Food Stamp President [Reader Post]

Spread the love

Loading

Today, I received an email from a very liberal Obama supporter which contained a reference to the following link:

Dishonest Fox Chart: Food Stamps Edition

This article portrays Fox News and Newt Gingrich as being dishonest about the number of SNAP (food stamps, for those of you in Rio Linda) recipients that have been added to the rolls since Obama became “The Precadent”. In the article, they reference the Annenberg Foundation’s FactCheck.org, which, in turn purports to prove that Fox and Gingrich are lying.

Being the curious type, and knowing that “Obama the Humble” and “Ayers the Terrorist” both worked together at the Annenberg Foundation Challenge, I decided to check out the raw data from which they got their analysis. Here is what I found:

I used the end of the previous president’s term(s) through the end of the next president’s term(s) to determine the net change in average participation.

As one can see, during Obama’s three years in office, on average, over 16 million new people have been enrolled in the SNAP program. In the FactCheck article they state: “We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001.” They do not show or give a link to those figures, however, I found this table on the USDA web site, which has a different set of numbers from the table above.

Using the data from the previous link, the number of people on food stamps at the end of the Bush administration was 31,567,037, while the current number (not including November or December of 2011) is 46,224,722. FactCheck calculates that to be 14.2 million, while claiming 14.7 million were added during Bush’s 2 terms. My math tells me that the real answer is 14,657,685 added during Obama’s ¾ of a term.

Since I could not find the same monthly tables that Annenberg used for the years 2000 through 2008, I can’t check the rest of their assumptions, however, since they are so slipshod in their math skills, one has to wonder if they are purposefully trying to excuse Obama and blame Bush or just sloppy. Then again, FactCheck is run by the Annenberg Foundation, one of Obama’s former hangouts.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
47 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you, good post.

I did read that the difference in the number of stamps issued during the 8 years of Bush and the 3 years of Obama is but a small fraction that slightly benefits Obama, but they were likely using the same figures that Annenberg used.

If we would just save those old almanacs, sigh.

The story is, even using Annenbergs data, should Obama serve another four years, how many more will be on food stamps.

Also, the country’s fiscal year runs from 10/ 01 to 9/30 of the following year, so, the first 9 months of the Bush presidency was Clinton’s budget—-subtract those numbers. And, since the Democrats would not present President Bush with a final budget, take those numbers off as well. Now Obama is truly the food stamp president.

One of the most ignored truths in all of this, food stamps went up in the Bush administration because our economy suddenly took a dive. However, under Obama, food stamp usage is going up during a “recovery” (they keep telling us it’s a recovery).

The truth of the matter is that if conservatives had their way, the streets would be littered with the sick and hungry.

Liberal1, that’s a preposterous statement, made without any thought or foresight. If conservative ideas were implemented and left to work for 5 years, there would be a significantly fewer number of poor people and there would be plenty of jobs for those who wish to work. Everything you see happening today is a result of the mismanagement of the country by so-called “do-gooders” who think the government can take care of everyone. It can’t and it is not the government’s job to do so. Every one of us has a responsibility to take care of ourselves as individuals first and then through charitable works, help those who need a lift. Government isn’t the answer, it’s the problem. Liberals like yourself have screwed the pooch with your social experiments like the C.R.A. and forcing banks to make stupid loans to people who were bound to default. Get your head out of the sand.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

Why don’t we just wish that liberal idiots suffocate from the stupid blanket statements they constantly bleat and babble.

Conservatives do more to help the poor through charity, in addition to paying their taxes than people like the tax dodgers in the Obama administration and his circle of friends….”I’d rather sue than pay my taxes Buffet” of the Buffet Rule….har..har..har..lol!

@Jarhead68:

His head isn’t in the sand. It’s somewhere else that’s dark and less pleasant smelling.

Don Mac….
I would say you are correct.
Cherry-picked data leads to exactly the answer your Lefties wanted.
But the raw data is out there…..if they WANTED to do their due diligence.
Obviously, they do not.

You can find your 2001 to 2011 data (one state at a time) really easy…..
Here is Oklahoma’s data, for example:
BUSH
2001 242,859
2002 218,479
2003 229,402
2004 248,627
2005 258,049
2006 265,239
2007 264,880
2008 260,721
____________
OBAMA
2009 285,079
2010 338,711
2011 375,170
http://www.okdhs.org/library/rpts/ar/2011/docs/archartoprsfy11g24.htm

A national chart that includes up to 2011 is here:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
Let’s just take the 1st two categories:
Fiscal Year———-Average Participation (in thousands)
BUSH
2001 ——17,318
2002——19,096
2003——21,250
2004——23,811
2005——25,628
2006——26,549
2007——26,316
2008——28,223
______________
OBAMA
2009——33,490
2010——40,302
2011——-44,709

Obama himself has made it clear he wants more, many more people on Food Stamps (SNAP).

The other day a Big Government* article pointed out that Obama spends $75,000 per private agency (like ACORN) just so the agency can go out and find potential SNAP participants and sign them up!

“Despite the historic rise in food stamp use, however, the Obama Administration believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be and is offering $75,000 grants to groups who devise “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up.
….[T]he Department of Agriculture offers non-profit groups the chance to receive $75,000 grants for projects designed to boost food stamp participation among those who are eligible but have yet to sign up.
The Department of Agriculture believes that the SNAP program is “severely underutilized” and says that 33 percent more Americans who are eligible to receive food stamps have yet to apply, thus the need to offer federal grants to sign more citizens up.”

*http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/29/obama-administration-offers-75000-grants-to-sign-up-more-food-stamp-recipients/

Some of Obama’s grants to groups who go out in their locale to find MORE people to sign up for SNAP :
Boys and Girls Club of Benton County, Inc., $74,261
Community Action Partnership of Orange County (CAPOC), $75,000
Cuban American National Council, Inc. (CNC), $75,000
Family Resource Centers of NE Nevada (FRCNEN), $73,230
Goodwill Industries of the Springfield/Hartford Area, Inc., $75,000
Greater Erie Community Action Committee (GECAC), $75,000
Heartland Rural Health Network, Inc., $74,000
Helping Others Make the Effort, Inc. (HOME), $68,182
International Relief and Development (IRD), $70,908
Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota (LSS), $75,000
Migrant Health Promotion, Inc., $75,000
Ohio District 5 Area Agency on Aging, Inc., $73,350
Puerto Rican Family Institute (PRFI), Inc., $74,996
United Way of El Paso County, $75,000

Unless these are in a very rural area (like the Lutheran group in Minnesota) they only tried to find folks in one city or county, sometimes two counties.

PS, here it the chart that adds in the years all the way up to 2011:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

Hmm. And to think you just accused me of an ad hominem attack in another post topic. I cannot say I’m surprised to see yet another liberal/progressive accuse someone else of the same thing they just did. That seems to be a common liberal/progressive failure. Hypocrite.

The first link was very interesting, particularly the comment section. Of course, all the comments were by liberal Obama supporters, but that wasn’t the interesting part. One guy says that, “It is a totally meaningless orphaned piece of data.” And he’s right, it generally is, if one removes the connection of foodstamps to whichever President was in office that year.

Another guy notes that quoting the FactCheck stories numbers is “kinda silly” considering the difference in number of years, 8 vs. 3, leaving Obama with a much, much higher rate of program participation addition than Bush. Of course, he then goes on to blame it all on Bush and the “wealthy”.

If one looks at the numbers, completely removing who was President at the time, and compares them to known economic downturns and recessions, along with economic booms(like the mid to late 90’s tech boom), the numbers make better sense as to why they are what they are. However, as Nan has pointed out here, and in a similar topic, Obama and his admin have been making it easier and easier to qualify for the program, including those incentives in the form of grants for groups to sign more and more people up.

Also of note, and it was stated elsewhere on FA, though I cannot remember exactly where, we have been told by the Obama admin, and the liberal/progressives, that we have been out of a recession for quite a while and that the economy is improving, and has been for quite some time. Why, then, are the numbers of new participants still so high? When comparing this supposed economic “recovery”, which Obama has called what we are in now, to other documented economic recoveries, the participation in the food stamp program has either grown, where others have dropped, or has not dropped as much as at other times. In short, there are still higher numbers of food stamp participants than one would expect during an economic “recovery”. So, either Obama, and the liberal/progressives, are wrong about this being a “recovery”, OR, Obama IS the “food stamp president” continuing to sign up people for the program, despite the economic “recovery”, in order to place more people on the government dependance rolls.

Either way, Newt was correct to call Obama what he did, as well as to bring up the question of government dependance vs. individual self-reliance.

FOX News has a long history of displaying misleading charts. I might give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude that whoever makes them up simply isn’t very good at translating numerical data into accurate graphical representations, except for the fact that there’s a consistent underlying intention that’s apparent. They don’t tend to display accidental misrepresentations that reflect poorly on whoever or whatever they happen to like; the bias is always against whoever or whatever they don’t like.

Charts are frequently used as propaganda tools, because they’re one means of sidestepping verbal logic filters. Anyone actually interested in the truth should always subject them to critical analysis, regardless of who is presenting them. Otherwise you’re just letting someone pour prefabricated conclusions into your head.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

The truth of the matter is that if conservatives had their way, the streets would be littered with the sick and hungry.

No, the truth of the matter is that Progressive Statism and Crony Capitalism are giving us streets littered with the sick and hungry. You had your way and this is what we get.

@Greg:

Those are actually very good points about the use of charts and graphs, Greg.

I would add several points, though;
-One, a chart or graph can be framed in many ways, including the bolstering of two opposing arguments.

-Two, charts and graphs are really only as good as the data entered. In other words, garbage in=garbage out. A recent example of this is the deliberately falsified “hockey stick” of Gore/Mann fame, where data points were deliberately overlooked and left out in order to present the drastic change desired.

-Three, While the above, along with your points about charts and graphs, is true, charts and graphs can also be powerful examples to explain the truth about an issue/subject. Written or oral argument should provide the foundation with charts and graphs merely as strengthening points in the framework of one’s entire argument.

And one last thing, Greg. While you specifically call out FoxNews, the fact is that the entirety of the media complex in the country is guilty of this. To single out one, when they all do this, is disingenuous.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):
You mean like they were before food stamps were invented? Oh, wait, the streets weren’t “littered with the sick and hungry” then, either. Now that’s an inconvenient truth.

@Greg:
“FOX News has a long history of displaying misleading charts.”

So, multiple links to such charts would be really easy to provide? Right?

In this era of juking the data, am I the only one who finds it hard to believe any of these stats from any of these sources?

~~~
I’ll swallow a lie when I have to; I’ve swallowed a few big ones lately. But the stat games? That lie? It’s what ruined this department. Shining up shit and calling it gold so majors become colonels and mayors become governors. Pretending to do policework while one generation f-cking trains the next how not to do the job. – The Wire

Guess what? Obama did in fact inherit a near depression economy becasue of the incompetence and greed of the Bush administration. Bush was losing 750,000 jobs a month when he left office, people lost houses, people lost health care. DUUUH! They HAD to go on food stamps!! You’d rather they starve?

But you’re wrong, there was a greater increase of people on food stamps under Bush than Obama. For the few wingnuts out there with critical thinking skills, check this out:

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/201201270010

ah, the “wingnut” who argues with himself weighs in to show his perpetual stupidity by providing a Media-doesn’t-really-matter-except-to-the-brain dead link.

FactCheck.Org: Food Stamp Program “Has So Far Grown By 444,574 Fewer Recipients During Obama’s Time In Office Than During Bush’s.

…snip…

And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

…snip…

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

Let me get this straight. Supposedly the food stamp Prez characterization has been thoroughly debunked because Obama put .5 million less recipients on foods stamps in three years (or an average of 4.73 million a year) than Bush did in the total of eight (avg of 1.837 annually)?

And Media Matters has the nerve to call the chart “dishonest”??

Math never was the strong suit of lib/progs. Thanks for that magnificent demonstration of both dishonesty, and math deficiency skills, libdud. We can always count on you to display the intellectual ability of Obama devotees.

@liberalmann:
That is another link to the original post’s article, L-man.
And it is from Media Matters (George Soros) —- so fair and balanced!

Anyway, Obama said the recession (not Depression) ended more than a year ago!
June of 2009!
Don’t you believe him?

@MataHarley:

Mata, I used those same/similar per year figures to discount another of liberalmann’s posts on this subject in another post. Of course, he didn’t come back to offer any counter-argument. I didn’t really expect one.

I have this picture of him posting his trash here and then going back to HuffPo or DailyKos and telling his ignorant friends how he really “showed FA”.

You cannot reason with stupidity and willful ignorance.

johngalt, sometimes ya just can’t fix stupid. But then, I don’t respond to it, but to those who may be lurking.

Interesting fact in the Wall Street Journal today.

In the last three months of 2011, Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee raised $93.4 million, while President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee brought in $68 million…….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203920204577197463950725038.html?mod=WSJ_article_forsub

Maybe it is better to have some working donors rather than a bunch of people who pay no taxes and get Food Stamps.

Nan G, I’d say that Obama can well afford to be in “idle” mode… Per Open Secrets fundraising records for 2011, Q1-4

Obama: $125,225,410, 47% from small donors

Romney: $56,465,509, only 9% from small donors (expect that stat to be used…)

If the current cash while Obama is just idling is any indication, Romney or any GOP nominee will be trounced in the general, as I said on my post about elections being for sale. Particularly Romney, since he has all the attributes that fit Obama’s campaign talking points. Obama can’t ask for a more perfect world. Lots of money and the perfect villain.

@Liberal1 (objectivity): Yes Liberal1 and it would be you.

@liberalmann: Would your reference be Soros’ Mediamatters, nice try

@MataHarley: The old adage applies: “figures do not lie; liars figure”.

@Greg: So you are saying that Obama has not put more people per year on food stamps than Bush did. Or are you saying that Obama has done in 3 1/2 years what Bush did in 8?

Which is it Greg?

@liberalmann: LOL, it points to mediamatters as if making a credible point. It is almost cute…

@MataHarley:

Are Obama’s ‘small donors’ the same as they were in 2008, i.e. largely fake names attributed to small donations that were created by cutting up large anonymous donations into small pieces? Is the credit card verification on the fundraising web site still switched off?

Back to my soapbox – All, can we stop feeding the trolls? “Liberalman” and “Liberal (objectivity)” aren’t here for any kind of discussion – they just do these quick, obnoxious drive bys trying to get a rise out of us and get us to waste our time responding to their stupidity. They probably get a good laugh at how many conservatives they can annoy and goad into wasting their time responding to them.

If you want to debate a lefty here we have enough other regulars. Lets stop wasting our time on these fools and let the trolls starve.

Just my two cents. Now back to our regularly scheduled comments…

@Brother Bob: I’ll second that.

Obama to the National Prayer Breakfast:
“Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper, caring for the poor and those in need.”

National Review columnist Mark Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon:
”Obama’s comments leave much to be desired, particularly when it comes to the president’s own brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives on $12 a year in Kenya.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/steyn-rips-obamas-brother%e2%80%99s-keeper-remark-his-brother-is-back-in-kenya-living-on-12-a-year/#ixzz1lLz6eC5x

LOL!
It sure is easy to talk charitable when you mean to take other people’s money instead of reaching into your own pocket, huh, Obama?
Obama now defines the STATE as Jesus’ audience.
The STATE is now your ”brother’s keeper,” not individual followers of Jesus.
Maybe God will smite Obama for such twistings of Scripture.

@Nan G: He’s just clinging to his guns and religion. It’s understandable in tough times like these.

@another vet:
Maybe Obama thinks it is OK for HIM to use religion to get what he wants, but this week he came down hard on US Military Chaplains who are Catholics!
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church “cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law.”

But after he did, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter!
A new statement issued this afternoon from Archbishop Broglio’s office acknowledged the interference this way:

Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.

Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.

The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq. at 202-719-3635 and he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge.

The letter also tries to clarify to priests that the Archbishop’s letter “concerns a moral, not a political issue.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-military-is-now-telling-catholic-chaplains-can-and-cant-say-about-obama-administration-2012-2#ixzz1lNRXSqH7

Obama is stepping in it BIG time!
There are well over 35 MILLION Catholic VOTERS in the USA.

@Nan G:
A priest, a rapist and a pedophile walk into a bar, and ask for a drink …

Snerd

@MataHarley:

Kudos for including Buddy Roemer in your chart …

Snerd

@Liberal1 (objectivity): If conservatives had it their way, the streets would be littered with people with JOBS!

DON MackMurray
what did people do before the FOOD STAMPS, IT LOOK LIKE A GIMMICK TO ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE POOR OR NOT POOR, A GIMMICK TO ENSLAVE THE FARMERS ALSO, A GIMMICK TO GET THE RECEIVER WHO GET PAID WITH IT TO BE SURE AND MORE CONFIDENT OF FOOD STAMP THAN MONEY ITSELF,
IT’S A GIMMICK TO HIDE THE DRUG DEALERS BENEFITING FROM IT,
IT’S A GIMMICK TO INSTALL ANOTHER FORM OF CURRENCY IN THE COUNTRY.
how did the elder survived since the last generations without it,
to end up with a weaken generation unable to feed without the GOVERNMENT FOOD STAMPS
how will the future generation be able to even MANAGE DAILY CHORES without the arm of GOVERNMENT HOLDING THEM, AND TELLING THEM HOW TO THINK
thank you DON

@Tercel: That’s a better response than mine. Right on point.

@Nan G: The chaplains and archbishop are probably on some sort of watch list now. Quite sad how our country is gradually withering away.

Jarhead68
hi
you should know that TERCEL always come up with smart comments, even if they are short

another vet, the OBAMA gang know who will not vote for them, they try to scare them
using the power of GOVERNMENT,
BYE

Snerd Gronk
and what is the rest of the bar story?

@Nan G: Obama never said this. Nice try

@liberalchild: Nope, wrong as usual liberalchild.

Obama’s Economic Team Proclaims Recession Over

Stick to picking on helpless babies, liberalchild.

Let’s stop feeding the trolls, gang. Liberalmann and Liberal(objectivity) aren’t worth our time

@liberalmann:

Obama Administration Releases Official NBER Report The Recession Ended in June 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgkqwQFxSxM

President Obama said that even though the recession has been officially declared over, for the millions of people who are out of work or otherwise struggling “it’s still very real for us.”

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a panel of academic economists based in Cambridge, Mass., said the recession lasted 18 months. It started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129990734