Friday, January 6, 2012

What would we do without Gingrich?

Wait a minute - jobs? That's brilliant! Why didn't anyone else think of that! What would we do without you, Newt? And all this time all anyone really wanted was food stamps. Who knew?


  1. Speaking of jobs though, according to CNN, the U.S. level of unemployment fell to 8.5%.

    I wonder if this trend of decreasing unemployment continues in 2012...

  2. Speaking of food stamps, my sister just started receiving food stamps (200/month). About a day after she got them she got offered a second part-time job - however, the job would put her just over the income threshold for food stampts. On net, she'd only make few hundred extra dollars, cutting the effective wage down to considerably less than the minimum wage - she's probably not gonna take it.....did I mention she's acquired a taste for T-bone steaks and occasionally lobster?

  3. Wait a minute. Are you telling me food stamps have an effect on labor supply?


    I had no idea!

    How could I have missed that!

  4. 1) Daniel_Kuehn mocks (can I call this mockery? are you going to Rip van Winkle me on this one?) Gingrich for insisting that people on food stamps get jobs rather than just stay on welfare, because obviously no one wants to be on foodstamps (everyone is just as motivated as Daniel_Kuehn, of course).

    2) Poster points out probable target of Gingrich's criticism who takes food stamps in preference to working.

    3) Daniel_Kuhen mocks poster for finding it noteworthy that anyone would make such a choice, in ignorance of what he said in 1).

    Typical day at Daniel_Kuehn.

  5. Silas I never suggested that "obviously no one wants to be on food stamps". If I were ever in such a position that that would be necessary, I would want there to be a safety net and I would use it. Many people unfortunate enough to be in that position do.

    What I found laughable was the Gingrich bravado that he would be willing to go to the NAACP and tell them the blatantly obvious.

    And what bugged me about mute lamrackian and others who raise those points is that they seem to think we have no idea about the labor supply effects of these policies.

  6. What is this - three times today that you've informed that I think or have said something that I in fact haven't?

    Why is it that I always have such a big problem with this sort of thing with specific people, like you or Gary. Everyone else seems perfectly capable of understanding me.

    You would think after having this pointed out to you several times you would be more circumspect about making these claims.

  7. @Daniel_Kuehn: about half of those "misattributions" were misinterpretations of my arguments on your part, and now you're changing topics to avoid criticism. So, see if you can actually articulate your position: what *exactly* is blatantly obvious in Gingrich's statement?

    - That blacks want jobs rather than to be unemployed with foodstamps? That's a pretty reasonable interpretation, and exactly what I addressed.

    Yes, we know you want a safety net. But what *specifically* is stupid about Gingrich's statement, and which you didn't just contradict yourself on?

    Please don't pull another van Winkle on me!

  8. Talk like this does make a lot of liberals unnerved.

    When I look at government programs I ask what their goal is. What is the goal of the food stamp program? A permanent income stabilizer? A temporary one? Both? Does it help people to succeed in the way our society rewards success generally - those typical bourgeois values that get people to work on time, etc.?

    I agree with mute lamarkian; there is a lot that the government does that trips up poor people from escaping poverty or government poverty programs.

  9. Re: Lord Vader:

    Yes the gap between the intentions behind safety net programs and the reality is definitely a tension found in much of what makes up so-called American Liberalism.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.