http://www.thestar.com/...litics-of-resentment?bn=1

Dunno.

Sort of counter

http://www.ft.com/...e1-adda-00144feab49a.html

(open via google searching for it)

interesting

gingrich is a bit of a nutter in any case; though at least he's committed to doing crazy things in space like mining the moon o.O hehe


i like the fact that he's more of intellectual, but dislike about everything else about him lol; especially the extremity of his views

love the jon stewart bit on how romney reacted to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoIGbS5YoD4 :)

ignore the MSNBC crap in that vid

"Some of the ugliness that may then disfigure American politics is already plain to see. Gingrich keeps calling Barack Obama a “food-stamp president” (as opposed to himself as a “paycheque” one), a reference, indirect but intentional, to the colour of those most likely to depend on food stamps, and also the most likely to vote for Obama."

I laughed at this one. This guy's column is an utter joke. Let me lead off by claiming the Republican is racist because of his food stamps line. I asked some black liberal friends of mine about this and they laughed pointing out the obvious, whites make up the largest WIC portion. It's such a silly notion perpetuated by a ridiculous set of media bent on confirming their own preheld biases.

Sure Newt's aggressive and will campaign negatively. What candidate in the race won't? And since when does Obama get a free pass? The guy is running ads in swing states right now attacking Republicans and we don't even know who his opponent is yet. So silly. If anything, Newt's rise shows that people are looking past the negative ads toward the actual rhetoric from debates. And that should be refreshing.

I love how every time a Republican criticizes the welfare state, with zero implication of race, the media takes it and turns it into a racial issue. Who is really racist here? Where I live, when I think of food stamps, I think of big fat lazy white people hooked on oxycontin.

The facts are, the number of people on food stamps has doubled under Obama. That is a better indicator of economic malaise than the unemployment rate, because it includes those that have given up, are too lazy to find a job and prefer to live off the government, or have been displaced from a high paying job to one that does not pay enough to make it off food stamps.

I agree with you, trumper, about the racism line, but Newt has been running negative ads on Romney and Romney is now running negative Newt ads in Florida. People aren't looking past the rhetoric, they are buying into preconceived images which neither candidate really are.

There was an article about Reagan and his "welfare" queen speech and accusations of him being racist even though he never once mentioned race (the man actually had a record of being strongly anti-segregation back in his acting days).
Also aren't there more whites than blacks who use food stamps anyway?

his acting days weren't much to brag about, to boot, martian.

i could, but can anybody else name a movie he was in?

Thought the Colbert "Norway Butter" story that followed was good too

"He also happens to be a natural extremist, angry, resentful, vengeful. And he is all of this at a time when a great many Americans are deeply angry."

Wasn't a biased article was it?
but then of course it don't look like it was written toward many voters.... Oh CANADA

Not that it matters, but Romney started that tit-for-tat. I was actually impressed Newt didn't go negative early. Then again given the debates I guess he didn't have to. I was also not surprised that he broke his promise of not going negative because it's inevitable in modern politics.

I tend to think primary voters are seeing what they want to see and so it's more about creating the image they want to have seen then it is about defining your opponent. Ergo why Newt can win SC despite Romney's barrages. They want to see a southern conservative ideas man against the carpet-bagging northern phony--or so they wanted to see it. Vice versa in New Hampshire. And so on.

Romney still probably wins in the long haul, but it may be a brokered convention if Newt squeaks out a victory in Florida.

And you're correct Martian, there are more whites than blacks on food stamps. Hence why the racist line is just so ridiculous. My literal african friend finds it amusing that he's called african-american because he would love to be an american citizen. He jokingly asked me if I was a european-american.

Your friend sounds like a great American. Unfortunately, the Democratic party and their media allies will never allow his dream to become a reality. Without a racial divide in this country, the Democratic party loses.

a much higher % of blacks (compared to whites) are on food stamps. So to just laugh at any connection to race is kind of laughable heh:P. Not to mention I think a greater majority of American's experience with poor is urban and yes majority minority so...

Finally and most importantly there is 100% a racial component b/c the whole food stamp thing was brought up by Newt when discussing what he would say in a hypothetical speech to the NAACP.

Now, I'm not saying Newt is being racist (although I'm not saying he's not either), I'm just pointing out y'all are being silly for trying to say there is no racial element to this "food stamp debate"...

According to Bobby, we cannot criticize any problems in America, because nearly every problem in America afflicts blacks at a higher rate than whites.

nice analysis klown

Klown, people on food stamps did NOT "double" under Obama. FoxNews lied to you!

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wisummary.htm
Total Number of US citizens on food stamps (WIC):
2008: 8.7 million
2011: 8.97 million

"The facts are" more people joined WIC under Bush than under Obama, both annually and overall.

If WIC is an indicator of economic malaise, then Bush's constant participation increase shows that Bush's economy sucked harder than Obama's. Also, 2010 to 2011 showed a decrease in participation, which Bush never experienced.


I think we could get a consensus to take Newt up on one of his more insane ideas - and permanently station him on the moon.

Klown I would say it is close to impossible (and probably rightly so) for any discussion of poverty/poverty programs in the US to not involve race to some degree. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion you do, but any reasonable person reading my post can see that's not at all what I said=)

You're looking at the wrong data, unsympathetic. WIC is not the "food stamp" program.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

Doubled was an exaggeration, but he's getting close.

Food stamp participation has increased less nominally and less as a percentage than that under Bush.

They haven't released the SNAP monthly for all of Bush's tenure yet, so until they do, an accurate comparison can only be the annual stats as released under a different link in the same site.

Total increase under Bush: 16.3M
Total increase under Obama: 10.5M

Percentage increase under Bush: 95%
Percentage increase under Obama: 31%

The fun thing about calling Obama the "food stamp President" is.. when I think of a food stamp recipient, I think of a fat white dude sitting in a broken lawn chair wearing a wifebeater watching NASCAR in a trailer park.

And if you want to do the completely accurate count [Food stamps are WIC+SNAP]:

Total increase under Bush: 18.2M
Total increase under Obama: 10.4M

Percentage increase under Bush: 74%
Percentage increase under Obama: 24%


Bush is the food stamp president - not Obama. This shouldn't be surprising - Bush's only actions were to siphon money as fast as he could to his true constituents, the top 1-5%.. viewed through that lens, his presidency was a success!

Click my link, your numbers are wrong.

Numbers were obtained from that link, son. Show your work, boy - you're wrong.

I'm done talking to you if you're going to talk like that, but a quick glance at the chart proves you are wrong. It speaks for itself so I don't need to.

i concur with klown. unsympathetic your numbers are grossly incorrect.

cgr4