3 ms·

>A quick third take away seems to be the unprecedented rise in non-cash government aid (food stamps) during the Obama administration. The data is there, needs m

>A quick third take away seems to be the unprecedented rise in non-cash government aid (food stamps) during the Obama administration. The data is there, needs more analyzing of course. I'm not sure you can say it like that. It went up 2.13x from 1980 to 1990, 1.43x from 1990 to 2000, 1.93x from 2000 to 2010, and 1.07x from 2010 to 2015. There was a big jump of 1.93x from 2000 to 2010, but that is only 2 years of Obama's first term. What really happened there is likely the housing crisis/market crash in 2008. I don't see how that's related to Obama. It only went up 1.07x (the lowest amount for each of the 10-year segments) for the remainder of his term, and it made a higher jump from 1980 to 1990.

ariwilson 9y ago
Are those numbers inflation adjusted?
- programbreeding 9y ago
  They are not. I took them directly from USAFacts[0], and according to their methodologies[1], they have not adjusted for inflation either. [0] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/spending?comparison=by_years&government_type=federal&table=spending--by-mission&year=2014 http://usafacts.org/government-finances/spending?comparison=... [1] http://usafacts.org/methodology http://usafacts.org/methodology
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Wait, none of these graphs are in constant dollars? How are we meant to read them?
    - Cshelton 9y ago
      Some charts and graphs are inflation adjusted, others aren't. You have to find it for each one. And yes, some are in thousands, some in millions, and some are actual. On a large report like this with many different metrics, expecting them all to be scaled the same would make many hard to read.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
finid 9y ago
You knew where he was headed with his comments, and thanks for countering with stats he should have looked at.
Cshelton 9y ago
You're right. I should have stated it differently when saying Obama. I only glanced at it at first too. And most likely, the jump during 2000 - 2010 is most likely attributed to the economic recession. Which was during the Obama administration. Despite why the recession happened, it was decided to increase it anyway at a higher rate than the previous decade. Although it seems that state and local governments increased their non-cash gov aid spending a lot too during that time. I'm not sure what the breakdown on that is. Is it money given to the states by the Federal government?
- tptacek 9y ago
  I don't understand your argument here either. "Jumps during 2000-2010 were due to 'the economic recession'. Which was during 'the Obama administration'"? * There was more than one recession in the time period you're talking about. * The Great Recession did not in fact start during the Obama administration. * There was a recession at the beginning of Bush's term and at the end of it, but most of Bush's term occurred during the real estate bubble, during which there was no recession --- why would increases in benefits during that time be attributable to a recession? * What does "despite why the recession happened" mean? The recession did not occur due to food stamps.
  - Cshelton 9y ago
    You misread many things in my comment. Go through each of your points here and re-read what I said. 1. The 2001 was recession was minuscule to the 2008/09 one. 2. I never once said the recession "started" during his administration, I said the recession was during, that's it. Big difference. 3-4. The entire point was that the majority of the increases between the years of 2000-2010 were most likely between 2008-2010. I never made any correlation that increases in benefits were a cause of the recession. I said "despite why it happened" to basically say I'm not talking about or blaming anyone for the reasons of why it happened, just the actions that were taken after it.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      None of this clarifies your argument or answers any of the questions I asked. I literally don't understand the argument you're trying to make, and because I'm a nerd like most of the people here, there's a siren in my brain going off over it. Can you try to reword your argument more precisely? It sounds to me like you made a statement in your original comment that was straightforwardly refuted, and I'm trying hard to understand how anything you replied to that refutation with changes anything. You claimed there was an "unprecedented" rise in food stamp benefits during the Obama administration. No, that's not at all the case, right?

ariwilson 9y ago

Are those numbers inflation adjusted?

programbreeding 9y ago
They are not. I took them directly from USAFacts[0], and according to their methodologies[1], they have not adjusted for inflation either. [0] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/spending?comparison=by_years&government_type=federal&table=spending--by-mission&year=2014 http://usafacts.org/government-finances/spending?comparison=... [1] http://usafacts.org/methodology http://usafacts.org/methodology
- tptacek 9y ago
  Wait, none of these graphs are in constant dollars? How are we meant to read them?
  - Cshelton 9y ago
    Some charts and graphs are inflation adjusted, others aren't. You have to find it for each one. And yes, some are in thousands, some in millions, and some are actual. On a large report like this with many different metrics, expecting them all to be scaled the same would make many hard to read.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

finid 9y ago

You knew where he was headed with his comments, and thanks for countering with stats he should have looked at.

Cshelton 9y ago

You're right. I should have stated it differently when saying Obama. I only glanced at it at first too. And most likely, the jump during 2000 - 2010 is most likely attributed to the economic recession. Which was during the Obama administration. Despite why the recession happened, it was decided to increase it anyway at a higher rate than the previous decade. Although it seems that state and local governments increased their non-cash gov aid spending a lot too during that time. I'm not sure what the breakdown on that is. Is it money given to the states by the Federal government?

tptacek 9y ago
I don't understand your argument here either. "Jumps during 2000-2010 were due to 'the economic recession'. Which was during 'the Obama administration'"? * There was more than one recession in the time period you're talking about. * The Great Recession did not in fact start during the Obama administration. * There was a recession at the beginning of Bush's term and at the end of it, but most of Bush's term occurred during the real estate bubble, during which there was no recession --- why would increases in benefits during that time be attributable to a recession? * What does "despite why the recession happened" mean? The recession did not occur due to food stamps.
- Cshelton 9y ago
  You misread many things in my comment. Go through each of your points here and re-read what I said. 1. The 2001 was recession was minuscule to the 2008/09 one. 2. I never once said the recession "started" during his administration, I said the recession was during, that's it. Big difference. 3-4. The entire point was that the majority of the increases between the years of 2000-2010 were most likely between 2008-2010. I never made any correlation that increases in benefits were a cause of the recession. I said "despite why it happened" to basically say I'm not talking about or blaming anyone for the reasons of why it happened, just the actions that were taken after it.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    None of this clarifies your argument or answers any of the questions I asked. I literally don't understand the argument you're trying to make, and because I'm a nerd like most of the people here, there's a siren in my brain going off over it. Can you try to reword your argument more precisely? It sounds to me like you made a statement in your original comment that was straightforwardly refuted, and I'm trying hard to understand how anything you replied to that refutation with changes anything. You claimed there was an "unprecedented" rise in food stamp benefits during the Obama administration. No, that's not at all the case, right?