Food stamp surge report delayed until after the election
November 15, 2012 at 10:12 am in News by Dustin Siggins 32 Comments
In the week before the election, there was a great deal of concern that the Bureau of Labor Statistics would delay release of the final unemployment numbers due to Hurricane Sandy. This was especially considered to be possible if the numbers were unfavorable to President Obama.
While this delay never took place, ZeroHedge.com reported on another report that was delayed by over a week: the food stamp report. From the article, no emphasis added:
The number of course is that showing how many Americans are on foodstamps, and usually is released at the end of the month, or the first day or two of the next month. This time the USDA delayed its release nine days past the semi-official deadline, far past the election, and until Friday night to report August foodstamp data. One glance at the number reveals why: at 47.1 million, this was not only a new all time record, but the monthly increase of 420,947 from July was the biggest monthly increase in one year. One can see why a reported surge in foodstamps ahead of the elections is something the USDA, and the administration may not have been too keen on disclosing.
Zero Hedge has a number of important charts and other points, and so I recommend reading the article in full, but the above summarizes the major focus of the article. Namely, the Administration almost certainly waited on releasing bad news about the growth of food stamp recipients until after the election. So much for transparency.
No surprise here. The government is being run by Marxist communists. It’s essential in Marxist ideology that the masses become dependent upon the state to distribute necessities and benefits uniformly to them. This is just a transitional period that has to occur between taking control of a capitalist economy and changing it to a government-based Marxist economy. That trend will increase as long as there is only weak opposition to it, like having Boehner as the Speaker of the House.
We need a new Speaker. Paul Ryan should be the next Speaker.
Dustin:
The implication of this post is that the food stamps report was withheld for political reasons. Frankly, I fail to see how withholding the report would impact the election anymore than publishing it would inpact the election.
1) the food stamp argument was used by Romney and the R’s throughout the campaign without much traction. One more report would not have added or detracted from that effort.
2) With the economy and unemployment being what it has been and being that way since the end of the Bush administration, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to expect the need for food stamps to increase regardless of who is the President or which party controls Congress.
3) The emphasis for Congress during the last two years was to deny Obama of any potential legislative victory which would/could be used during the election. Congress purposefully let the populace suffer for potential political gain. As it turned out that philosophy was flawed and didn’t work for them
4) Within the last week of the election, the polls indicated 92% (+/-) had already made up their mind as to who they would vote for. The exit polls indicated an undecided split of about 60-40 for Romney. That leaves very few potential voters where open to use that information for decision purposes. Certainly not enough to make a difference in the final outcome.
I suspect this information is only beneficial for the purpose of inflaming those partisan’s that are already inflamed against Obama.
I believe the energy being used to demonize Obama (as the energy used to demonize the R’s) would better serve the country by focussing on creating more jobs and improving the life of Americans.
Would a TRUE Patriot work to divide the country or participate in a secession movement? I think not!!!!.
3)
Joe – Why do you waste your time trying to convince these people? Most are fanatical fundamentalist and will not change their views.
Armalite:
It is not my intent to convince anyone of anything! You are correct, many viewing this site are fanatical fundamentalists who refuse to accept facts that don’t support their pre-determined disposition. many simply hate Obama and will look under any rock to find a rationalization to justify their hatred. There are, however, many that don’t fall into that category. My point is merely to demonstrate that there are free-minded, intelligent people, who love this country but think differently than they do. What an individual does with that knowledge is their business.
I find it interesting to hear them argue for FREE SPEECH, then engage in name-calling or belittling those that believe dirrerent from them! They argue for EQUAL RIGHTS, then cheer when the rights of others are abridged! They argue they are CONSTITUTIONALISTS, yet they refuse to accept the will of the majority. I could go on about all the contradictions they fail to see, but you get my point. The real point is that they have every right to be wrong.
They fail to see that secession will never happen, but they will be successful in energising the progressive base. It merely digs them into a deeper hole. They faill to see that impeachment will never happen, but they will be successful in branding themselves as fringe psycotics. All they do is hurt their own cause. While they rant and rave, they will still be subject to the rule of the majority whether they like it or not; whether they accept it or not; whether they agree with it or not.
Joe, I appreciate your arguments in text. I think your arguments are well constructed, although I tend to associate your positions with concession to the Democrats. I believe we should not concede anything. Our government is operating insanely. We are obviously on a course to fiscal doom, and there is not a strong voice in our government to lead us in a direction away from this inevitability. Our government is so incompetent, it can’t even generate a budget. There is no possible way we can get spending under control without taking the very obvious basic first step, to count the money we have and determine how we will spend that money.
Given our current crisis with the debt, any other idea other than executing a plan for government determined by a budget has to be based on an assumption analogous to the utopian idea that money grows on trees.
We need a different voice in government. Every voice we hear today endorses the suicidal path we are currently on.
We need Paul Ryan to be the next Speaker of the House.
At least then we’ll get a budget.
What needs to be cut is secondary to the fact that the government needs to cut spending. We elected a House of Representatives that has that Constitutional obligation. We have not seen a budget since Obama took office.
That has to change if we will have any hope of surviving as the country we know today.
There is none so blind as he who shall not see…….
And to insinuate secession is unpatriotic is idiotic considering it was something those before us have done. It is the idea of standing up to one’s government that is totally patriotic to the people of this great country.
Yup, the Southern Confederacy last tried secession over slavery and we all know what happen.
Billy:
To be technically correct, the Civil War didn’t begin over slavery. It began as a “states right” issue. Slavery wasn’t introduced into the conflict until January, 1863 (off the top of my head, I’m not sure if it was 1862 or 1863) with the implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation was a political manuver rather thn a moral exercise. It abolished slavery in only those states then in rebellion against the US. It was designed to prevent England and/or France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy.
Riggers:
Yes, I truly believe that secession is unpatriotic. I don’t see taking any action that threatens the union as being patriotic.
You are correct that it has been tried before. In the Revolution, a minority group chose to rebel against the reigning government. We fought a war over the issue. The point you fail to recognise is that had we LOST the REVOLUTIONARY WAR, those patriots would have been shot as traitors. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the difference between Patriot and Traitor is defined by winning or losing!!!
You are correct that nullification was tried once before. The issue was settled by the Civil War. States do not have the right to seceed. Yet, hundreds of thousands of people were killed and maimed in the process. Millions of acres of property was destroyed in the process. As in the Revolutionary War, the issue of nullification will be decided by the winner of the contest. The current drive for petitions can not and will not result in success. If a group of people feel that strongly against the Federal Government, the only legitimate way to change it is with the ballot box.
Speaking for me and me alone, should a group of people chose to take up arms against this country, look for me in the front row of its defenders. It will be my pleasure to blow them straight to HE$$ or to die trying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me close by saying my position has nothing to do with Obama or progressives or any other political philosophy! It has to do with an oath I took 45 years ago and will adhere to until I take my final breath. “I swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign or domestic, so help me GOD!!!!
Joe you asked the question:
“Would a TRUE Patriot work to divide the country or participate in a secession movement? I think not!!!!.”
The petitions supporting secession are an effective and appropriate way for citizens to voice their dissatisfaction with the administration.
In my opinion when Americans use the rights granted in our Bill of Rights they are acting as patriots. If you read the petitions most are concerned with preservation of our constitution, country, and form of government. As a patriot my loyalty and love of country lies within the ideals of our Bill of Rights and Constitution, not with the elected politicians. Although I did not sign the petition, I am from the great state of Texas and I share the concerns of those that drafted the Texas petition. This administration is not practicing fiscally responsibility. They are eroding our personal rights and civil liberties. I support all legal forms of protest including the petitions. I think they are a strong message as to how many people feel disenfranchised. One benefit to these petitions and the interest they have generated is that some people such as myself are visiting the “We the People” web site and finding issues they are concerned about and signing or drafting petitions. The disturbing outcome is the number of internet responses I have read that promote the removal of the petitioners rights as a response to the petition or spew hatred toward entire sections of the country.
Kristene:
Your point is well argued.
I pride muself on being consistent with the application of my personal values and principles. Sometimes i am not as consistent as I should be. For that I apologise.
My issue with the petitions rests with the subject matter rather that the underlying principle of freedom of expression.A person has every right to express their feelings in whatever form they chose (keeping in mind those limits placed on expression regarding inciting damaging actions and defamation).
I find it contradictory for a person to claim to be a patriot yet advocate actions that would destroy the very country to which they are being patriotic! Additionally, I find it to be a block to the dialogue that I believe is necessary to move the country forward.
You write: “This administration is not practicing fiscally responsibility. They are eroding our personal rights and civil liberties…” Without meaning to be argumentative, what administration practices do you find to be fiscally irresponsible? As a follow-up, To what degree do you attach responsibility to congressional actions? What personal rights and civil liberties do you feel are or have been eroded? I ask from the stand point of attempting to understand your position, not to challenge your belief. I have followed the administration fairly close over the last 4 years and I don’t see evidence of either allegation that wasn’t necessary or appropriate. That is not to say that I believe everything the administration did was right. There are many actions that I think could have been done differently and been more effective, but generally, everything I can think of was within the legitimate and constitutional authority of the administration to do. I could be wrong, but only a specific dialogue can bring us to that conclusion.
Joe, in my opinion the Administration has been fiscally irresponsible in their failed stimulus programs, health care program, housing bail outs to name a few. Now they are promoting a class war. Pointing fingers at the wealthy. Taxing the wealthy will not fix the economy, but it has caused division in our country. Welfare programs have grown 19%. My taxes, and I am far from wealthy are going up.
The Administration has continuously attacked personal rights. Passing acts that make it easier to arrest protesters, working with the UN on a Small Arms Treaty, passing executive orders to control commercial, government and PRIVATELY owned communication resources.
That would have been true. The election was leaning toward Romney until Chris Christi snubbed him and in the next motion sucked up to Obama. That created a 5-point swing and gave the election to Obama. Without Christi sabotaging the election, Obama gets at the most 47 percent of the vote, and more likely less.
You are correct. Witholding the horrific food stamp information did not have an impact on the election.
Joe, are you really that stupid? They delayed this just like they ordered companies to delay announcing closings and layoffs until after the election. Why? Do you really have to be told? Being a liberal slob, I guess you do. SO OBOWELMOVEMENT WOULDN’T LOSE VOTES IN ELECTION, dummy. As for dividing the nation, you voted for the most venomous divider in the history of American politics! He made bull S clinton look like Ronald Reagan in comparison.
Ken:
Don’t you realize that name calling (stupid!, Slob!) only shows your lack of intelligence, lack of education and lack of maturity!
The only person I see spewing venom is you!
Yes, a week before the election you saw pictures of Obama hugging people in New Jersey (the fact of the matter is that he DIDN”T go to New York – but facts are irrelavant to you) and yes, it probably did benefit him to a small degree in the election. It certainly isn;t why he won or why Romney lost! But then, Obama did no more nor less than President Bush did during Katrina or 911 or Regan did after Columbine or the shuttle disaster.
I’m surprised you are not claiming that Obama and/or his election team didn’t somehow cause the storm to develop and guide it to New York knowing that it would create billions of dollars in damage and disrupt hundreds of thousands of people, just so he could have a photo op and enhance his electibility. But then, given time, I’m sure there will be some well placed TP’er that will make that claim1
A week before the election you saw Chris Christi sucking on Obama’s ass. That’s what changed the election.
A week before the election the nation saw Chris Christi chastise Romney, and in the very next step prance around with Obama.
That sent the election to Obama.
And oh yes joe, exit polls showed that pictures of hussein hugging people in new jersey and new york had a major impact on voter preference.
The scary thing is Ken, he actually believes that shit as do many the Liberal persuasion. God help us all, we’ll need it.
Joe I appreciate your service and commitment to the oath you took. I too took that oath. But as a veteran of this country I am disgusted with the Federal Gov’s corruption. I too believe that to change or abolish this Gov we must do so at the ballot box. But the Constitution that you and I swore to “protect and preserve against all enemies, foreign and domestic” was ment to limit the Gov, not empower it with unlimited power. So far this gov pushed on the republic a healthcare plan that 70% of the population said no to. That is not democracy, that is tictatorship. Then the judicial injustice of the courts is appaulling. Then we have a Commander-in-chief that disreguards the laws that he’s in charge of enforcing. He went as far as to undermine the authority of congress by invoking executive privileges to his Attorney General for the failed fast and furious program. The Boarder agent (American citizen that the Gov was supposed to protect) died as a result of the failed program.
When I took the oath, it was for the soul purpose of protecting Americans, not the Gov. It is the right of the people when gov become destructive to these ends to alter or abolish such Gov. I don’t want to overthrow the Gov, I want to reform it and revamp it. Hit the reset buttom so to speak and put in real, everyday american patriots that want nothing more that the sucess of this country, not to line thier own wallets.
People can petition, it is there right as American and is one of the underlying elements in our free world. It was what set this republic apart from all other countries in this world. It is a patriotic act to express your rights that men have spilt their blood to secure. It’s an insult to them when we sit back and let those rights be taken from us. So if it takes a civil war to reign in a Federal Gov that is out of control and taking our freedoms away, then I say, so be it. But I know this, I’d rather it be reformed at the ballot box but this last election just showed that’s not going to happen. Also know this, I don’t want a civil war. The last one was a horribly bloody and devasting war. The next one will make the last one look like a picnic in the park in comparison.
I ment dictatorship, not tictatoship
Brandon:
Thank you for your service!
I don’t think we are that far apart. I agree that the Constitution was designed to specify the power and responsibilities of the Federal government. I disagree that our Federal government has exceeded it limits and I know of no politician or elected official that is advocating unlimited power (the closest I have heard of is in Michigan where by the legislation has passed a law that gives them the power to relieve local elected officials without judicial procedings and replace those elected officials with a designated appointee of the state government)
I disagree with your statement that 70% of the population disagree with Obamacare. The percentage, upon information and belief, of those still resisting Obamacare is around 40%. The SCOTUS has rulled it to be constitutional and as it moves toward implementation, the approval rate is increasing. I would bet that if you took an unbiased look at the features of Obamacare, you’d change your mind. True, there are aspects that need revision and tweeking, but there are many benefits to the program. For example, the one I like most is that Insurance companies now must spend 80% of the premiums they receive on healthcare. That limits their ability to arbitrarily rasie rates. The evidence that Americans have been overcharged is the fact that millions of Americans have received rebates for the inflated premiums.
I would suggest that you are applying a different standard to Obama than you would to any of his predessors. His envoking executive priveledge is a recognised constitutional right held by the executive and has been used by every President I can think of in the past. Whether it was rightly or wrongly envoked is to be determined by a Judge. At this point, the evidence and facts indicate you are premature in your judgment. if a Judge determines he was wrong, so be it. Until that time, he is operating within the perameters of his authority as precedent has established it.
I agree with your fundamental premise that the Fed government needs to be reformed and revamped. I don’t agree that Obama is the only problem. Congress and their policies and procedures is a greater hinderence to American growth and prosperity. I also agree that everyday Americans want nothing more than to see this country succeed and to have faith that our children will enjoy a better opportunity than we did. Frnakly, I don’t have an answer to how that is accomplished. I do know that arguing over abortion, nullification, women’s rights, name calling and vitriol isn’t going to get us there.
There is no way that even momentarily considering a “HOT WAR” can be considered sane or beneficial to the country.It isn’t a case of “rather” or either/or. If the firebrands get their way, our country will be destroyed. Calmer heads and intellect MUST prevail to prevent that kind of rhetoric from building to a shooting war. I would suggest you consider the M.A.D. philosophy that we have lived with for 60 years. The hostile rhetoric will bring us to MUTUALLY ASSURED DISTRUCTION. That isn’t an answer to anything!!
Brandon, apparently the petitioners do not want war either. Every one of them starts with the word, “peaceably”. The real threat to our country is the people that do not want the petitioners to have the right to petition. Scrolling through all of the petitions there are many that I disagree with, some I find offensive, but all have a right to their voice.
Obama responded to a petition to create a “White House” beer. Surely he can find the time to respond to the Americans that are currently exercising their right to petition as granted in the Bill of Rights.
Obviously, that oath means more to some than others.
Semper Fi, brother.
Baggers. Sad, silly, stupid.
Suck it and like it.
Silly tea people. America prefers coffee.
GILBERT, Ariz. – Holly Solomon, the pregnant woman accused of running over her husband because he didn’t vote in the presidential election. Solomon opposed President Barack Obama and was upset her husband didn’t go to the polls.
I wonder if she is part of the Tea Party?
Talk of secession, or of revolution, by those on the right (just like talk of moving to Canada by those on the left) is just so much empty post-election bloviating — frustrated, angry, helpless-feeling people letting off some steam. Whether or not such talk is inconsistent with patriotism (which, by definition, it is) isn’t really an important point, because it’s just gum-flapping. The important point is that every breath spent in such debate, every neuron devoted to such thoughts, is another opportunity wasted…wasted opportunities to get yourself back on track and get back in the game.
The success of our republic critically depends on a healthy two-party system (three parties would be fine, but two is the absolute minimum requirement). Right now we’re a one-party system because establishment Republicans are just spinning in circles (figuring that all they have to do in the next election is run some youngish people of color with enough self-control to avoid talking about rape); Tea Partiers are just spinning in circles (compare blog posts on this site from two years ago and today — no difference, no critical self-examination, no intellectual growth; and the guy who should be the party’s standard-bearer during this period of wandering in the wilderness, Romney, is just spinning his wheels sticking to the same foolish 47% nonsense which lost him the election in the first place. Y’all need to pull up your socks and do some actual thinking about how you can become a real political party. You owe that to America. Or, you can continue to engage in empty chatter about secession. Your choice.
Winston:
There aren’t enough descriptive adjectives in the english language to sufficiently applaud your post. You are SOOOOO right on, it’s unbelievable!!!!
The two-party system is necessary for the growth and welfare of the country. The minority party serves to check the majority to insure the country stays in the middle of the road and doesn’t run off into a ditch (which would happen if we went too far right or too far left!)
What’s been missing, in my view, is that both party’s SHOULD be focussed on solving the country’s problems and creating a climate for growth and prosperity. Instead, they are focussed on perpetuating their own party. (years ago I learned that the best way to keep your job was to do your job) Apparently neither party has learned that lesson. Both are trying to game the system for an advantage.
The second thing missing is the principle of compromise. Let me be clear, By compromise,I do not mean one must compromise their principles or values; Nor do I mean capitulate. There is not a single problem facing the country that can not be solve through communication, cooperation and compromise. To me, compromise means a middle of the road solution whereby neither side gets all of what they want, but both sides get something. The beneficiary is the country.
I have been a conservative my entire life. Up until 2008, I had never voted for a Democrat for President. In 2008, while I have total respect of John McCain, I just couldn’t see him getting a grip on the problems we had at that time. So I voted for Obama. In 2012, I looked for a Republican candidate that would focus on the country and unify (to some degree) congress. Not only did they fail to have such a person run for the nomination, They nominated the equilivant to Sharon Angle and Christine O’Odonnell. Romney was so ambiguous about what he would do or how he would do it, I simply couldn;t vote for him. Additionally, If Romney was elected, we would have also ushered in the radical elements of the party. I believe social issues would have taken priority over economic issues just as it did after the 2010 election. That was totally unacceptable to me. So I voted for Obama for a second term. I would happily vote for a Republican if and only if I felt the country’s interests were his/her interests. The TP offered a great opportunity get the primary party’s on the right track , but have, to date, blown that opportunity. It can regain that opportunity, but they have to be less radical and more reasonable; they have to be more intelligent and less emotional; and they have to be more unified on policy.
The choice seems simple to me. They can continue as they have and drive off moderates and center right voters, in which case, their power and influence will be marginalized until they simply go away (as has happened to third party’s throughout our history) or that can refocus, determine specific party objectives and really make a difference. My preference would be to choose the later rather than the former, but either way, my vote and effort will go to the group that puts America and Americans first!; that is willing to listen as well as speak; and will accept the notion that we are ALL Americans and worthy of respect and regard.
Joe, if you voted for the kenyan klown, you are no Conservative and I doubt you even know the meaning of the word.
Winston,
Patriots protect the ideals of which the government stands, not the Administration which may or may not follow those ideals.
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ….. that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….Liberty ….. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….
These petitions are patriotic and protected under the Bill of Rights.
I do agree that the republican party does need to redefine itself. We need to move away from moral principles such as abortion. That in my opinion have no place in politics and move towards much smaller less intrusive governments. That is not to say that I believe that government has the right to force Catholic organizations to perform abortions the should not. I and my family recently joined the Tea Party, because we want to help redefine the republican party. We are frustrated, by the lack of cohesion in our party and extremely concerned about the direction of the current administration. We believe our rights and liberties are being eroded while our party dickers over issues that are no longer relevant. We also believe the current Administration is not practicing fiscal responsibility. I want the Republican party to be defined by values I stand behind, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, freedom and liberty. I believe our constitution and government as it was designed is still the best in the world. However, the erosion that has occurred in the past few years as we move towards socialism is disturbing.
Jen C.
01028 – East Longmeadow MA