Doolittle: Let's give anthem protesters 'a reason to stand'

[Tabascocat]

My man. You cant just interject "racism" in at every point in conversation and try to help your cause. Factually, the number of people on food stamps went up by about 80% in President Obama's term.

Also, factually, most of those on stamps are white. At least argue the merits of why President Obama loosened the guidelines and whether it was fruitful.

You can't bring stats into an irrational conversation, does not fit the narrative

 

[Tabascocat]

And in the context of the sentence, the poster clearly was not taking into account that the majority of those on stamps are white.

Who is the "they" in "They had the last 8 years under Food stamp president Obama to have this conversation"?

The vast majority of the protesters are black, so contextually it would make no sense that by "they" he just meant those on food stamps...

You are correct, none of that was taken into consideration in his post. He was right though but probably just did not know it

 

[AbeBeta]

My man. You cant just interject "racism" in at every point in conversation and try to help your cause. Factually, the number of people on food stamps went up by about 80% in President Obama's term.

Also, factually, most of those on stamps are white. At least argue the merits of why President Obama loosened the guidelines and whether it was fruitful.

Yes -under Obama we expanded programs to help the poor.

And factually, that went up because we were in a terrible recession.

But yeah, blame it on the black man.

 

[TheDude]

And in the context of the sentence, the poster clearly was not taking into account that the majority of those on stamps are white.

Who is the "they" in "They had the last 8 years under Food stamp president Obama to have this conversation"?

The vast majority of the protesters are black, so contextually it would make no sense that by "they" he just meant those on food stamps...

You are inferring meaning that isnt in in the sentence structure. Whether that is what he meant or not was worthy of a rebuttal inquiry.

The premise of the article was to have a conversation with those protesting - and it is under the guise of professional sports. Bruce Maxwell and pro athletes are likely not on food stamps. Therefore you have to make a leap to get there and automatically assume there is some nefarious meaning. But in the context of pronouns and the in reference to the article, I dont see "they" as automatically linked to "blacks on welfare" that was the immediate reaction.

I guess I just dont understand what anyone gets by being so unwilling to have a fruitful dialog and refuse to ask a clarifying question rather than immediate going to an ad hominem attack.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

You are correct, none of that was taken into consideration in his post. He was right though but probably just did not know it

Not really, unless you look at the numbers in a vacuum, unaware of what was going on in the country.

Look at the increase from 01', Bush's first year all the way through 08', looks like about a 59% increase.

Under Obama, yes there was a peak of 47.4 million, which is about a 75% increase, however, when you factor in the numbers dropping starting in 2013, as the economy recovered, it is a 63% increase.

So if you ignore the recession as a cause for people to get on food stamps, then you could argue he was right but just didn't know it.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

You are inferring meaning that isnt in in the sentence structure. Whether that is what he meant or not was worthy of a rebuttal inquiry.

The premise of the article was to have a conversation with those protesting - and it is under the guise of professional sports. Bruce Maxwell and pro athletes are likely not on food stamps. Therefore you have to make a leap to get there and automatically assume there is some nefarious meaning. But in the context of pronouns and the in reference to the article, I dont see "they" as automatically linked to "blacks on welfare" that was the immediate reaction.

I guess I just dont understand what anyone gets by being so unwilling to have a fruitful dialog and refuse to ask a clarifying question rather than immediate going to an ad hominem attack.

the problem with that logic is, the athletes have made it clear they are not protesting for themselves, but for racial equality overall.

and I didn't attack you, I'm pointing out that contextually, "they" really could only mean one thing in his sentence.

If anything, what he said was an attack, because food stamps had nothing to do with the article I posted.

 

[TheDude]

Yes -under Obama we expanded programs to help the poor.

And factually, that went up because we were in a terrible recession.

But yeah, blame it on the black man.

As this article from The Washington Examiner explains, the food stamp program was heartily expanded under Bush in the 2002 Farm Bill, the 2008 Farm Bill, and in 2009 "stimulus" packages. Obama naturally did nothing to reverse these expansions:

The 2002 Farm Bill expanded eligibility to noncitizens, increased benefits for families with more children, adjusted benefits for inflation and made it easier to enroll. Further easing of eligibility requirements followed in the 2008 Farm Bill, which contained more than 30 provisions relating to food stamps, including higher minimum benefits. As the data show, spending after changes in eligibility grew by $185 billion between 2002 and 2008.

So, if you're wondering why food stamp participation increased during the Bush administration's boom period, the answer is: Bush signed those expansions into law.

It's just the latest reminder that when republicans control the White House, Senate, and House, they manage to massively increase the size of government.

So actually it was a white man who was the catalyst and the Great recession only exacerbated it as even looser standards were set by SNAP

So, why dont you put as much effort into rebuttals with fact as opposed to mining ofr an offense at every turn? These temper tantrums and name calling is exponentially more damaging to your longer term goals

 

[Tabascocat]

Not really, unless you look at the numbers in a vacuum, unaware of what was going on in the country.

Look at the increase from 01', Bush's first year all the way through 08', looks like about a 59% increase.

Under Obama, yes there was a peak of 47.4 million, which is about a 75% increase, however, when you factor in the numbers dropping starting in 2013, as the economy recovered, it is a 63% increase.

So if you ignore the recession as a cause for people to get on food stamps, then you could argue he was right but just didn't know it.

I hear you, it is all in relation to the economy. No certain President is at fault, just a reaction to a problem. Those numbers would have been the same no matter who was at the helm. I have my own problems with Obama, but food stamps is not among them

 

[TheDude]

the problem with that logic is, the athletes have made it clear they are not protesting for themselves, but for racial equality overall.

and I didn't attack you, I'm pointing out that contextually, "they" really could only mean one thing in his sentence.

If anything, what he said was an attack, because food stamps had nothing to do with the article I posted.

I am not interested in speaking for someone else, but when I read the posts, in order, starting with the article, the premise of the article was about having a conversation about the issues for which pro athletes are protesting. The next post in the thread linked conversation with pro athletes and Trump and that white people supporters didnt care.

Then the post in question uses "they" and "conversation" which again (I read as pro athletes and presidential conversation). It then takes a shot at President Obama to the person who just took a shot at Trump. While, not productive itself, it doesnt seem racist. (though I admit I have no history with the posters in question)

Throwing "racist" at every poster (hell even @Idgit has been called one this week), is really just a very lazy retort.

Also, the "Grab em by the p Trump" had nothing to do with the article either. I wish the behavior and decorum would rise just a bit on all sides. This thread is exactly why this zone will go away and why politics and religion are back to the no go list.

 

[AbeBeta]

As this article from The Washington Examiner explains, the food stamp program was heartily expanded under Bush in the 2002 Farm Bill, the 2008 Farm Bill, and in 2009 "stimulus" packages. Obama naturally did nothing to reverse these expansions:

The 2002 Farm Bill expanded eligibility to noncitizens, increased benefits for families with more children, adjusted benefits for inflation and made it easier to enroll. Further easing of eligibility requirements followed in the 2008 Farm Bill, which contained more than 30 provisions relating to food stamps, including higher minimum benefits. As the data show, spending after changes in eligibility grew by $185 billion between 2002 and 2008.

So, if you're wondering why food stamp participation increased during the Bush administration's boom period, the answer is: Bush signed those expansions into law.

It's just the latest reminder that when republicans control the White House, Senate, and House, they manage to massively increase the size of government.

So actually it was a white man who was the catalyst and the Great recession only exacerbated it as even looser standards were set by SNAP

So, why dont you put as much effort into rebuttals with fact as opposed to mining ofr an offense at every turn? These temper tantrums and name calling is exponentially more damaging to your longer term goals

Dude. You are the one claiming benefits went up under Obama. Then proving it has nothing to do with Obama.

A whole lotta typing for no point.

What do you want to prove next? would you like a graph showing how U.S. citizen death by terrorist attack spiked under Bush?

 

[TheDude]

Dude. You are the one claiming benefits went up under Obama. Then proving it has nothing to do with Obama.

A whole lotta typing for no point.

What do you want to prove next? would you like a graph showing how U.S. citizen death by terrorist attack spiked under Bush?

I actually gave you an opening for a discussion a little higher than "white people" and "racist" to every person who disagrees with you. It would be nice to see someone delve into an actual discussion over throwing grenades in post #1 or #2 of every thread

But I dont think you really care about any of that.

 

[Kevinicus]

I’m more conservative than liberal but that’s neither here nor there. Trump just disgusts me so much and I hate to see the damage he’s doing to this great country.

Nobody believes you.

 

[AbeBeta]

I actually gave you an opening for a discussion a little higher than "white people" and "racist" to every person who disagrees with you. It would be nice to see someone delve into an actual discussion over throwing grenades in post #1 or #2 of every thread

But I dont think you really care about any of that.

And I gave you an opening to recognize the racist BS that gets posted here regularly.

But you just care about trying to sound smart

 

[TheDude]

And I gave you an opening to recognize the racist BS that gets posted here regularly.

But you just care about trying to sound smart

I had no delusion you would respond any differently

 

[Kevinicus]

And I gave you an opening to recognize the racist BS that gets posted here regularly.

But you just care about trying to sound smart

We all recognize your racist BS.

 

[AbeBeta]

I had no delusion you would respond any differently

Says the guy trying to argue how calling a black man a "welfare President" while also demoatrating the black man really didn't advance food stamps is justified and not racist.

Dude - it's basic dog whistling. No matter your lame justification, it's still coming from the same racist heart

 

[TheDude]

Says the guy trying to argue how calling a black man a "welfare President" while also demoatrating the black man really didn't advance food stamps is justified and not racist.

Dude - it's basic dog whistling. No matter your lame justification, it's still coming from the same racist heart

Oh he did advance it further, but he could argue reasons for it more than Bush.

“It is a troublesome thing, Halford, this susceptibility to affronts where none are intended.”

 

[AbeBeta]

Oh he did advance it further, but he could argue reasons for it more than Bush.

“It is a troublesome thing, Halford, this susceptibility to affronts where none are intended.”

So now you are complaining that Obama advanced this to help people hurt by the recession?

 

[TheDude]

So now you are complaining that Obama advanced this to help people hurt by the recession?

Im not complaining about anything in regards to Obama, just stating a fact. Again you are trying hard to find an underlying slight. I hope you only reserve this animus for the internet.

"The 2002 Farm Bill expanded eligibility to noncitizens, increased benefits for families with more children, adjusted benefits for inflation and made it easier to enroll. Further easing of eligibility requirements followed in the 2008 Farm Bill, which contained more than 30 provisions relating to food stamps, including higher minimum benefits. As the data show, spending after changes in eligibility grew by $185 billion between 2002 and 2008.

Similarly, the 2009 stimulus bill scrapped limits on SNAP benefits to adults without children and raised the maximum benefit by 13.6 percent through 2014. According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 20 percent of the $198 billion growth in between 2009 and 2011 can be attributed to the new eligibility standards, and hence will not go away once the economy recovers.

In theory, you cannot receive food stamps if your gross monthly income exceeds 130 percent of the poverty level. This means that a family of three qualifies if it makes roughly $2,008 a month, or $24,096 a year. Additionally, assets must fall below certain limits. For instance, a household with no elderly or disabled members is ineligible if one has a bank account or vehicle that is worth more than $2,000.

But these are federal government standards. States also have a certain level of flexibility with regard to eligibility. As Greg Beato of Reason magazine explains in a 2010 article, many states open them up to anyone receiving funds from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. In practice, applicants with gross incomes well above 130 percent of the poverty line are now eligible.

Many states also abolished the asset tests for recipients. As a result, enrollees may include families with no income but tens of thousands of dollars in savings or homes. For instance, CNN Money's Adam Reiss and Poppy Harlow recently described how New Jersey's Morris County -- where the median income is $91,000 per year -- has seen food stamp enrollment rise by 240 percent since 2006.

This is unlikely to change as long as states are rewarded some $500 million by the federal government for boosting enrollment, and as long as nearly 10 percent of food stamp costs go to program administration. More important, despite the quadrupling of food stamp spending, several Republicans voted with Democrats to defeat reforms sponsored by Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. The political will to rein in this program just isn't there." - article form 2014

 

[shabazz]

Racist B.S.

Food stamp President? That's just straight up racist. Congratulations - many on the board try to be more subtle.

That's a good bit more disrespectful of our nation than kneeling for that anthem.

Racist B.S.

Food stamp President? That's just straight up racist. Congratulations - many on the board try to be more subtle.

That's a good bit more disrespectful of our nation than kneeling for that anthem.

Food stamp enrollment went up 70 % during the first years of the Obama administration.
That's why he's known as the food stamp president

Who said anything about race?

Ah, that's right PC Principle sees racism in every word and minorities marginalized in every situation and must put his cape on and become the savior of mankind. Elevating his own status by accusing others of bigotry and prejudice.

Yeah, that's not gonna work