Start A Petition

GOP Proven 100% Wrong About Food Stamps

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: children, hunger, americans, SNAP, child, family, ethics, culture, dishonesty, freedoms, government, GoodNews, goodnews, health, law, rights, sadness, safety, society, women, usa, lies, media, congress, propaganda, republicans )

- 1963 days ago -
Actual research shows SNAP program promotes self-sufficiency, not a culture of dependence.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


JL A (281)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 4:05 am
Salon / By Paul Rosenberg

GOP Proven 100% Wrong About Food Stamps
Actual research shows SNAP program promotes self-sufficiency, not a culture of dependence.

Photo Credit: Creatista/
December 4, 2013 |

Hilary Hoynes is a University of California at Berkeley economist who wrote a particularly notable paper last year. Instead of increasing dependency, as conservative critics have repeatedly claimed, Hoyen’s paper showed that, for mothers, food stamp use during pregnancy and early childhood has exactly the opposite impact of what conservatives allege: It actually increases economic self-sufficiency when children grow up, in the next generation.

That was just one of two main results reported in “Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,” which Hoynes co-authored with Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach and Douglas Almond. As stated in the paper’s abstract, access to food stamps for women leads to “increases in economic self-sufficiency (increases in educational attainment, earnings, and income, and decreases in welfare participation).” Hoynes and her colleagues took advantage of the fact that food stamp programs were established county-by-county over a period of years, creating a sort of “natural experiment” beginning half a century in the past.

“Hoynes’ work has been timely, innovative and revealing,” said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has highlighted Hoynes’ work this year as food stamps and the SNAP program have become a major subject of controversy. “Hoynes and her collaborators have really broadened our understanding of how programs like food stamps not only relieve hardship in the moment but can trigger long-lasting gains in participating children’s later health and education. The implications of the research are considerable. In this long view, such assistance is not only helping struggling families to scrape by, it’s a good investment in the next generation of citizens and workers.”

Hoynes herself said, “This work indicates that there are important benefits of the safety net that to date have been ignored. They predict that a more generous safety net can reduce health disparities. More generally, the emerging evidence points to an important role for investments in early life — and those investments generate important returns in terms of better health and economic outcomes in adulthood.”

It’s a startling result in light of the onslaught of conservative claims to the contrary, but it’s somewhat less startling — though still quite illuminating — in light of what’s actually known about the impacts of hunger on childhood development back in the “reality based community,” where population-based studies of hunger impacts date back to the 1970s, when researchers first began reporting on the long-term, adult impacts on children born during and shortly after the so-called Dutch “Hunger Winter,” a period from November 1944 through May 1945, when a large part of the Netherlands was subjected to drastically reduced rations under Nazi occupation.

But to really appreciate the significance of this research, one must also appreciate two other aspects of Hoynes’ recent research, which combine to provide a three-pronged counterattack on the right’s “culture of dependency” narrative. First, she has done previous research establishing short-term benefits — not just for food stamps, but also the for theearned income tax credit — specifically, a reduction in low-birthweight babies, a significant indicator of well-being. This research alone is sufficient to show that safety net programs are achieving the goals of bettering people’s lives, adding more weight to the already well-established statistics on poverty reduction. Second, she has done research into safety net program utilization over the course of economic recession and recovery, research that shows that the current levels of food stamp and other program use are in line with past history, and not a sign of any alleged “explosion” in a “culture of dependency” under Obama, as the right-wing noise machine would have it.

Thus, Hoynes’ work provides powerful evidence for a three-pronged counterattack against this conservative narrative, which has come to play a dominant role in Republican politics in the post-Bush/Obama/Tea Party era: 1) The safety net works in the short term, producing measurable improvements in newborn health; 2) it works in the long term, improving health for both men and women, and reducing dependency among women in the next generation; and 3) it works currently in much the same manner as it has worked in the past. The long-term effects findings are clearly the most remarkable, which is why they’re worth looking into more closely. But it’s the overall combination of evidence — along with the work of others working on other aspects of the safety net — that provides a robust picture of what the real-world safety net actually does to build better lives, pushing back against the onslaught of right-wing lies.

In July, for example, when House Republicans were first threatening massive food stamp cuts, the CBPP released a report, “SNAP Enrollment Remains High Because the Job Market Remains Weak.” It’s common sense, of course. As the report stated in its very first sentence, “The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program) historically has been the most responsive federal program after unemployment insurance in assisting families and communities during economic downturns,” so it stands to reason that our notoriously bad job market would keep tens of millions of people on food stamps. CBPP began its analysis by citing Congressional Budget Office projections that “as the labor market recovers, SNAP costs will decline markedly. CBO projects that by 2019, SNAP costs will fall all of the way back to their mid-1990s level, measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).”

But as CBPP continued, they supplemented CBO data with the more detailed research that Hoynes took part in: “In a new piece of research, economists Hilary Hoynes and Marianne Bitler examine the relationship between poverty and fluctuations in economic activity since 1980 and the historical responsiveness of SNAP, UI [unemployment insurance], and other safety net programs over the business cycle. If SNAP had increased more in proportion to the unemployment rate over the past few years than it has historically, that would provide support to critics who claim that SNAP should have come down as the unemployment rate has declined. But that is not what the research shows. Hoynes and Bitler found that ‘[T]he safety net programs receiving the most attention through the Great Recession (Food Stamps and UI) exhibit adjustments very consistent with their behavior during previous historical cycles.’”

That research is vital for deflating claims of an expanding culture of dependency — and thus for holding the line against deeper cuts to SNAP. But it’s the long-term impacts research that holds the promise of informing a proactive, pro-safety net economic populism that can do more than just respond reactively to the Tea Party. And, indeed, CBPP’s president, Robert Greenstein, cited that research in his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in February this year. Her research has gotten more attention in the last six months or so than it ever has before, Hoynes said — but if it’s to have the kind of impact that it deserves, this should only be the beginning.

What Hoynes and progressives interested in building on her work are up against is almost 20 years in which empirical data has been relentlessly marginalized. In 1995, in his first year as speaker, Newt Gingrich dismantled the Office of Technology Assessment (which had repeatedly dissed Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense), and imposed other internal changes — such as defunding House committee staff — which radically undermined the role of sound information in shaping the nation’s laws. As conservative iconoclast Bruce Bartlett put it, “Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge, training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it.” Although Gingrich quickly burned out as speaker, the fact-free culture he promoted has only grown more virulent since then.

While all this was going on in Washington, Hoynes was producing a body of work about the safety net that no longer seemed to matter to those calling the shots in Congress. “My work, coming from the background and typical approaches of economics, had mostly focused on how … different kinds of programs [welfare versus the earned income tax credit, food stamps vs. cash welfare] lead to differences in employment decisions, poverty outcomes, family structure decisions, how it influences the propensity for kids to be living with 2-parent vs. 1-parent families, you know, these kinds of questions.” In short, Hoynes was empirically studying the very sorts of outcomes that self-absorbed politicians were busily pontificating about.

About five years ago, Hoynes said, her interests began to shift toward “calculating the benefits of programs, rather than spending a lot of time talking about the costs of programs.”

“I got interested in thinking about how we could measure how these programs affect well-being of children in the households, or the households more broadly,” Hoynes said. “It came from a broader interest in evaluating potential benefits of the safety net, which … had sort of never been thought about before — the sort of cream on the top, if you will.” It wasn’t just a new direction for her, she noted, “There really wasn’t a whole lot of work on this.”

There was one exception, however: the child health impacts of Medicaid expansion, covering families higher up the income distribution. Of course it makes sense that expanding health insurance would impact children’s health; that’s the whole point. But Hoynes took things beyond the obvious. “I sort of thought, ‘Well, here are these measures of health and well-being, can we demonstrate that a more cash-based safety net, general redistribution [program] can be quantified in terms of effects on health outcomes?’ So that’s sort of where I was coming from.”

Her research agenda has focused on “the two programs that are the most important programs for low-income families and that is food stamps/SNAP and the earned income tax credit,” she explained. Her first projects looked at impacts on “a very common robust important measure of child health, which is their weight at birth.”

This is where she first used the county-by-county rollout approach. “When food stamps come into your county, we can use the full census of births in America,” she said, “comparing women across counties from one year to the next, using the full census of births from the birth certificate data; we can then look at the weigh of children at birth, their propensity to be a low-birth weight birth and how this varies when food stamps is available versus not.” This is the short-term food stamp research referred to above. She and her co-authors found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of low birth weight, which tended to concentrate in high poverty counties.

Her paper on the earned income tax credit used a conceptually similar approach, but instead of using a county-by-county rollout structure for the “natural experiment” design, she used changes in the tax law, which changed the incentives involved during the 1990s “as we reformed welfare and moved away from AFDC/TANF and toward the EITC, as a main way to provide cash assistance to low-income families.”

This is not how Washington understands welfare reform, of course. The decline of AFDC/TANF funding and the expansion of the EITC somehow live in completely separate boxes, and the “success” of welfare reform — primarily defined as the reduced number of recipients — has nothing to do with expansion of the EITC, which has helped keep so many millions afloat. But what about the real world? How did expanding EITC compare to the rollout of food stamps more than a generation earlier? “Amazingly, we found very similar results,” Hoynes said. “If you provide more assistance through the tax system, using this good variation across a different kind of natural experiment, as it were, we found reductions in low birth rates, more so for families that you would expect to be affected by the EITC, you know, lower education levels, single woman versus married.

“I would say it’s a very fertile area right now, that people are interested in trying to quantify these longer-term effects. And now, decades have passed, since that time period and the populations that are affected by them are sufficiently mature that we can really dive in and ask some questions that we hadn’t be able to do before.”

With all that data out there, and researchers like Hoynes starting to make sense of it, one has to ask if it isn’t time for a reality-based political movement to start using what they’re learned to shape a better future.

It might seem like a pipe dream now. But it was actually more or less like that before Gingrich “reformed” the House. As late as 1992, authors Fay Lomax Cook and Edith J. Barrett found strong support for the welfare state and its programs, despite negative views of welfare in their highly detailed survey, Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Congress and the Public. One key factor in Congress was that Republicans in committee leadership positions, who were much more familiar with how programs worked, showed significantly more support than Republicans as a whole. That was how things werebefore Gingrich went to work. It’s a good indication of what Speaker Pelosi should have undone when she held power from 2007 to 2011. The next time Democrats do gain control of the House, they will need to prioritize making it friendly to the like of Hilary Hoynes and her reality-based colleagues. It’s the only way, ultimately, to make it friendly to all the rest of us as well.

Paul H. Rosenberg is senior editor at Random Lengths News, a biweekly serving the Los Angeles harbor area. He runs the site Merge Left, a community of progressive thinkers free to submit their own content.

Ben O (135)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 4:56 am
Aren't they 100% wrong about just EVERYTHING...???

. (0)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 6:32 am
Noted & posted. Yes they are Ben but the Dems are just as stupid but in a different way. They all dance to the same puppet master; except Uncle Bernie and Auntie Elizabeth and a few of the other independents.

Louise D (44)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 9:26 am
This is hardly a revelation when you look at the Republican Presidential candidates the issues they went after showed that they believed in St Ronnie's mantra of "facts are stupid things" and with Mttens following that line of thinking about facts or what is normally known as out right lies especially when the fact checkers ultimately wound up pounding every noxious lie he was caught in into a thin paste of noxious pasty lying stuff. So this is nothing new.

Jason R (67)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 10:05 am
Is the people hater, GOP ever right?

Their resistance to minimum wage hike will cause another land slide…the GOP must die.

Jason R (67)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 10:12 am
The Progressive party (non corporate democrats)
We are the nation's most successful third party, electing more state legislators than all others combined. We fight for our core principles of social justice and economic equity. We accept no corporate donations, so are free of the big money influence that dominates the other two parties. We run strategically, win elections, and legislate change. - See more at:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest membership organization within the Democratic Caucus in the United States Congress with 71 declared members. They work to advance progressive liberal issues and positions.[1]

The CPC is currently co-chaired by U.S. Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). It was founded in 1991 and has grown steadily since then, having more recently added 20 members since 2005 and having hired its first full-time Executive Director, Bill Goold, in May of that year. Of the 20 standing committees of the House in the 111th Congress, 10 were chaired by members of the CPC. Those chairmen were replaced when the Republicans took control of the House in the 112th Congress.

Past Member (0)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 10:24 am
Yeah, well...what do you expect from the party that wants to write a blank check for the defense department that can't even account for millions of dollars and spends money on things they never use, but then wants to not give even a penny to the poor and hungry in our country. They only care about profits. They can make money off of defense contracts, but they can't make money off of food stamps.

Ganaisha Calvin (7)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 11:37 am
thanks for sharing

Angelika R (143)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 12:22 pm
All been said here- and gives one more reason to SIGN THAT HOLIDAY GREETING CARD TO THEM and/or the prez! Too little action and notes there. (
Thx JL.

Birgit W (160)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 12:47 pm
Thanks for sharing/

Mitchell D (82)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 1:15 pm
I'm glad that the paper is out there to demonstrate a verifyable reality, but it will not impact the delusiuonal reality within which the political right lives.

Debra G (0)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 1:26 pm
Copy the article and send to every Republican in Congress. (They might need Cliff's Notes, though)

Joanne Dixon (37)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 1:45 pm
Cliff's Notes are beyond them. Tie them to a chair and read it to them. Make sure they don't have their ears plugged. But it still won't get through.

Lois Jordan (63)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 4:53 pm
Noted. Thanks, JL.
No, you'll never get through to them because they are bought-and-paid for sociopaths. They come from the "I got mine....and now I want yours, too" school of dysfunction. Sara W. (above) mentioned that they don't make money off food stamps. Well, guess who does?.....the banks. That's why they have those food stamp "credit cards"....the banks are making money off those. When I found that out several months ago, I was speechless. They destroy the economy, evict people from their homes, and then make money off those who have least. In fact, THEY are the parasites....but they love to twist, mangle and divert the message. Not forgetting to mention how they pad the campaigns of many, many members of Congress.

Barbara K (61)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 5:02 pm
The trouble, as I see it, is that the Tbaggers who took over the GOP, hate the rest of us. They won't lift a finger to help with anything. They hate the government, can't figure out why they ran for the government if they hate it so much; except to destroy it; and they are doing just that; but they are destroying us along with it. They haven't an ounce of sense in the whole lot of them. People need food, health care, and a roof over their heads. Those are the things the GOP is out to deny them. The GOP wealthy friends who owned the businesses are the ones who sent away the jobs, and Bush & bunch even gave them tax breaks to pay for the moves. How stupid is that? That is what happens when there is stupidity in the government. I hope the voters are paying attention and kick these lunatics to the curb next election. We will never get back on our feet with the asinine idiots leading the House in office.

John B (185)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 5:51 pm
Thanks JL for the post. The GOP and their allies get most of everything wrong. Read and noted.

greenplanet e (155)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 6:08 pm
People need to eat to survive and live ... and to flourish.

There's little more disheartening than being hungry.

Twyla Sparks (208)
Thursday December 5, 2013, 7:28 pm
thanks noted

Past Member (0)
Friday December 6, 2013, 12:54 am
There's a surprise.

Robert O (12)
Friday December 6, 2013, 12:59 am
Amazing! The GOP/teabaggers are wrong yet again. That must be some kind of world record. This is to be expected from a group that walk around with their noses in thr air and enjoy bloated salaries, ridiculous tax breaks and undeseerved ease of living all at the expense of the 99% and yet have the gall to insinuate that we (the 99%) are a bunch of lazy, ignorant, good for nothing, dependent leeches. Have they looked in their mirrors lately?

Bridget Robertson (106)
Friday December 6, 2013, 1:28 am tweeted the story. The GOP doesn't deal in facts. That would confuse the issue.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 6, 2013, 3:00 am
You know when a far left wing author states she has conducted "a study" that the title will read "GOP 100 percent wrong." Where is an unbiased real study?


Theodore Shayne (56)
Friday December 6, 2013, 6:23 am
Frankly I think the Food Stamp mandate should be expanded. Both parties are responsible for the austerity economics that underlay globalization and outsourcing and has been and is promoted and sustained by the upper echelon.
I guess I'm just an "independent candidate" type of guy. They seem to be the ones who want to deal with the issues facing everyday Americans and not the mudslinging and collusion of the two party privileged system.

Freya H (345)
Friday December 6, 2013, 7:37 am
I don't know if that article is entirely true - like it or not, there is some fraud. However, providing struggling families with assistance pays in the long run. Better nourished children are smarter, do better in school, get better jobs, are more likely to break out of poverty's vicious cycle. We need to crack down on the fraudsters, because they are robbing both taxpayers and legitimate recipients.

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 7:41 am
University research meets the toughest peer reviewed standards in the nation and thus no matter what a personal belief might be of a researcher, the methodologies, results and conclusions are solid and unbiased as anyone that really knows anything about research would tell you.
This program has the smallest amount of fraud of anything ever done Freya and virtually all of it is the retailers doing it.

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 7:43 am
PS--title might more accurately have read 99.9 percent, given the statistical level of confidence of the research and is attributable to the publication and not the researcher.

Billie Wills (37)
Friday December 6, 2013, 7:52 am

Past Member (0)
Friday December 6, 2013, 8:28 am
Stand up and take a bow....a "record" increase in food stamps and it still isn't enough so take a bow for electing the King of Food Stamps....Barack Hussein Obama. Obama proposes to close not one but ALL of the military commissaries ....yes ALL of them next year. Can Obama possibly get anymore incompetent...? Crank up that food stamp comes a tsunami!

Gene J (287)
Friday December 6, 2013, 10:19 am
" The next time Democrats do gain control of the House, they will need to prioritize making it friendly to the like of Hilary Hoynes and her reality-based colleagues. It’s the only way, ultimately, to make it friendly to all the rest of us as well. "

That will be sooner than most think. How anyone can begrudge another in need of something as basic as food is beyond my understanding. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Isn't that out of the republican songbook? Seems they have torn more than a few pages out of the book all having to do with basic compassion for everyone. They are this century's version of the black plague. And just as deadly were they able to get their way unfettered. Fortunately they are a minority everywhere but in the House of Representatives and they won't keep that long either. Then they can all just get together at one of their mansions and eat cake. They all come from Panem, let them live there as well. Safely away from the rest of us who actually do care what happens to our neighbors, our fellow travelers even those who don't live in this country, shocking, yes, but true nonetheless. The entire world is our neighbor and we really ought start acting like it. We are not an island though some certainly think so. They're just wrong. And history, not yet written, will prove that out.

Esther Z (94)
Friday December 6, 2013, 11:10 am
It's safe to say, the Repugs are usually 99.9 percent wrong, especially when it has anything to do with human decency, empathy and fairness. Think I'm wrong? Well, how can you explain billions in subsidies to companies earning historical profits and cutting funding from social programs like SNAP, Meal on Wheels and Head Start? There is no commonsensical reason to give more money to those already getting filthy rich, and cutting what's left of the safety net, from those in desperate need; the children, the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed.
As for Diane O's comment about President Obama's plan to "close not one but ALL of the military commissaries..." Well, let's just say she's again confused with the facts. You can read the article, and make your own decision, and really blame it on.....sequestration, anyone?

Past Member (0)
Friday December 6, 2013, 12:43 pm
Did you say "sequestration?" That was Obama's deal to get a raise in taxes.

"Obama said that the sequester -- and the defense cuts that would result from it -- was not his proposition. "It is something that Congress has proposed," he said in the debate.

But it was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011, though they were intended to prod Congress to come up with a better deal for reining in the deficit, not as an effort to make those cuts reality.

Meanwhile, members of both parties in Congress voted for the legislation that set up the possibility of sequestration. Obama’s position is that Congress should now act to avoid those across-the-board cuts.

Obama can’t rightly say the sequester isn’t his, but he did need cooperation from Congress to get to this point. We rate the statement Mostly False."

Stay focused on the truth.

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 1:40 pm
From Merriam Webster:
noun \ˈī-dē-ə-ˌlȯg, -ˌläg\

: someone who very strongly supports and is guided by the ideology of a particular group
Full Definition of IDEOLOGUE
: an impractical idealist : theorist
: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

From Macmillan Dictionary:
- definition

View thesaurus entry for ideologue
What are red words?
Using the thesaurus

noun [countable] formal American English pronunciation: ideologue /ˈaɪdiəˌlɑɡ/ American English pronunciation: ideologue /ˈɪdiəˌlɑɡ/
Word Forms

someone who behaves very strictly according to an ideology, and never doubts that it is right

In general the consensus is that facts do not matter to ideologues--the Koch brothers' and similarly funded talking points for the Tea Party will be defended without regard to the facts by the ideologue.

For the first time in modern history, ideologues without Christian morality or compassion or any ethics beyond adherence to ideology at any cost to the people and the country have been able to prevent Congress from honoring their oaths of office and performing their constitutional duties.

Athena F (131)
Friday December 6, 2013, 2:37 pm
Thank you!

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 2:54 pm
You are welcome Ganaisha, Angelika, Birgit, Lois, John, Twyla and AF.

Excellent analyses consistent with the evidence and facts Gene and Esther.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 6, 2013, 3:05 pm
Anytime a country doubles down on providing food stamps to millions of their citizens and illegals there's a serious issue with the lack of leadership in that country. Americans need to be working so that they aren't put in a position of receiving food stamps.

Nanny state America....redistribution of wealth. How will people eat when they no longer have rich people to support them?

Left wing opinion piece and not a real study.

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 3:40 pm
To repeat for the ignorant about research in response to apparent ideologue where facts don't matter:
UC Berkeley research study that met the rigor of university human subjects and research standards and policies and publication peer review rigors. Those ideologues in Congress ignoring the facts for their votes are indeed demonstrating an inability to lead or govern in violation of their oaths of office. I am sick of them redistributing the wealth to the top 1% net worth people of this country who do not need such pampering like a nanny supposedly gives.

Angelika R (143)
Friday December 6, 2013, 4:30 pm
I think it is also safe to say -there's enough evidence out there- the extremists on the right WANT YOU DEAD-
it is up to the American voter to avoid a repeat of mass "euthanasia"-simply put.
Our friend Diane O. failed to read that headline correctly-it is " ..100% PROVEN wrong"-NOT JUST " 100% wrong"

Angelika R (143)
Friday December 6, 2013, 4:49 pm
Judi -understand that this, along with their unreadiness to extend unemployment benefits, it part of their Christmas gift to the American people. That is truly Christian-like..

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 5:21 pm
Excellent points Angelika--this House especially is trying to take the Christ out of Christmas for as many of the vulnerable, disenfranchised, marginalized and poor in the US as possible--the very ones the Bible said Christ considered it doing it to/for him if we do it and if we don't we are not feeding, clothing Him.

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 5:45 pm
spam flagged

Esther Z (94)
Friday December 6, 2013, 6:55 pm
Diane O wrote "stay focused on the truth".
This is a joke, right? Lol.......
Diane, you wouldn't be able to see the truth, or a fact, even if it hit you in the face. You can't handle the truth, you can't see it, and you certainly don't understand it.

J.L.A, you're spot on! An ideologue's tainted dogma, bordering on the pathological, makes it impossible to have a coherent dialogue; as is the case with Diane O., it's a waste of energy to even have a commonsensical discussion with facts. It really is a waste......

Ganaisha Calvin (7)
Friday December 6, 2013, 9:20 pm
thanks for sharing

JL A (281)
Friday December 6, 2013, 9:23 pm
You are welcome Ganaisha

cynthia l (207)
Friday December 6, 2013, 11:42 pm
thks JL for sharing this

Angelika R (143)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 7:39 am
related - FOR LATE VISITORS HERE WHO MAY NOT have SIGNED this already:
Sign the petition: Extend emergency unemployment insurance

David C (78)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 7:42 am
thanks......I'm still trying to find something the GOP is correct about.....

Jason R (67)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 9:06 am
OMG! Diane! You are such a Nazi sympathizer!!!

As if Reaganomics and this gwbush depression doesn't even exist. I can't believe my EYES!!!

Angelene B (148)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 1:55 pm
The GOP is never right about anything. Lol.

Katie & Bill D (107)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 8:53 pm
Interesting Article ! Thank You JLA

. (0)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 12:25 pm
"You know when a far left wing author states she has conducted "a study" that the title will read "GOP 100 percent wrong." Where is an unbiased real study? "

First of all the author of the article is Paul Rosenberg, he is the person WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE. The researcher is who conducted the study, who happens to be Hilary Hoynes, Ph.D., Economics (Stanford). Where do you get this "far left wing author"? It is a study Diane, it is research and considering where she got her Ph.D. and where she actually is faculty I would imagine meets a high standard of academic rigour. Do you call a scientist who has "conducted a study" an author too?

At the end of the day it is clear that you would rather live in a country where children are hungry when they get up in the morning and go to school and when they go to bed at night. Newsflash Diane. This is the title of the study. “ Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net”. This is what you want? To deny food to children, so you can pay less in taxes? Something is fundamentally wrong with you.

JL A (281)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 12:45 pm
Thank you .. for holding the hand and spelling out what most understand about article authors of secondary sources sharing research report findings in layperson terms, but some choose to not understand.

. (0)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 5:51 pm
You are quite welcome.

Sheryl G (359)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 6:46 pm
"In the richest Country in the world we can do better we can end hunger." Rep. Jim McGovern

We most certainly can and should do better. As the recently late Nelson Mandela said, "“Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.”

Most certainly people need to work, most would prefer to do so rather than collect Food Stamps, but when it is still a downturn in the economy based on failed policies from both the Government and private industry, then it is not the fault of the poor that got caught up in this web of misadventure.

If you are doing well today, just count the blessing, for it is but for the Grace of God you too might find the need of Food Stamps. Until jobs programs, training programs and the likes can become a reality, until those who have made out very well in this tilted economy that helps a few at the expense of many starts to wake up to that fact that the system is rigged, then at the very least this Nation that has some with riches beyond what Kings and Queens of the past could only dream of, we can at least make sure people eat and do not starve while the ones who can do something about it gets their acts together.

President Obama inherited a crashed economy, he didn't create it, therefore there was and is a greater need to help those who were the most unfortunate in this collapse. Why is it some can point the fingers at people who get a few hundred dollars to eat, to keep themselves alive, yet hardly a word is mentioned at the millions and billions that the banks and Wall Street ran off with during their schemes and scams?

Thanks for posting this I signed all that was made available including within the thread itself.

JL A (281)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 6:57 pm
Excellent points Dandelion! I'll go back even further in history. Reagan was the first to target safety net programs and he began to do it as Governor of CA--the data showed a significant majority only collected any benefit for less than a year at the time; most of the rest were too disabled to work or mothers with infants and toddlers. He started the myth of laziness and fraud that some still repeat without factual support for such claims.

. (0)
Thursday December 12, 2013, 3:17 pm
There was never a question that stamps helped the deserving poor- it is the millions of dollars in abuse that is the issue. There are no controls on stamps being used for liquor, cigarettes, junk food ,etc.

JL A (281)
Thursday December 12, 2013, 3:25 pm
The retailers are abusing the program if they take them for liquor or cigarettes--it violates their contract so the fraud is perpetuated by the retailers. Many junk type foods were not OK until corporations lobbied to have that changed (there was a time sodas or soft drinks were not allowed and Congress rewrote to allow so it is Congress who decided that is not to be controlled and authorized it).

Sheryl G (359)
Thursday December 12, 2013, 3:40 pm
Food stamps are on a credit type of a card, therefore electronically controlled. Unlike in the past people had an actual stamp value that looked like money and could be traded. Because of this being electronically done right at the point of sale, the system will not pay for cigarettes nor liquor.

As for the junk food, I'd like to see a situation where the healthy foods like fresh veggies and fruits were less expensive than the junk foods. Unfortunately the junk foods fill hungry stomachs getting more food for lack of a better term for the family. Many would like to choose healthier but when the stomach is growling the grapes that are already eaten no longer take the hunger away.

In the dinosaur days when I use to be a Social Worker, we use to go into the homes and help the families. That was part of my job to find out the families skill levels on budgets, nutritional knowledge, and cooking skills. This helped the people to more wisely spend their money and choice of foods and how to prepare them to stretch further. However, with the beginning of the war on Government employees back in the late 70's to early 80's these positions started to be pulled out of the started to become more important to fill out more forms. As they say, you get what you pay for, too many didn't want the programs to be run efficiently by the human beings and thought fewer people and more forms would do the trick. Horrible that we might have to pay for a few more employees that would be cost effective over all, educate the public, and also to become taxpayers too.

The old penny saved and a pound foolish.

MmAway M (520)
Friday December 13, 2013, 1:00 am
Goodness guys Please understand there are 2 parties and they all are fighting all the time the GOP is not the EVIL POS you all think...Take a peek other places! I give up with politics unless I get pushed!

Sheryl G (359)
Friday December 13, 2013, 5:23 am
I know Marilyn you are conservative or with the Republican Party, but it isn't the Republican Party of old when it was Mitt Romney's Father who was a major sponsor of the Food Stamp program. I think this is what people need to wake up to and understand.

Being a lifelong Independent perhaps it's easier for me to see the warts on the two major Party and there are a lot also on the Democrats side as well. But when any Party will go so low as to take FOOD out of the disabled, the Elders, and children's mouths.......then I take Big Issue with that. If you want to support a policy that would let those most vulnerable go without the most basic of all to keep "life" sustaining, food, then to me there is no where else to go take a peek.......these actions are as BOLD as it can get.

JL A (281)
Friday December 13, 2013, 7:59 am
I have a problem with the immorality and anti-Christian aspect of the myths about who receives food stamps/SNAP, how long they receive, how much they receive and where the miniscule compared to other programs fraud is--and those myths are currently spoken by persons in the GOP--I'd have a problem with these nonfactual claims with immoral impacts no matter who or what party was speaking them.

Past Member (0)
Friday December 13, 2013, 11:36 pm
Thanks for sharing

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 14, 2013, 3:30 am
JOBS .... Americans want to work. Ask Obama why companies are not hiring. Ask Obama why the massive increase in food stamps. Ask Obama why college graduates have to move back in with Mom and Dad. Once you start asking yourselves the right questions you just might get the real answers.

Sheryl G (359)
Sunday December 15, 2013, 2:13 pm
The month Obama took office the Nation was losing 839,000 jobs.

Within a year of Obama taking office this Nation moved from losing 839,000 jobs in a month to adding 141,000 jobs.

While Reagan faced a long lasting recession; Obama faced a recession + a housing crisis + a financial crisis, which culminated in a massive employment crisis.

Reagan's 7.2% growth occurred on top of an already growing economy. Obama's was 12.4% from a collapse (under a Republican President) to growth.

Is the fix needs to be done, but with a do nothing Congress the President can't sign was isn't brought to him to sign.

I've given you links before on how many and EXACTLY what JOBS bills that the Republican's have shot down, but obviously Diane you'd rather keep pushing this over worn "I hate Obama propaganda" than to set the truth out there. I have said before, I'm no fan of either Party for both lack in many ways, but this constant push of Obama is the cause of things that happened before he took office isn't correct and he also has no control over when others fail to do their jobs for the American people.

JL A (281)
Sunday December 15, 2013, 2:20 pm
So true Dandelion wage and benefits increases turn over in the economy and contribute more to growth than tax breaks for the wealthy or corporations and creates the jobs, most of which have always been from small businesses who hire when enough have money to spend so children don't return to live with parents because the money that used to pay for education has been off-shored avoiding taxes equitably due.c Hard to hold discussions with ideologues who refuse to consider facts and evidence at odds with what they chose to believe without regard to the facts.

donald Baumgartner (6)
Monday January 13, 2014, 11:02 am
So, whats new??
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.