It’s easy to say your objective, weighing evidence with dispassionate analysis and facts. You believe your  judgement is sound and your positions are ethical, you’re not like the others.

But should you find yourself wrong without feeling livid, it came about with much consideration and deliberation that you could have been wrong at all. You feel you should stand tall or not at all.

Being right is about getting it right and how could you fuck up? It’s you! Right? How could you believe any lie or misconception, be subject to any deception? Without you knowing…


“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years.


“As we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we’re gonna have to do is somehow  resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking how, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live, and my suggestion I guess would be that the trick, and this is one of the few areas where I think there have to be technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to  just political issues, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.

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?