Failing Bush policies foster dependence, create permanent drag on growth

Bumped by Brendan

For those of you who believe that the Bush economy has been generally a success, here's a couple facts about the Food Stamp program which might give you pause:

Food stamp expenditures are have skyrocked up 163% in Ohio in the past seven years. The number of recipients has nearly doubled during that period.

In Iowa, the annual cost of the Food Stamp program has ballooned from $100.7 million to $273.2 million since 2000, a staggering 171% increase . The average number of food stamp recipients each month has nearly doubled, from 124,000 to 241,000.

The number of food stamp recipients has doubled in Michigan in the past 6 years. More than 12% of Michiganders receive food stamps now.

And it's not just the midwest. Nationwide, expenditures on food stamps have exploded under Bush , nearly doubling in six years from $17.8 billion in FY2001 to $33.2 billion in FY2007, as rising food costs, stagnant wage growth, and dimming job prospects drive more and more people onto the government dole-- more than 9 million people, in fact: food stamp recipients have increased from 17.3 million in FY2001 to 26.5 million in FY2007. And with unemployment rising and no end in sight to food inflation, FY2008 will just add to the ugly picture.

Bush, however, has apparently not been too troubled by this burgeoning wave of dependence on government, because even with this staggering evidence that millions of formerly self-sufficient Americans were becoming dependent on government, President Bush still bragged that the economy was "strong" in this speech less than six months ago. Be assured that there was no mention of Food Stamps in his speech. I guess millions of newly poor people are no big deal when one views federal debt as a bottomless well from which more money for government spending can always be drawn.

There was little surprise, then, that when faced with incontrovertible evidence earlier this year that the economy was tanking, Bush, a multiple-time loser on a variety of counts involving fiscal irresponsibility, resorted for a second time to the staggering crime of cutting tens of millions of bogus checks, this time to jury rig the collapsing economy until he leaves office (or so he hopes). Amazingly, there was almost no Democratic resistance to this blatant Bush ploy to postpone the worst effects of the current recession until January 2009, when he would be able to go off onto a speaking tour-- where he will simultaneously badmouth Democrats on the economy AND fill the ol' coffers.

What's amazing to me is that Bush has pretty much gotten a free pass on the economy as he has squandered trillions of dollars of borrowed money on an increasingly bloated, incompetently run Federal government. We have nothing to show for this spending spree, except for Bush-- he got to brag about GDP growth numbers that were a point or two higher than they would have been otherwise been. Those numbers came at a dear price; we will pay for them with interest, literally, as we make interest payments on that debt in perpetuity, crowding out other government expenditures and dragging GDP growth down every single quarter from now until the debt is paid down, which may be never.

But at least we've all got our food stamps, right?

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Do you happen to know if there have been any significant changes

in eligibility requirements? I looked around briefly but couldn't find anything.

The rebate plan -- bipartisanship at its worst?

Devil's advocate on the debt -- might it not be better to try to grow the economy through spending to decrease the debt as a percentage of GDP than to shrink the economy to pay down the debt now?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

…………

The last *significant* eligibility requirement changes...

...came along with the welfare reforms of 1996-- a 5 year lifetime cap on food stamp assistance, and a ban on food stamp assistancce to illegal aliens. 

The big change since then is that food stamps have gone away from the traditional paper food stamps to a card not unlike a credit card. Supposedly, this has removed some of the stigma of using the conspicuous paper food stamps, and perhapse in part due to this, states are reporting that a somewhat higher percentage of eligible persons are taking advantage of the benefit.  

As far as increasing government spending to grow the economy: that's what we've basically done the past seven years, and the growth have been anemic as compared to the massive amount of debt-fueled government spending over the period.  Part of the problem is that the increases in spending have not gone toward items that provide  residual benefit to business.  For instance, increased defense spending billions more on F-22s benefits the contractors on those planes, but once bought and paid for, F-22's provide no residual benefits to industry, as opposed to, say, if those billions had been spent on transportation network improvements, which would have benefitted the construction contractors but also served to create an end product which would have helped industry for years in terms of transportation efficiency.  

………… parent

Pfft.

For instance, increased defense spending billions more on F-22s
benefits the contractors on those planes, but once bought and paid for,
F-22's provide no residual benefits to industry, as opposed to, say, if
those billions had been spent on transportation network improvements ...

You neglect to account for:

  • Benefits accrued from new technological advancements to industry which grow out of the military projects.
  • Benefits acrued to all citizens in terms of improved self-defense capabilities.

How many bridges is it worth to prevent a nuclear attack?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

I need more information to evaluate the program

You neglect to account for:

  • Benefits accrued from new technological advancements to industry which grow out of the military projects.
  • Benefits acrued to all citizens in terms of improved self-defense capabilities.

How many bridges is it worth to prevent a nuclear attack?

Fair enough.  I need more information, however, to quantitatively evaluate the benefits of the F-22 program.  So if you would, please answer the following for me:

1. Name any nation which has suffered a nuclear attack due to a lack of a certain plane.

2. Name one time when an F-22 prevented a nuclear attack.

3. Name thetechnological benefits which has come out of the F-22 program which benefit me more than the technological benefits derived from the billions in private sector developments which would have been possible, absent the massive additional taxation necessary to support the F-22 program.

………… parent

Excellent news!

Bush nearly doubles aid to needy families, now helping more people than ever! *

It's all in how you look at it. 

----------------------------------------------------------

* Not actually sure about this last part as I didn't check the past record.  But you get the point. 

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

…………

Is that really how *you* look at it?

Do you really think that this 9 million incresase in the number of Food Stamp recipients under Bush is excellent news?  If so, in what way is it excellent news?  Is it good for the economy?  Does it show that people are prospering and growing wealth?  Does it portend good things for America's future?  Would it be more excellent news if the number of Food Stamp recipients increased by another 9 million people over the next six years?

………… parent

It must be good news. It is a liberal program ...

and now there are 9 million more people dependent on it.  That's why the liberals created the program, right?  To keep people dependent?

Seems to me that from the liberal perspective the program is now twice as effective as it was before.  It is not designed to be a program to teach people how to fish, it is a program designed to keep people dependent on the Democrats for more fish, at least IMHO. 

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

How do you explain, then...

it is a program designed to keep people dependent on the Democrats

How do you explain, then, that expenditures on the program expanded under $3 billion Reagan, expanded by  under Bush I, expanded bu $10 billion under Bush II, expanded by $16 billion so far under Bush II, but declined by $5 billion under Clinton?  This seems to suggest that it is Republicans, not Democrats, which are causing people to become dependent on government.

 

………… parent