We had "the great recession" a bunch of people lost tons of money and their jobs and ended up on foodstamps and Obama is mocked because that safety net is available? Republicans are so out of touch and spiteful it is embarrassing that they are American.

So let me get this right. Newt and the rest of the GOP can say in one single response that the reason people are poor is because they are lazy and lack work ethic yet it was Obama who put them on food stamps.

ugh Even your own talking points disagree with you

karnal: 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, while 62 percent disapprove of his work to battle unemployment.


/I am sure we can blame this on Bush too.

47% of Americans think Obama started the bank bailouts

25% of Americans think Obama was not born in the US

41% of Americans believe the Rapture is coming

90% of Americans think they eat a healthy diet

77% of American Adults believe in Angels

I don't trust them because they are idiots

They went "Juan" on Newt. This is what happens when gay people marry, or something.

"Roughly 93 percent of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line, and 55 percent go to households with incomes below half of the poverty line.


47.3% of them already have jobs.



The 2009 Recovery Act temporarily boosted SNAP benefits by 13.6 percent for all SNAP households. Most households received an additional $20 to $24 per person per month in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 and a somewhat smaller increase in fiscal year 2012.

Economists consider this increase one of the most effective and fast-acting provisions of the economic recovery package. Low-income individuals generally spend all of their income meeting daily needs such as shelter, food, and transportation, so every dollar in SNAP that a low-income family receives enables the family to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. Eighty percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed within two weeks of receipt, and 97 percent are spent within a month.

So that money goes back into the economy faster than any else. Thus creating a small but significant demand.


SNAP recipient earns, her benefits decline by only 24 to 36 cents - much less than in most other programs. Families that receive SNAP thus have a strong incentive to work longer hours or to search for better-paying employment. States further support work through the SNAP Employment and Training program, which funds training and work activities for unemployed adults who receive SNAP.

So if you cut off SNAP benefits you get more people on welfare. Good one GOP.

Is there a reason why the first three events of the campaign season occur in the whitest of white bread states--Iowa and New Hampshire--and then move on to perhaps the last bastion of completely unembarrassed racism in the country? If the goal is to shake out political moderates and leave only the extremists behind, this strategy works perfectly. Then there are the late primaries in which the winner has long been selected and the electorate is only going through the motions of contributing to the political process. I believe the parties could force these early states to participate in a Super Tuesday-esque mass primary day simply by threatening to ignore results from early primaries. Or perhaps early, middle and late primaries could be assigned on a quadrennial lottery basis.

Frank N Stein: "No," Gingrich said petulantly, with a slight pause. "I don't see that." The crowd screamed with glee. Gingrich went on to bash unionized janitors in public schools, and I realized that his student-janitor comments represent a right-wing political trifecta, bashing anti-business regulations like child labor laws, public sector unions and lazy "urban" kids. Oh, and he also got to attack elites this time around, insisting his janitor plans drew liberal disapproval because "only the elites despise earning money."

That's when this article went full retard.

And by "full retard", I assume you mean totally accurate, right?

oh please "asking tough questions on race" is code for "gimme gimme gimme". Gingrich is right to denounce that sort of entitled rent seeking.

//can't wait to see President Gingrich at the NAACP

did not. He refused to be called a racist for suggesting maybe people would like jobs.

My, what a ringing chorus of "Fark you, I got mine" we've got going in this thread from the Republican shills. It's simultaneously predictable, pathetic and amusing.

skullkrusher: Headso: You are arguing like the existence of food stamps is inevitable. Republicans do work towards eliminating social services, republicans use rhetoric attacking people on social services. Like someone upthread mentioned Newt's words can mean different things to different people, to me they meant what I said to you the meant the traditional republican propaganda.

So, you WERE literally saying that Newt is blaming Obama for the existence of the safety net when he calls him the "food stamp President"? I read you right?

you know, I'm amazed at the tea party/republican opposition to food stamps. Food stamps and subsidized housing are two of the things keeping poor people from actually revolting against the plutocrats running things here. If we were to take away food stamps from even half of the current recipients, we'd have a full-blown revolution on our hands, because millions of people would suddenly be subsisting on rice, if they were lucky.

No no, food stamps are a necessity if taxes are to remain as low as they are for wealthy people.

StoneColdAtheist: Newt surging in the polls?

Oh, please, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let him be the nominee!!!

If there is a God in Heaven, let it be so. I promise, cross my heart and hope to die, that if this comes to pass I will renounce my atheism, join the local congregation and study the Torah.

With America's luck of late, or just the public's sheer abysmal ignorance and stupidity, Newtie could very well win. If that happened, I'd be looking to leave the country. Unfortunately, you can't make a credible claim for political asylum until they actually set up the concentration camps. Newt's an obvious sociopath. There's absolutely zero doubt in my mind that there would be concentration camps if he got in, but that just isn't good enough evidence for immigration authorities anywhere that I know of.

eraser8: Scerpes: Really? How's Obama polling compared to Romney? I'm not chalking this up as a win for the right, but it's sure not a lock for the Democrats.

I haven't made any claims about Obama's chances. You did.

I asked about your claims. And, you answered with, well, wishful thinking.

Your dismissal of my "claims" as "wishful thinking" is in and of itself a claim. You clearly disagree and think Obama is going carry his second term by a wide margin. The polls disagree with you.

karnal: Dr. Whoof

karnal: How very sad for all of us if that is true.....not that he will get re-elected but that our choices for president comes down to "which is the lesser of two evils".

Nice false equivalence, but if you're going to lump Obama in as an "evil" then the Republican candidates have got to be Satan incarnate by comparison and/or possibly Great Old Ones...I'm thinking Newt may actually be Tsathoggua, and Romney might be Nyarlathotep. Ron Paul is clearly Hastur, as the mere mention of his name seems to summon him or his servants.


You seem to know a lot about the Cthulhu Mythos - you are either a big fan of H.P. Lovecraft or a progressive liberal.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Dr. Whoof

karnal: How very sad for all of us if that is true.....not that he will get re-elected but that our choices for president comes down to "which is the lesser of two evils".

Nice false equivalence, but if you're going to lump Obama in as an "evil" then the Republican candidates have got to be Satan incarnate by comparison and/or possibly Great Old Ones...I'm thinking Newt may actually be Tsathoggua, and Romney might be Nyarlathotep. Ron Paul is clearly Hastur, as the mere mention of his name seems to summon him or his servants.


You seem to know a lot about the Cthulhu Mythos - you are either a big fan of H.P. Lovecraft or a progressive liberal.

So he treated him like an equal?

"Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children." He didn't allow that any residue of racism or discrimination might make it harder for African-Americans to work, graduate from high school or marry.

What kind of racism or discrimination makes it harder for African-Americans to graduate from highschool or marry before they have children?

A 15 year old black girl getting pregnant and dropping out of school is due to racism?

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your posts trying to explain why blaming Obama for people being on food stamps isn't blaming him for the existence of the safety net is a real tutorial in dishonesty for us all.

Those things are not even remotely the same thing. Am I being trolled or are you really this dumb?

No you aren't being trolled, However you are engaging in your favorite form of trolling to distract from the criticism of Republicans now, aren't you?

I think that you got so wrapped up in skullc being an ass to see that he is actually making a valid argument, and didn't seem to defend republicans to me...

eraser8: Scerpes: In other words, what are you basing your argument that "if Obama wins, he squeaks it out" on?

See above.

Thank you. Now I understand your reasoning: wishful thinking.

Really? How's Obama polling compared to Romney? I'm not chalking this up as a win for the right, but it's sure not a lock for the Democrats.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your posts trying to explain why blaming Obama for people being on food stamps isn't blaming him for the existence of the safety net is a real tutorial in dishonesty for us all.

Those things are not even remotely the same thing. Am I being trolled or are you really this dumb?

No you aren't being trolled, However you are engaging in your favorite form of trolling to distract from the criticism of Republicans now, aren't you?

eraser8: Scerpes: eraser8: Jake Havechek: Not my quote, buddy, go back to the post.

Dammit.

Fine.

Scerpes: If Obama wins, he squeaks it out.

What are you basing that on?

I listed my rationale in the post. Go back and check it out.

I asked the question because your rationale was unclear.

But, I'll be more explicit:

What is your basis for believing that "the left isn't going to get anywhere near the turn out that they had last time"?

Obama isn't anywhere near as well liked as he was 4 years ago. The excitement of the first black president is definitely diminished. Palin won't be on the ticket.

What is your basis for believing that "Romney actually has at least a little charisma"?

Compared to McCain? Romney has a ton of charisma.

What is your basis for believing that "Palin won't be allowed anywhere near the ticket."?

That's not going to happen. It's just not. And if you have to ask why, you really haven't been paying attention the last 4 years. Rubio, Huntsman, Daniels, Christie...all have some potential. It's not going to be Palin.

In other words, what are you basing your argument that "if Obama wins, he squeaks it out" on?

See above.

Further:
Any attempt to paint our current economic situation as the fault of one individual or administration is myopic, disingenuous and willfully ignorant. Just as Bush is not entirely to blame neither is President Obama (their relative fault i'll leave up to historians to debate). If you disagree with this you need to reconsider what you're really arguing about.

Attempting to pin 30-40 years of economic, educational and regulatory neglect on the current administration is demonstrably false.

Attempting to frame the current administration as a "welfare" or "food stamp" regime while refusing to acknowledge the racial, cultural and economic connotations of those terms is another example of willful ignorance. Anyone using such language is practicing demagoguery. It is unethical and disrespectful.

Dragging our nations political system through the mud in an attempt to score cheap political points should be immediately and summarily rejected by the voting public. The fact that a segment of it does not indicates a suspension of disbelief on the part of those who embrace these tactics. Were they confronted on a 1 to 1 basis i have little doubt they would agree his tactics are dishonest and unethical. Mob mentality allows them to suspend their own personal responsibility and reward this kind of thinly veiled racist pandering. In a few months/years they will seek to deny their tacit support for this kind of politics but for the moment it is the only chance their candidates have of securing the presidency.

skullkrusher: "We had "the great recession" a bunch of people lost tons of money and their jobs and ended up on foodstamps and Obama is mocked because that safety net is available?" is not an accurate characterization of what is meant behind "food stamp President" though.

By "meant" you mean what he intended it to mean? Sometimes you can accurately characterize what someone actually says without saying what they "meant". Happens all the time.

Not only that, Newt "means" more than one thing with that comment, from the typical boilerplate nonsense that you suggested, to the dogwhistle underbelly, to the literal meaning being presented here. There is no reason to narrow it down to a single meaning, since I guarantee you that a term like "food stamp president" is chosen precisely because it has different meanings to different people, designed to enrage some and wink to others causing them to give standing ovations. Its a very old technique.

I think he is right to point out that the literal meaning is, well, retarded. Mocking Obama for a rise in food stamp use during a recession caused by conservative policies is ridiculous, whatever the other "meanings" may or may not be.

Let's start here:
(there are hundreds of sites that debunk the "liberal media" myth...this one (new window) in particular is run by moderate republicans)


Unguarded Comments of Media-Savvy Conservatives regarding Claims of "Liberal Bias" in the Media

While some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't.



While the masses of Bush regime supporters continue to accept the myth of the "Liberal Media" as an act of faith, the most media-savvy conservative leaders know better. But even while, in unguarded moments, acknowledging the unreality of this fable, Bush promoters are not above continuing to exploit it politically. Indeed, in an America with airways dominated as never before by the 24 hour presence of demagogic talk radio and stridently partisan Fox News, it is a myth that persists only with continuous reinforcement, and it is the incessant repetition on this "Liberal Media" mantra that is the primary factor in the creation of our current intimidated and compliant press.

In his introduction to "What Liberal Media?", Eric Alterman notes,


But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is a just a good way to get their ideas across-or perhaps to prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs.

On occasion, honest conservatives admit this. Rich Bond, then the chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election,

"I think we know who the media want to win this election-and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond also noted during the very same election, however, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media] . . . . If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Bond is hardly alone. That the SCLM were biased against the administration of Ronald Reagan is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced.

"There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer.
Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in the republic's history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies.

"I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage-all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," [Buchanan] cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign.
And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America, has come clean on this issue.

"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Nevertheless Kristol apparently feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing ignorant prejudices of his own constituency. In a 2001 subscription pitch to conservative potential subscribers of his Rupert Murdoch-funded magazine, the Weekly Standard, Kristol complained, "The trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there's too much liberal bias. . . . There's too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes." (It's a wonder he left out "Too much hypocrisy.")

The above is excerpted from "Bias, Slander, and BS", in "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman, p.3. Link to original


. . . . .


The founders of our republic spoke frequently of the essentiality of an informed and self-governing citizenry. Skillful manipulation of public opinion, never extolled as an American nor "conservative value", is today unquestionably a craft at which this Administration excels. While there is no dispute that this artfulness, and the attainment of mastery over the media, has enabled the neoconservative movement to achieve an unparalleled level of influence, it has yet to be seen what damage will accrue to our institutions of self-governance, and grave questions remain over long term effects that this change will effect upon individual liberty, autonomy, and other fundamental American values.

While some conservative leaders have expressed concern for the tendency of the modern conservative movement to yield to the temptations of political power which may be achieved by the use of such manipulative techniques, and while some have decried the subsequent loss of commitment by conservatives to fundamental American values of individual liberty, fairness, and respect for an informed citizenry with diverse points of view, the unfortunate reality is that the current conservative movement is dominated by those with other priorities.

phenn: The whole farking thing was a complete and utter disgrace.

[p.twimg.com image 500x500]

yep - I know it's a cliche to point this out, but I wish so-called American Christians could see themselves for what they really are. Sadly, it is American culture that brands itself with a faux Christian stamp that is the problem. This country has far fewer adherents to the faith than it thinks it has.

Vodka Zombie: I have a feeling Juan Williams is beginning to regret taking that job at Fox.

i know. that mean man called him "juan".

HotWingConspiracy: Yes! White people must save them!

Save yourself. Notice how you always expect someone else to swoop down and fix everything? Very telling.

You are probably wearing one of those purple t-shirts. They serving soup over at the union hall for you right now.

barneyfifesbullet: And if "food stamp president" isn't a racist dog whistle, I don't know what is.

You are a liberal.

Any criticism of Obama is not only racist, it's a racist dog whistle. Give us an example of criticism of Obama that isn't racist. You can't do it.

Not Racist: Boy, Obama is about 400 types of disappointing on civil liberties, don't get me started on his negotiating skills with regard to congress, and it sure seems like Reaper drones are considered the solution a little quickly.

Racist: Food stampy McPresident sure is presumptuous about the American people, probably due to his Kenyan worldview and shiftless nature. He's just not of a kind able to understand the complexities involved in being president.

Dusk-You-n-Me

karnal: 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, while 62 percent disapprove of his work to battle unemployment.

And he'll still be re-elected.

HotWingConspiracy

karnal: 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, while 62 percent disapprove of his work to battle unemployment.


/I am sure we can blame this on Bush too.

And he's still more trusted on both issues as compared to republicans.


How very sad for all of us if that is true.....not that he will get re-elected but that our choices for president comes down to "which is the lesser of two evils".


/come on December 21st!

barneyfifesbullet: Blacks are brainwashed by blacks. They are their own worst enemy.

But, go ahead thinking evil whitey holds them down. That's convenient.


Fantastic troll, should be good for a few bites.

The horrible part isn't that Newt is a race-baiting prick, it's that race-baiting and general prickishness won him the crowd:

"The crowd jumped to its feet screaming "Newt! Newt! Newt!" Fox cut to a commercial."

HotWingConspiracy: Right, because black people are brainwashed by welfare.

Blacks are brainwashed by blacks. They are their own worst enemy.

But, go ahead thinking evil whitey holds them down. That's convenient.

Masso: Seriously South Carolina debate crowd... wtf.

The Economist website did a liveblog of last nights debate and one of the bloggers said something like "this crowd is going to be disappointed that there's not going to be a lynching tonight". That captured the mode of the crowd pretty well.

And if "food stamp president" isn't a racist dog whistle, I don't know what is.

You are a liberal.

Any criticism of Obama is not only racist, it's a racist dog whistle. Give us an example of criticism of Obama that isn't racist. You can't do it.

65 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, while 62 percent disapprove of his work to battle unemployment.


/I am sure we can blame this on Bush too.

And they will scratch their heads and wonder why they got thumped in November. Then blame Romney for being too liberal. Then get thumped even harder in 2016 with a "true conservative".

2010 will turn out to be the most deceptive lesson GOP ever learned.

C'mon. Don't teach those kids how to work and earn money. That's crazy.

Teach them how to stand in line with their hands out, and blame whitey. It's same playbook liberals have been running for decades. Then, after they turn 18, they will be dependable Democrat voters.

Headso

We had "the great recession" a bunch of people lost tons of money and their jobs and ended up on foodstamps and Obama is mocked because that safety net is available? Republicans are so out of touch and spiteful it is embarrassing that they are American.


Something is very embarrassing (and off the mark) about your remark....just not what you think it is.

What scares me is that people take Grinchrich seriously.

Seriously South Carolina debate crowd... wtf.

America, you owe Newt Gingrich the presidency!

Not only is he better than you, he's smarter than you!

I have a feeling Juan Williams is beginning to regret taking that job at Fox.

The article was a bit off the rails. Santorum spoke about how African-Americans were disproportionately imprisoned, and Newt's contempt whilst addressing Williams is the default way a republican speaks to any one that is left of the center.

Man, I love Gingrich. As long as he's around I never have to worry about voters forgetting what a self-entitled bunch of whining morons the GOP are. Thanks, Newt!

Well, in Newt's defense he is a complete asshole. It's not like this should be surprising at this point.

The main plank of republican ideology is racism. All of their actions and rhetoric can be explained through that lens.

CitizensUnited: //can't wait to see President Gingrich at the NAACP

Here's a preview:

"Second, you're the one who earlier raised a key point," he continued. "The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment.

Uhhh, no Newt. 'Corridor of Shame' is a name that has nothing to do with unemployment. It's named that because the schools in that area are uniformly shiatty. And I'm not talking you just had a nice good dump while reading the paper on a Sunday morning shiatty. I'm talking some giant wet cow patty crawling with gagging maggots / not having enough books or even chairs to go around shiatty.

Oh how I yearn for the day when we can all sit together at the table of brotherhood, and then the poor and colored people can get up and clear the table, because those dishes won't do themselves.