undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCshelton8y ago0 comments

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?

0 comments

tptacek8y 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.

CsheltonOP8y 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.

tptacek8y 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?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsCshelton8y ago0 comments

0 comments

tptacek8y 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.

* What does "despite why the recession happened" mean? The recession did not occur due to food stamps.

CsheltonOP8y 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.

tptacek8y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse