Food Stamps up 39% since Obama took OfficeFollow

Except that the last bit isn't an accurate representation of what's going on. The growth of public aid has slowed, not the total amount of it. You would expect to see public aid increase when the economic problems are getting worse, level out when they are leveling out, and then decrease when the economy is recovering.

If job growth was really picking up, we should be seeing those public aid numbers decreasing, not just increasing at a slower pace. You're using an incredibly unrealistic yardstick to measure this.





We'd find out if your party wasn't blocking it, right? Isn't that the issue? The Dems had two years during which they could pass pretty much any bill they wanted. And yet, during those two years, they didn't make the economy "better". They didn't even make it "the same". It's just now back to getting worse at about the same rate that it was getting worse in the first year of the economic downturn. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the Dems decision making.

It's not even just that we're a long way from "full recovery", but that we really haven't even started to recover yet. And that's pretty bad after this much time.

Well, ecxcept for the fact that the GOP attempts to filibuster any and every bill the Dems try to pass, yeah.

Edited, Jun 1st 2011 8:50pm by Technogeek

They passed a hell of a lot of bills though, didn't they? I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the ones they did and ask if they have made things "better". The GOP had far less of a majority in congress, yet that never stopped the left from blaming them for everything they passed (or failed to pass). Why should this be different?

Yeah, that's just not true.

It is true if your definition of "recovery" means "headed in the correct direction" and not just "moving in the wrong direction more slowly". You do understand that the total number of people receiving food stamps is still increasing, right? The only improvement is that the rate at which it is increasing isn't as high as it was last year.


That isn't a sign of recovery. It's a sign that we're not falling as fast. Recovery is still a ways off. We'll know we're actually recovering in terms of employment effects when the total number of food stamp recipients begins to decrease. That hasn't happened yet. So my statement is very much true.

If only there was a more direct way to monitor that sort of thing.

By the way, how do you change "200,000+ jobs added each month the last 3 months" into "not falling as fast"? We can fall up?

Edited, Jun 1st 2011 9:16pm by bsphil

Yeah! They sure showed Click and Clack!

Edited, Jun 1st 2011 9:37pm by bsphil

So economic health is based solely on food stamps, is it?

That almost holds water, except that it should read "but the republican congress did just the same thing by bowing to pressure from the democrats to scrap plans to reform fannie & freddie."

Certainly no reason to vote for moderate Republicans.

Frist and Hastert controlled all the votes now? Who knew?

Anyone who can think a little higher than high school civics should also know that if a leader knows he doesn't have the "moderate" members of his party in line behind an agenda, setting it won't do a hell of a lot of good. You see, controlling your caucus is sort of important.

The votes didn't happen because McCain and his wing of the party were more interested in being liked than being effective.