Maybe “Food Stamp President” is a much needed title for a president lacking in the polls. It is to say…”this is a president who will not let you starve.”
Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich made this a talking point, apparently a view cherished by many on the Right, criticizing President Obama in the GOP debate in South Carolina. He attempts to conflate food stamps with some sort of sought-after lifestyle as if poverty was largely a choice and the Great Recession never happened. I know a counter to this view may point out that Obama has not “created jobs but destroyed them,” a view that manifested BEFORE it was buttressed with scant evidence. But of course issuing out food stamps is irresponsible. Imagine if the opposite had occurred, where at least tens of thousands of the hungry are lining up in sparse and ill-equipped shelters for soup.
“Obama starves the market and the poor!” He has been called a Fascist-Socialist-Islamist for less.
A July 14th 20011 article titled “The Struggle to Eat” from the Economist (no author posted) informs the reader that individuals eligible for food stamps can get an average of $133, $200 maximum, a month… I spend that much on food every two weeks!
Also from the same article:
“Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend to spend them immediately. When Moody’s Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less.”
I guess it’s a bit of good news considering the increase on the graph.
Case in point: Which increase you are concerned with most kinda reflects your values, no?