absolute mathematical terms President Obama has seen an increase in food stamp usage of circa 260 percent. Which again, is almost triple Bush’s numbers.

Now I really don’t want to get into a pissing war with you and get bogged down in these intellectually dishonest weeds with their many meaningless pebbles and maddening and annoying subatomic particles of minutiae, and highly suspect, manipulated numbers.

However, truth is universal as in two plus two equals four for everyone in this universe of ours, except of course, save for liberals. And only God knows how you all come up with your calculations and conclusions - and I have my own suspicions and doubts whether even God could possibly solve that infinite mystery - for you see even God is also baffled by your epistemology, at how you come up with what you come up with.

My central theme still remains that your assertion that President Obama’s numbers are less than President Bush’s and therefore are better, is just fundamentally and essentially, intellectually and philosophically dishonest and corrupt.

And all the rest of the spin of the article, in true apologist fashion (á là the Stalinists); is utterly irrelevant (such as SNAP), and the stuff of petty sniping and typical Bush-bashing. Which is typical of the usual liberal-leftist, irrational epistemology: create a straw man, then proceed from there, whether it be to destroy the former straw by straw, or build it up, again straw by straw. Or just to avoid the original issue entirely; or to obscure it beyond recognition and comprehension (i.e., through “obscurantism”).

Enough koprotaurology for now.

Irv,

Reply By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

Mr. Cohen,

Nice try? Pissing war? Minutiae? Bush-bashing? Stalinist? bs?

Please.

Your central theme in trying to read my mind to divine what my central theme actually was, is woefully mistaken, assumptive and false. Bush’s record speaks for itself and has been bashed as much by his own party and supporters, or lately treated in true Stalinist fashion, not referenced at all as if it never existed, for obvious reasons.

Real Facts referenced in the article (not including the numbers that you’ve parsed):

1) American citizens were distressed and hurting
2) almost half of eligible participants work;
3) the rate of participation was already rising before Bush left office
4) the trend of rising participation continued into the Obama administration
5) state and local government/elected officials from both political parties requested aid and
6) contributed to advertising and eligibility campaigns to highlight the program to increase participation for those meeting eligibility requirements
7) slightly more than 50% of those eligible in 2002 participated
8) by 2009 participation of those eligible was above 70%
9) participation reached an all-time high under Bush
10) participation continued to increase under Obama
11) though detailed data isn’t available, participation has reportedly dropped in the last few month as new jobs have been added to the economy

I actually manipulated no numbers at all, you did. I simply reported numbers, their sources, along with real facts and factors behind their increase. It appears you don’t want to recognize what are historical facts of the past decade. Many who haughtily call themselves conservative try to ignore those facts and resort to labelling and deriding others who disagree with their trite viewpoints. The original issue was avoided when Gingrich put up the real straw man for some taking sides to flail to pieces, as he has usually been wont to do throughout his public history. He knew that the original issue (and facts) was that people, American citizens, were left hurting and that all levels of government and of both political parties recommended action to ease their suffering. You apparently missed this.

I trust that God actually would understand. precisely how I came up with my epistomology, as it is grounded in what you apparently ignore: that “numbers” and their analysis or manipulation to determine rate per year, etc., are no more fitting the definition of “facts” than my real central proffered theme: the condition of people, American citizens, in need; the numbers are secondary in importance and in my argument. The second part of my proffered theme was depiction of a presidential candidate who was very much aware of the same data that I referenced when it was put together and made available. I contend that I avoided the minutiae to deal with people in need as more important than delving into them as you did, dredging up your own assumptions and predilictions to combine with them.

Posted By

atifji75 | over 1 year ago

Well Written Report. Thanks for Sharing. Rated Up.

Posted By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

Thanks. Your reading and commenting is appreciated.

Posted By

irvincohen | over 1 year ago

Dear jimiham,

Sorry that I haven’t responded to your rather lengthy and tedious rebuttal, but I have been rather sick for the past week. (I know that is in the same league as “the dog ate my homework” - nevertheless I seek your indulgence on this one.)

It never fails to amaze me how you thoroughly uncritical, purblind Obama-zombie-ite, intellectual and philosophic true-believer, fanatical supporters; continue to belabor the same old talking points and spin over and over, and oh yes, over again.

And also, of how you, in typical knee-jerk fashion, appear to be so fanatically compelled to defend the indefensible, and to justify the unjustifiable, and to support the intellectually unsupportable.

I just recently read your rebuttal assiduously and I am sorry to say, nothing whatsoever appears to have changed in your positions. All I saw was the same old, same old - only this time piled higher and deeper.

Again, all I read and saw were the same old tired and hackneyed talking points and spin; couched in the same old manipulated numbers and in the same old fallacious and highly dubious true-believer reasoning and argumentation: Namely, if one repeats a lie or a distortion or a piece of disinformation or misinformation enough times, no matter how bold faced or subtle it might be - then it will gain its own momentum of believability and credibility, and ultimately will be believed by most people.

Which by the way is the typical modus operandi and tool of true-believer, totalitarian, fanatical, apologist adherents, supporters with their rather clever, sophistic propagandists and unethical spinmeisters.

And then there is an even more dubious and nefarious form of argumentation which I maintain you clearly demonstrated in your rebuttal. The central theme of this type of argumentation is that if one simply swamps and overwhelms one’s opponent with rather moot and debatable at best, and at worst, rather dubious and contrived, factoids, numbers and premises - one will simply win by default. This is called the fallacy of “obscurantism.”

This is clearly not the stuff of true debate. In fact it is clearly a tool of those who clearly desire to deceive, distort and obscure, and also to disinform and misinform. Or as the great Scottish historical novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott once opined:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave; when first we practice to deceive.”

With an additional conclusion derived thereof: My guy is right, as in absolutely always; and your guy is wrong, also as in absolutely always. End of argument, end of debate. Which unfortunately is an absolute indication of an absolutely intolerant and closed mind.

My last question for you sir: Are you ever critical or dubious or skeptical of the liberal-progressive leftist line, or of our most esteemed, most exalted leader, President Barack Obama? Or are you just simply another typical, liberal-leftist, uncritical, mindless true-believer apologist, lemming, clapping and honking, trained seal?

Irv,

Posted By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

Mr. Cohen,

You are entitled your own opinion just as other people, and on this platform to rant to your heart's content. Your attempts to malign and accuse, as if you truly knew what was or is in my mind or anyone else's speaks for itself and allows other readers to interpret for themselves. I stand on what I wrote and said, despite your excuses in now issuing a delayed response. I resent your characterizations in utilizing the same old tired right-wing talking points in your attempts to disparage, but that is my right and it will cause me no any ill effects coming from someone such as you who appears to be the very labels you attempt to affix upon someone else. (Talking about a trained seal…)

Posted By

irvincohen | over 1 year ago

Correction:

6th paragraph "Which by the way…with their…" Please supply "legions of" - followed by "…rather clever…"
So that it should read "…with their LEGIONS OF rather clever…"

My bad.

Irv,

Posted By

irvincohen | over 1 year ago

Dear jimiham,

I must confess that I both jumped to perhaps some unreasonable conclusions and judgements and certainly employed some rather insensitive language. My bad.

But it also appears to me that you give back some “rant” and rage of your own. In fact, in psychobabbler lingo it’s called Freudian or psychological projection.

Now you may question my excuse (not “excuses”) "in issuing a delayed response” - but I actually was incapacitated and in great pain for over a week. And I still need to see my worthless doctors at the worthless VA Clinic tout de suite.

But I truly do not wish to go through a long litany of my many diseases and ailments, all of which essentially deal with wounds I received in combat in Vietnam and especially with my exposure to agent orange. Now, I am not attempting to shame you or make you feel guilty, rather as you yourself stated, if it is a matter of opinion, I certainly agree you are entitled to anything you want to believe.

Moreover, I must confess that yes, I may have made some rather insensitive judgments much too freely; but I also maintain that I judge you by your own words and arguments and not by my so-called “right-wing” biases. Believe it or not, I always seek to keep an open mind as best as I can.

In fact, I enter every issue, every argument, every debate, with the seemingly risible ideal in this day and age; that every issue, etc., possesses at least two sides to it. And unfortunately, the more complex and sophisticated the issue, the more sides to it.

I also enter every debate and argument, not to be won over by the most persuasive argument; but rather, to be won over by that which achieves ultimate truth, and if not the former, at least a modicum of wisdom.

So I must agree to be as disagreeable as you - yet I still must at least attempt to keep an open mind - if that is humanly possible, even for me.

So I bid you a not-so fond adieu with these last two quotes:

“Oh, East is East, and West is West,
and never the twain shall meet.” Rudyard Kipling.

“Both read the Bible day and night,
but thou read’st black where I read white.” William Blake.

Irv,

Posted By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

You have my sincere sympathies regarding agent orange exposure. I have had a few friends succomb to its varied effects over the years, particularly the batches contaminated with dioxin.

Posted By

northsunm32 | over 1 year ago

Whether more people entered the food stamp program during the Bush or Obama administration obviously depends upon whether you mean overall or per year--or whatever. It seems irrelevant. Obama came into power during a recession so it would not be surprising if measured on a specific duration time period basis more came into the program when he came to power. It seems a good program to help out the poor so when times are bad and more enroll that is surely a good thing!

Reply By

James A. Hamilton | over 1 year ago

Thanks for commenting. The "facts" I was concerned with were not the numerical, it was the people and their condition, as well as the GOP candidates' code-word messaging. The numbers were and still are irrelevent.

Images

Newton Leroy Gingrich

Newton Leroy Gingrich

Image Source: allvoices

Newt Gingrich's often used, purposefully worded sound bytes ignore the ...
B. Obama 12

B. Obama 12

Image Source: allvoices

Actual USDA data shows that more Americans were added to SNAP (food stamp) ...