You are not connected. Please login or register

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]


Moderator people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

Newt Gingrich on Monday, January 16th, 2012 in a Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Newt Gingrich says “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history”
Share this story:

During the Jan. 16, 2012, Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich resurrected one of his favorite attack lines against President Barack Obama -- that food stamp usage has peaked under the current president.

Calling Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," Gingrich said that "more people have been put on food stamps under Barack Obama than anyone in American history."

We addressed a similar comment by Gingrich in May 2011 and thought it would be worth an update.

We’ll start by noting that "food stamps" -- which provide qualifying, low-income Americans with vouchers to buy groceries -- have officially been known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, since October 2008, although many people still use the informal name.

It’s possible to interpret Gingrich's statement that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history" as suggesting that Obama is forcing people into the program. In fact, it’s a voluntary program.

In any case, here are the historical data:

For the most recent month with available data -- October 2011 -- roughly 46.2 million people received SNAP benefits. That’s down slightly from September 2011, when 46.3 million people received benefits, but those two months were the highest in history. The trendline shows consistent increases in the numbers of Americans receiving SNAP benefits: 30.8 million in October 2008, 37.7 million in October 2009, and 43.2 million in October 2010.

In addition, the average number of people on SNAP every month hit a record high in 2011 -- 44.7 million. It’s risen every year since 2007.

We also checked to make sure that this wasn’t influenced by population growth, and it wasn’t. Currently, about 14 percent of the population is on food stamps. In 1994, the highest year for SNAP use prior to the recession that began in December 2007, the rate was 10.5 percent.

So Gingrich is correct that food stamp use is at its highest level in both raw numbers and as a percentage of the U.S. population since the program began in 1969.

Case closed? Not quite. Gingrich’s talking point implies that this is Obama’s fault.

Clearly, the rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the most recent recession, which began more than a year before Obama took office. It’s impossible to know how high SNAP usage would have gone had the Republicans, rather than Obama, shaped policy in 2009 and 2010.

On the one hand, SNAP usage has continued to climb almost every month of the Obama presidency despite some signs of an economic recovery. So Gingrich’s charge cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

On the other hand, there is typically a lag time before an upturn in the broader economy begins to show up in decreased SNAP usage. The previous high from 1994, for instance, came following a recession that officially ended in mid 1991 -- and that recession was much milder than the most recent one. This makes it harder to divvy up the blame.

One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under President George W. Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening eligibility. The experts we spoke to agreed that both policies began under Bush but were retained by Obama.

The changes produced consistent increases in the number of average monthly beneficiaries. The number rose in seven out of the eight years of Bush’s presidency -- most of which were years not considered recessionary. All told, the number of recipients rose by a cumulative 63 percent during Bush’s eight-year presidency.

Our ruling

The number of SNAP beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen in most months of the Obama presidency. But Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama is the root cause. Much of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited combined with a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. But Obama has supported those policies. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True


Maybe if you were aware of todays bill signing you would give up on Polifacts, it is like Wiki opinions only , not always accurate.Even better now you don't have to work to get Welfare, great move for hispanics and dead beats, smells of begging votes to me .


Moderator am aware of bill signing.watching news right now.. also politifact is more accurate than faux

another good article

Mitt Romney's 'big lie' on Bain: 6 ways it hurts him
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – 13 hrs ago


Romney caps off a bad week with a big fight over whether he lied about when he actually left Bain Capital. Here's why such a small dispute matters so much

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign was buffeted by news reports on Thursday — most prominently from The Boston Globe — which said that despite Romney's repeated insistence that he left private equity firm Bain Capital in February 1999, he was actually listed in SEC and Massachusetts legal filings as its "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002, pulling in an "executive" salary of at least $100,000 a year. Team Romney points to a report in Fortune, among other sources, to back up its assertion that Romney didn't actively manage Bain's investments after 1999, but even Republicans are getting nervous about Romney's Bain baggage. Why does it matter if Romney was running or just "running" Bain for three years, a decade ago? Here, five ways this new Bain flap could hurt Romney:

1. This makes Romney look dishonest
The big reason this Bain story matters is that it's "one more big lie for Romney," says Martin Longman at Booman Tribune. Either he's "been lying about having no control of Bain's decisions in 1999-2002," or Bain has been lying to regulators and investors. Romney's way of squaring that circle, giving "increasingly tortured explanations of the definition of 'CEO,'" just makes him look "increasingly weaselly," says Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Politically, claiming that "he was only technically CEO and isn't responsible for what happened during his technical CEO-ship" looks like "a Mafia don taking the Fifth."

SEE MORE: Mitt Romney's foreign policy tour: Can he repeat Obama's '08 success?

2. And it ruins his big push to label Obama a liar
"The Romney campaign has truly awful timing," says Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog. Team Obama has been hitting Romney for weeks about Bain and the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, and Romney picked Thursday morning — just as The Boston Globe's "bombshell" about Romney's Bain lies hit the stands — to punch back hard with a TV "ad that effectively (and ironically) accuses the president of being a big liar." It's hard to say if Romney's counterpunch would have landed on a different day, but it certainly didn't when questions about his own truthfulness dominated the political media.

3. The whole Bain selling point takes another hit
The crux of this fight is Romney's repeated insistence that he left Bain in February 1999, and "there's no great mystery" about why, says The Maddow Blog's Benen. He's made his business experience his major selling point, and he "doesn't want to be on the hook for a series of controversial Bain investments, layoffs, and bankruptcies that Bain oversaw after" that point. The problem with Romney's pushback is that "things are reaching the point where the facts don't really matter," says Ginger Gibson at Politico. "The Bain cloud now hanging over the former Massachusetts governor is growing daily, and the Romney campaign still hasn't found a compelling way to respond."

SEE MORE: The ObamaCare ruling: Is Mitt Romney caught in a tax trap?

4. Lying to the SEC could be a federal felony has generally taken Romney's side in this fight, says David Edwards at The Raw Story, but in defending Romney's contention that he can't be held responsible for post-1999 Bain-linked bankruptcies and outsourcing, the fact-checkers "may have accidentally revealed that the GOP candidate committed a 'federal felony.'" It would amount to perjury if Romney had wrongly certified on "federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999," said July 2. Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer and Romney adviser Matt McDonald offered, unsurprisingly, opposing views Thursday on whether Romney might be in legal trouble.

5. It can also open Romney up to lawsuits
Whether or not Romney could be charged with a federal felony, he might have opened himself up to legal action from Bain investors, former SEC Commissioner Roberta Karmel tells The Boston Globe. Bain told the SEC that Romney was CEO and sole shareholder, so "are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?" It wouldn't look that way to someone who "invested with Bain Capital because they believed Mitt Romney was a great fund manager." This kind of potential "misrepresentation to the investor... could be used in a lawsuit against him."

SEE MORE: Mitt Romney raises $100 million in June: Should Obama be worried?

6. This is yet another reminder of Romney's wealth
If Team Romney wants to win this fight, the burden of proof is now on its side, says Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast. Even then, "this is a lose-lose for Romney." He's lost yet another day of the campaign to talk about his vast wealth rather than Obama's economic record, "and even the best case in defense of Romney must argue that he got paid at least $100,000 a year for doing nothing." That will have a lot of Americans wondering "how the rules they live by simply don't apply to people with Romney's massive wealth."

Read more political coverage at The Week's 2012 Election Center.


Old news and already been proven a lie from Obama camp.


SSC wrote:Even better now you don't have to work to get Welfare, great move for hispanics and dead beats, smells of begging votes to me .
Well its only right people should get food stamps that don't work, maybe they can't work for whatever reasons they may have. If they could work they probably wouldn't need food stamps.


SSC wrote:Old news and already been proven a lie from Obama camp.
really and is there proof of this, not fox hearsay either.


Watch the news Gyp.


Tyler what has happened is a bill was signed not making it mandatory for people to work and draw foodstamps, some states made it mandatory to complete education then find a job for the benefits, Mississippi did this and it was working great. It encourages those who chose to sit on the porch and drive fancy cars to get a job. But now Obama has destroyed the incentive program to work for what you recieve and once again we the tax payers will foot the bill.


I have watched the news, not fox! or New York post, both right wing Leaning

would you care to show proof of the lie already proven in your answering post



Gyp where I chose to get my info from has nothing to do with this. I watch Fox, you hate Fox, you watch liberal news, I hate liberal news.


yes I watch some liberal ,I also watch Bipartisan news,.
fox is sure not Bipartisan.
there is going to be an investigation with Romney and bain capital
.. he seems not to be able to tell the truth.


Bain Cap. has released statements he was not on the board for 3 yrs after he quit to run the Olympics, this is all from one underling on the Obama campaign staff, he gave a 5 network interview clearing this up.
Truth ??? is there any bigger liar than Obama ? What happened to all his big promises ? They total 16 trillion now and growing.


SSC wrote:Tyler what has happened is a bill was signed not making it mandatory for people to work and draw foodstamps, some states made it mandatory to complete education then find a job for the benefits, Mississippi did this and it was working great. It encourages those who chose to sit on the porch and drive fancy cars to get a job. But now Obama has destroyed the incentive program to work for what you recieve and once again we the tax payers will foot the bill.
The issue of food stamps is not related to any other benefit issues, it is a program in and of itself. If a rule existed that made it mandatory to complete education then find a job before you become eligible to receive food stamps is not only illogical its downright stupid.. So if any law ever existed that supports that kind of thinking is not a rational law in my opinion. Food stamps should be given to people that are out of work and down in the work force, That is how it is in Florida, as it should be, I'm not sure about other states. So if Obama had anything to do with that my hat goes off to him, because it is logical to give the food stamps to those that need it most, and that would be the people out of work and people with no education.

Giving foodstamps to people that ARE employed and have an education is not logical. That is just another typical Republican party way of thinking, they want to take from the poor and give to the rich. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. So they tell the public it is good for the nation.

I seriously think the days of the Republican party are over for awhile, people are tired of the rich pretentious snobbishness and self-centered attitude they project. They try to fool the public into believing they are in the best interest of the nation, but nothing could be farther from the truth. They are in it for the best interest for themselves. They treat people poorer then they are like second class citizens, and pretend they are noble and right. They wrap themselves in the flag as a disguise of there true intentions. There true intentions are to keep themselves rich. All they care about is there own well being and could care less whats good for the nation or what is the right thing to do.. The Democratic party is the lesser of the two evils.


Food stamps should be for low income families trying to survive in todays economy, but to be rewarded for spitting out kid after kid just to get more is pathetic, but that is how the system works, and now you don't have to work or seek work, just wait till every month you card is recharged then drive to the grocery in your fine car and buy elaborate meals. The system is broken and now a total shambles. The get education to draw was a great program, it kept the trash out the system.

44.7 Million Americans Now on Food Stamps -- More than at Any Time Under Bush
By Christopher Goins
February 3, 2012
(AP photo)
( – A Democratic congresswoman claimed Thursday that Newt Gingrich was wrong about President Obama being the “Food Stamp President” and that food stamp use increased more under President Bush than President Obama.

But that claim seems to fly in the face of statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture which show that there are 44.7 million Americans on food stamps – and there are more people are on food stamps now than at any time during the Bush administration.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said Thursday at a Capitol Hill news conference that “(t)here has recently been a concerted push by Republican leaders and presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich to ridicule food stamps as the ‘new welfare.’”

“(He) continually refers to the president as ‘the greatest food stamp president in history, and he argued in South Carolina that this is a factually accurate statement. It is not. More Americans used food stamps under President Bush. In fact, Speaker Gingrich is wrong on the history, purpose, and the role of food stamps in America,” she said.

But USDA statistics show that participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increased 93.38 percent from George Bush’s first year in 2001 compared to President Obama’s first year in 2009.

When President Bush took office in 2001, there were 17.3 million people on food stamps. During his last full year in office, 2008, there were 28.2 million on food stamps -- an increase of 10.9 million – or a 63 percent increase over an 8-year period.

But from the last full year of Bush’s presidency (2008) through 2011, just three years into President Obama’s presidency, the number of people on food stamps increased 16.5 million -- going from 28.2 million to 44.7 million -- an increase of 59 percent in just a 3-year period.

If you compare the average increase per year of the number of people on food stamps during the Bush administration (1.5 million) versus the average increase per year during the Obama administration (5.5 million) – food stamps have increased nearly 4 times more per year under Obama than under Bush.

In addition, if you compare statistics from 2003 (three years into President Bush’s first term) with numbers from 2011 (three years into President Obama’s presidency) the number of people on food stamps jumped 111 percent -- from 21.2 million to 44.7 million.

The food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program doled out $50.36 billion in benefits in 2009; $64.7 billion in 2010; and $71.81 billion in 2011.

The most the benefits doled out in any given year under Bush’s presidency was $34.6 billion in 2008. The lowest amount was $15.5 billion in 2001.


SSC wrote:Food stamps should be for low income families trying to survive in todays economy, but to be rewarded for spitting out kid after kid just to get more is pathetic, but that is how the system works, and now you don't have to work or seek work, just wait till every month you card is recharged then drive to the grocery in your fine car and buy elaborate meals. The system is broken and now a total shambles. The get education to draw was a great program, it kept the trash out the system.
The system rewarding people for spitting out kid after kid was the same with people having to work and complete an education. Most of the people receiving food stamps are not driving fine cars. You have to qualify for food stamps and driving nice cars requires money for gas and money for insurance. It requires "income". The people receiving food stamps that already have jobs and an education are the ones most likely driving fine cars.

So giving food stamps for people out of work is clearly more logical and sensible because they are the ones that obviously need it most.


No Tyler the system that changed in Miss. allowed for children, but didn't bump up the monthly welfare check for each kid, which usually goes hand in hand with food stamps. The work program at least made them attempt to become productive citizens, earn wages and contribute to the famlies well being. not just live off the gov. and my tax dollars.


Bumping up welfare checks and food stamps for each kid is logical. The more kids you have the more money and help you need. You could argue that people will produce kids to receive larger welfare checks, but it could also be argued that more money is needed and they will not gain that much more because it costs more to raise a kid. Any system will always be abused, there is no escaping that. The Republican party does not have any answers to stop people from abusing the system. All they have answers for is how to make it more difficult for people that really need it, and in effect will cut back on the amount of money spent on welfare checks and foodstamps, thus giving them more money, The answer to them is to ignore the real issue why the program exists in the first place, and focus on what they can do to save themselves more money. Again, they display there greed and uncaring attitude once again. Its rather obvious. But they don't care if they are obvious to people that can clearly see what they are doing, because those people are a minority.

Expecting people to work and have an education before they receive any help is not rational. That is a copout and an excuse created by people that don't want to help anyone because all they care about is themselves. That is the excuse rich people make, and the excuse the Republican party supports.

Interesting how they cry about people taking there "tax dollars" and expect big tax breaks for themselves. That's because they don't care about anyone but themselves, and they are a minority in that department. So they buy people off to get there way, and pretend it is the best way for this country to do business. Yes, its the best way to do business for them as long as they get what they want doing it.

These rich bastards want to control the government only because it will secure there own wealth. So they fight back with money and tell people they are doing what is best for this country and its people. Its not whats best for this country, it never has been about that, its whats best for them.


The program was founded under the Bush era, to control abuse, now Obama has opened the door, just what we need more black uneducated drug users breeding endlessly, living in public housing, and killing each other every day.


Well I understand your point and know where you're coming from. Its a tough issue but a plan that needs to be in action and fair. This country spends more money on other issues that are not necessary, so foodstamps is not really a concern.


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs
(Data as of June 29, 2012)

Average Benefit Per Person 1] All Other Costs 2]

Fiscal Year Average Participation Total Benefits Total Costs
--Thousands-- --Dollars-- ----------Millions of Dollars----------
1969 2,878 6.63 228.80 21.70 250.50
1970 4,340 10.55 549.70 27.20 576.90
1971 9,368 13.55 1,522.70 53.20 1,575.90
1972 11,109 13.48 1,797.30 69.40 1,866.70
1973 12,166 14.60 2,131.40 76.00 2,207.40
1974 12,862 17.61 2,718.30 119.20 2,837.50
1975 17,064 21.40 4,385.50 233.20 4,618.70
1976 18,549 23.93 5,326.50 359.00 5,685.50
1977 17,077 24.71 5,067.00 394.00 5,461.00
1978 16,001 26.77 5,139.20 380.50 5,519.70
1979 17,653 30.59 6,480.20 459.60 6,939.80
1980 21,082 34.47 8,720.90 485.60 9,206.50
1981 22,430 39.49 10,629.90 595.40 11,225.20
1982 3] 21,717 39.17 10,208.30 628.40 10,836.70
1983 21,625 42.98 11,152.30 694.80 11,847.10
1984 20,854 42.74 10,696.10 882.60 11,578.80
1985 19,899 44.99 10,743.60 959.60 11,703.20
1986 19,429 45.49 10,605.20 1,033.20 11,638.40
1987 19,113 45.78 10,500.30 1,103.90 11,604.20
1988 18,645 49.83 11,149.10 1,167.70 12,316.80
1989 18,806 51.71 11,669.78 1,231.81 12,901.59
1990 20,049 58.78 14,142.79 1,304.47 15,447.26
1991 22,625 63.78 17,315.77 1,431.50 18,747.27
1992 25,407 68.57 20,905.68 1,556.66 22,462.34
1993 26,987 67.95 22,006.03 1,646.94 23,652.97
1994 27,474 69.00 22,748.58 1,744.87 24,493.45
1995 26,619 71.27 22,764.07 1,856.30 24,620.37
1996 25,543 73.21 22,440.11 1,890.88 24,330.99
1997 22,858 71.27 19,548.86 1,958.68 21,507.55
1998 19,791 71.12 16,890.49 2,097.84 18,988.32
1999 18,183 72.27 15,769.40 2,051.52 17,820.92
2000 17,194 72.62 14,983.32 2,070.70 17,054.02
2001 17,318 74.81 15,547.39 2,242.00 17,789.39
2002 19,096 79.67 18,256.20 2,380.82 20,637.02
2003 21,250 83.94 21,404.28 2,412.01 23,816.28
2004 23,811 86.16 24,618.89 2,480.14 27,099.03
2005 25,628 92.89 28,567.88 2,504.25 31,072.13
2006 26,549 94.75 30,187.35 2,715.74 32,903.09
2007 26,316 96.18 30,373.27 2,817.26 33,190.54
2008 28,223 102.19 34,608.40 3,031.31 37,639.71
2009 33,490 125.31 50,360.41 3,272.81 53,633.22
2010 40,302 133.79 64,702.76 3,593.06 68,295.82
2011 44,709 133.85 71,813.40 3,855.53 75,668.93
All data are subject to revision.

1] Represents average monthly benefits per person.

2] Includes the Federal share of State administrative expenses, Nutrition Education, and Employment and Training programs. Also includes other Federal costs (e.g., Benefit and Retailer Redemption and Monitoring, Payment Accuracy, EBT Systems, Program Evaluation and Modernization, Program Access, Health and Nutrition Pilot Projects).

3] Puerto Rico initiated Food Stamp operations during FY 1975 and participated through June of FY 1982. A separate Nutrition Assistance Grant began in July 1982.



Food stamp and welfare recipients

Food stamp and welfare recipients

Post by gypsy Today at 18:02 / Ebony /

Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars

SAY the word "welfare" and immediately the image of the lazy Black wellare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion's share of the dole.

The image of the Black "welfare cheat," public aid advocates say, is based on misconceptions about poor minorities. The notion, they say, comes from society's resentment of seemingly ablebodied people getting paid for doing nothing.

"For some people, there is a need to believe that there are professional welfare recipients who are deliberately trying to get not only what they need to survive, but more," says Anne D. Hill, director of programs for the National Urban League. "People say to themselves: 'I work. How come this person who appears to be healthy isn't working?' We tend to equate our condition with others without fully knowing their circumstances."

Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as "direct benefit payments for individuals" by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.



White persons, percent, 2011 (a) 78.1%

Black persons, percent, 2011 (a) 13.1%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011 (a) 1.2%

Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a) 5.0%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2011 (a) 0.2%

Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011 2.3%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b) 16.7%

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011

With 78% white of course more whites will draw food stamps, and more hispanics draw than black. But by population numbers this is still very high.

Population, 2011 estimate 311,591,917

Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base 308,745,538

Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 0.9%

Population, 2010 308,745,538

Persons under 5 years, percent, 2011 6.5%

Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011 23.7%

Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011 13.3%

Female persons, percent, 2011 50.8%


just got this in email so don't know if it is true or not

Health insurance refunds by state
New rules created by the Affordable Care Act require health insurers to spend on average at least 80% of premiums on actual medical care instead of overhead and profits. Miss the mark and insurers have to refund customers.

Data released by insurers helped to determine which insurance companies may owe rebates in your state. Rebates will vary in size, but for the first time ever, insurers are actually giving you money back, and anything helps! Rebates depend on how you get your coverage
FYI: ACA/Obamacare information was posted on this site on July 8 & 9, 2012 for your review.


no clue since the program will not be in effect until 2014 , alot of things could change between now and then


Well a good thing from health care ,I am sure many people are thankful that these big insurance companies will be regulated ,and the extra money will be a blessing.

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum