“The goal is to drive us out of the Middle East…they want to drive the West out of the Mideast and take over these Muslim countries and create an al Qaeda-type religious entity in the place of what exists today,” Graham said. “So this is an effort to terrorize us, to drive us out of the Mideast, and if we ever take the bait and try to come and home and create fortress America, there will be another 9/11.”
-Lindsey Graham

Has Graham ever stopped and considered that the endless drone strikes and occupations that he supports are pretty much the entire reason why Al-Qaeda has been emboldened? Our foreign policy is a great recruitment tool for extremist groups.

Rush Holt is such a nerd

My dad loves Rush Holt, and was sad when redistricting moved Fair Haven into Christ Smith's district. Interestingly, Fair Haven was in Pallone's district in the 80s and 90s. My dad didn't like Pallone much, but he did like Jim Howard. I don't think Cory Booker is going to do all that well in eastern Monmouth County, based on a few political discussions with my family.

jerseyhoya wrote:Paul Krugman wrote a column today making fun of Republicans (amusingly titled Republicans Against Reality) for wanting to repeal the laws of arithmetic, then alleged they want to cut food stamp spending in half (last I checked $40 billion was not one half of $780 billion, but Krugman is a tenured prof at Princeton, so maybe I should double check my math).

I need to win a Nobel Prize so I can write made up shit in the New York Times and have people nodding along in anger.

This is probably just more socialistic communist number deviance, but from a different NYTimes article on food stamps comes this:

Ron Nixon, NYTimes wrote:House Plan on Food Stamps Would Cut 5 Million* From Program

Nearly 48 million people currently receive food stamp benefits, and the program costs about $80 billion a year.

* people, rather than dollars

AndI think this data is from the Agriculture Department. The 3rd column of dollar figures totals annual SNAP outlays, and puts the figure for 2012 at, I believe, about $74.6 billion.

The cuts proposed would amount to spending about $40 billion less than the $780 billion that is projected to be spent on the program over the next decade under current law

jerseyhoya wrote:The cuts proposed would amount to spending about $40 billion less than the $780 billion that is projected to be spent on the program over the next decade under current law

is there value in doing the projection over a decade? Lots could change in that time.

Meanwhile you're talking cutting food benefits for a 15-20% of the residents of states like FL, MI, OH, PA, the Carolinas, TX.... Don't Republicans like winning?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The cuts proposed would amount to spending about $40 billion less than the $780 billion that is projected to be spent on the program over the next decade under current law

is there value in doing the projection over a decade? Lots could change in that time.

Meanwhile you're talking cutting food benefits for a 15-20% of the residents of states like FL, MI, OH, PA, the Carolinas, TX.... Don't Republicans like winning?

I think the Farm Bill Reauthorization is a 5 year thing, so scoring how much that's going to cost is important. They generally project programs over 10 years as well. We don't use zero based budgeting, and it makes sense with most laws not changing to see how much we think they will cost if current median projections hold. Lots can change, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in the projection. And you need to at least run the numbers for the five years the programs are being authorized for.

And it's not cutting food benefits for 15-20% of residents of a variety of states. From what I've read, the savings come from tightening eligibility requirements, so about 5% of the 15-20%, or 0.75-1% of people, would be effected.

why make them ineligible?

Because, generally, the more people pay for their own shit, the better. I don't think the bill has been released, but the comments on the changes include work requirements or job training requirements for people to qualify if they're not on disability and do not have children.

Spending on food stamps has increased by 50% over the past six years. But suggesting a 5% cut is DRACONIAN.

The cut cuts spending to cut it, not to help people out or improve their status in life. If 'they pay for their own shit' less food will be bought, people will be poorer, and the economy will suffer.

You act as though the increase was to a bunch of ineligible people who obama gave obama bucks to instead of people simply falling below the poverty line because the economy imploded and their standing in it crumbled.

jerseyhoya wrote:Spending on food stamps has increased by 50% over the past six years. But suggesting a 5% cut is DRACONIAN.

Was the increase mostly waste and fraud during that time span, do you imagine, after all?

You were making a case up to here, but here you decide to go all paulie walnuts

There has been a steady trend of expansion of eligibility for the program each time it is reauthorized, and that combined with the economic slump has led to the explosion of recipients.

Food Stamps Growth Has Bipartisan Roots

I'm no economist, but with inflation I imagine that's how it should work.

that 'article' bemoaned some radio ads trying to help people figure out if they could get some help with their bills and 'goosing' the eligibility requirements (by relaxing ridiculous resource requirements for most people who already met them) and the horror of getting rid of the stigma of being on assistance by renaming the program to SNAP.

to all that i say 'so what?' people need help paying their bills. we can either do something and help some people out, since we've created more income inequality than at any other time since the Rockefellers and Carnegies, or we can just close up shop and say to each their own.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm no economist, but with inflation I imagine that's how it should work.

You sure aren't. $18 billion in 2000 dollars is $24.4 billion in 2013 dollars. Population has grown by about 12%, so that gets you to $27.3 billion. In other words less than 1/3 of 2012's cost of the program.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm no economist, but with inflation I imagine that's how it should work.

You sure aren't. $18 billion in 2000 dollars is $24.4 billion in 2013 dollars. Population has grown by about 12%, so that gets you to $27.3 billion. In other words less than 1/3 of 2012's cost of the program.

Okay and then add in the worst recession in 75 years...

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm no economist, but with inflation I imagine that's how it should work.

You sure aren't. $18 billion in 2000 dollars is $24.4 billion in 2013 dollars. Population has grown by about 12%, so that gets you to $27.3 billion. In other words less than 1/3 of 2012's cost of the program.

Okay and then add in the worst recession in 75 years...

And the expansion of eligibility requirements, and you'd get to my post from an hour ago

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm no economist, but with inflation I imagine that's how it should work.

You sure aren't. $18 billion in 2000 dollars is $24.4 billion in 2013 dollars. Population has grown by about 12%, so that gets you to $27.3 billion. In other words less than 1/3 of 2012's cost of the program.

Okay and then add in the worst recession in 75 years...

And the expansion of eligibility requirements, and you'd get to my post from an hour ago

Which is a bad thing because?

if we're tying everything to inflation, maybe we should tie the min wage to inflation too!!!!

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I'm no economist, but with inflation I imagine that's how it should work.

You sure aren't. $18 billion in 2000 dollars is $24.4 billion in 2013 dollars. Population has grown by about 12%, so that gets you to $27.3 billion. In other words less than 1/3 of 2012's cost of the program.

Okay and then add in the worst recession in 75 years...

And the expansion of eligibility requirements, and you'd get to my post from an hour ago

Which is a bad thing because?

Tripling the expenditure on a program over the space of a dozen years is problematic because we do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend. Looking at places to save money where it is not necessary to spend is what we elected these people to do. Cutting 5% in the face of such growth shouldn't be seen as some wild thing, but it once again gives truth to the old Reagan line - No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth - Bringing in work and job training requirements would hopefully benefit taxpayers and the recipients of benefits by incentivizing work more heavily.