timothyking

Amen!

I don't think it's incoherent. The New Testament shows the struggle of the early church on how to apply aspects of Levitical law for converts. They ended up coming down on the side of grace in the application which is why most Christians today don't eat a Kosher diet.

I think Jesus gave us an example of how to think through some of these questions when he said that Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. We need to ask what the OT laws were intended to accomplish and then discern how similar goals and values might be expressed today. 

That's why I would say the teaching on usury is important to grapple with but doesn't necessarily mean Christians should advocate for lending at interest to be illegal.

Sam Hamilton and Charliek2 have some good points as well.

Thanks! That is helpful feedback.

You said, "If you project the economy to massively improve, as all CBO projections do, then the percentage of GDP devoted to food stamps will decrease." What distinction are you making between how I said it in my comment?

SNAP is designed to increase as a perecentage of GDP when the economy is in a downturn as is UI. There are programs that should be used more when the economy is in a slump and unemployment is high and less when the economy is growing and unemployment is low. They are intended to provide floor to consumer demand and mitigate some of the extreme cycles of the market. 

I didn't mean for it to be a "whack". I thought there were important points not being addressed. What made this a "whack" piece to you instead of just additional analysis?

Hi thevanished,

I don't think your points undermine my main thesis.

I am arguing that the increase under Obama shows that the SNAP program is working as it was designed to work and use of the program naturally increases during an economic downturn with a high unemployment rate.

But, during the Bush administration the fact that real recipients increased, and as you pointed out SNAP as percentage of GDP flatlined... is a problem. As you argued, growth in GDP should lead to a reduction of SNAP spending as a percentage of GDP but under Bush it only flatlined.

This I believe is relavatory of a fundamental problem we are facing in our country of economic growth occuring but it's benefits primarily concentrating with a small segment of the total population. If the economy continues to grow and there isn't a corresponding and significant drop in the use of SNAP over the next few years it will show that problem still exists.

Housing costs... your right. Increased housing costs was another factor.

As to farm policy... there are multiple tools at use to mitigate risk for farmers today. Automatic economic stabilizers such as SNAP (and even TANIF and UI) are, as I said, a factor. Other tools include direct payments subsidies that you refer to as well as insurance programs and futures markets. Sojourners and a lot of free market folks have expressed opposition to the direct payment subsidies since they tend to be abused and distort prices for farmers in developing countries.  

To your statement... "Newt's point is that if you create the economic conditions under which jobs can be created, people are less likely to rely on food stamps, as a general rule."  I don't know anyone who thinks its better for people to be on SNAP that it would be for them to have a job that allows them to feed their family. So who is Ginrich arguing against?

SNAP serves as an income support for many people. About half of the families who are on it are working families. Still, they are struggling to put food on the table. Many more benficiaries are children, those who are disabled or the elderly. 

Thanks for reading.

Hi Minnesotan,

Other anylysts were even more skeptical of the jobs number. But, I figured it shows how far off the jobs numbers are that even someone who is more positive about the project thinks the estimates are way off.

Thanks for the correction!

hmmmm... haven't heard of Operatino Rolling Thunder before. I'll have to look it up.

I don't think being civil means sliding into an extreme moral relativism. It's important to say when you think another person is wrong and in this case, factually incorrect.

With over 40% of the country identifying as independents the nomads aren't quite yet a majority but they are a plurality!