All valid. But I would argue, and I think Representative Gutierrez would argue, that it isn't the pure number he was presenting that were the point. It was the fact that it is disingenuous for Gingrich to single out Obama as "food-stamp president" or to blame him for its increases, when adding to SNAP has been seen as a valid tactic for combating hunger in previous administrations. His final point, about the potentially racial implications of Gingrich's obsession with food stamps, is also important.
Darn right, DiggPigg.
We democrats are in this game for the money!
That's why we oppose child labor laws, regulating air, water
and food quality, or policing the financial market.
We want the money! And that means letting American elections
be guided by the wind of market forces and a wise consituency of corporations.
Heck, whenever I see a Republican weeping on the house floor for
the sorrows of the poor?
- I go to his desk and swipe his pens.
While I love the fire and passion of the Congressman, we need to hold each other to higher standards of statistical literacy. These "facts" are presented without proper context and consideration. For instance, are these aggregate data (e.g. summative expenditures over the presidents time in office) or are they averages (e.g. expenses per year in office)? Without knowing the context of the data we cannot make an informed argument. Furthermore, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We cannot boil this argument down to: "If spending increased during a president's term, that means they MUST believe in increased spending." What about other economic factors? What was the state of the economy? What impact did Congress have? When we oversimplify a model, we often miss crucial components of that model.
Let me be clear: I support SNAP and federal programs for the poor and needy. However if we allow poorly presented data to sway our views even when we want to agree with someone, we are doing both ourselves and our country a disservice.
Good point. However, I feel Rep. Gutierrez presented his data/argument in a "firing back at Newt" kind of way instead of simply illustrating the fallacy of calling President Obama a "food-stamp president." While I do understand the nature of the political game and you don't get on YouTube and Digg without some flare and interesting design for your stats, I am more swayed by statistics that were meticulously analyzed and properly presented. But I do see your point that Rep. Gutierrez had a specific point to make and he did make it.
If the numbers and Gingrich's statements were made in a bubble I would agree with you, but with right wing radio, Internet and TV propaganda networks using food stamp recipients as a euphemism for poor, lazy black people who have too many children and mooch off of the system it changes the whole story. Context matters.
“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."
...when in fact there are far more white Americans on food stamps than black Americans.
a) its horrible to feed people who would otherwise be starving
b) its horrible to fund jobs programs to help people be able to feed themselves instead of relying on food stamps
c) its horrible to fund education so that people have the basic skills necessary to even start to look for a job
d) its horrible to fund birth control so that people who already can't feed themselves won't be having children who they also cannot feed
e) its preferable to place more of the tax burden in this country on those who can already not afford to feed themselves, rather than more of the tax burden on the fabulously wealthy who will never want for anything in their lives no matter what their tax rate is
f) its preferable to have more American's unemployed, homeless, and on food stamps if that means defeating Obama in 2012.
But ya see, thoughtful and critical analysis of stuff doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or 20 second sound bite. Nor does it allow rabid idealogues to score points with an ignornant and ideology blinded electorate.
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012Buried
All valid. But I would argue, and I think Representative Gutierrez would argue, that it isn't the pure number he was presenting that were the point. It was the fact that it is disingenuous for Gingrich to single out Obama as "food-stamp president" or to blame him for its increases, when adding to SNAP has been seen as a valid tactic for combating hunger in previous administrations. His final point, about the potentially racial implications of Gingrich's obsession with food stamps, is also important.
crymtyphonFeb 9, 2012Buried
Darn right, DiggPigg.
We democrats are in this game for the money!
That's why we oppose child labor laws, regulating air, water
and food quality, or policing the financial market.
We want the money! And that means letting American elections
be guided by the wind of market forces and a wise consituency of corporations.
Heck, whenever I see a Republican weeping on the house floor for
the sorrows of the poor?
- I go to his desk and swipe his pens.
hallspaceFeb 9, 2012Buried
While I love the fire and passion of the Congressman, we need to hold each other to higher standards of statistical literacy. These "facts" are presented without proper context and consideration. For instance, are these aggregate data (e.g. summative expenditures over the presidents time in office) or are they averages (e.g. expenses per year in office)? Without knowing the context of the data we cannot make an informed argument. Furthermore, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We cannot boil this argument down to: "If spending increased during a president's term, that means they MUST believe in increased spending." What about other economic factors? What was the state of the economy? What impact did Congress have? When we oversimplify a model, we often miss crucial components of that model.
Let me be clear: I support SNAP and federal programs for the poor and needy. However if we allow poorly presented data to sway our views even when we want to agree with someone, we are doing both ourselves and our country a disservice.
kaegroFeb 9, 2012Buried
ummmm....no. Nice try though.
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012Buried
Sure is messed up that Bush f**ked everything up and put those people on those food stamps, huh David?
djguerrillaFeb 9, 2012Buried
Nope, they only call out the program as wasteful and unnecessary when it is politically beneficial (or in season with the electorate)
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012Buried
It's not like "there's no place like home." You can't just repeat it til it's true.
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012Buried
That's true. I just mean, and Gutierrez means, that it's not a black problem. It's a poverty problem.
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012Buried
Wow, someone else who understands statistics and how easily they are manipulated... might want to be careful asking questions like that around here...
jacobsjuniorFeb 9, 2012Buried
I dont know who that Congressman is but I think he is my new hero! What a legend!
hallspaceFeb 9, 2012Buried
Good point. However, I feel Rep. Gutierrez presented his data/argument in a "firing back at Newt" kind of way instead of simply illustrating the fallacy of calling President Obama a "food-stamp president." While I do understand the nature of the political game and you don't get on YouTube and Digg without some flare and interesting design for your stats, I am more swayed by statistics that were meticulously analyzed and properly presented. But I do see your point that Rep. Gutierrez had a specific point to make and he did make it.
miklkitFeb 9, 2012Buried
LOL. :0)
treehugger87Feb 9, 2012Buried
If the numbers and Gingrich's statements were made in a bubble I would agree with you, but with right wing radio, Internet and TV propaganda networks using food stamp recipients as a euphemism for poor, lazy black people who have too many children and mooch off of the system it changes the whole story. Context matters.
salbatrossFeb 9, 2012Buried
“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."
...when in fact there are far more white Americans on food stamps than black Americans.
theghoulFeb 9, 2012Buried
Yeah, what happened to the economy between Clinton and Obama?
/s
notachickenhawkFeb 9, 2012Buried
The Republican position in a nutshell:
a) its horrible to feed people who would otherwise be starving
b) its horrible to fund jobs programs to help people be able to feed themselves instead of relying on food stamps
c) its horrible to fund education so that people have the basic skills necessary to even start to look for a job
d) its horrible to fund birth control so that people who already can't feed themselves won't be having children who they also cannot feed
e) its preferable to place more of the tax burden in this country on those who can already not afford to feed themselves, rather than more of the tax burden on the fabulously wealthy who will never want for anything in their lives no matter what their tax rate is
f) its preferable to have more American's unemployed, homeless, and on food stamps if that means defeating Obama in 2012.
laurahoustonFeb 9, 2012Buried
hehe finally the truth
cowicideFeb 9, 2012Buried
This fell on deaf ears.
Republicans & facts are like Republicans & blacks... they simply do not mix well.
unclefireFeb 9, 2012Buried
But ya see, thoughtful and critical analysis of stuff doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or 20 second sound bite. Nor does it allow rabid idealogues to score points with an ignornant and ideology blinded electorate.
jlaughFeb 10, 2012Buried
Why would government want a population that can understand statistics? That would frustrate their ability to lie to the public.