Fox Gets The Message: Calls Obama "The Food Stamp President"
After Newt Gingrich defended his oft-repeated claim that President Obama is "the best food stamp president in American history," Fox News took up the theme and amplified it. But as numerous experts have pointed out, increased enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is due mainly to the economic downturn which predated Obama's administration.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Gingrich: Obama Is "The Best Food Stamp President In American History"
Gingrich: "More People Are On Food Stamps Today Because Of Obama's Policies Than Ever In History." While covering Gingrich's comments during a January 5 campaign stop, CBS News reported:
Gingrich, during an appearance in Plymouth, New Hampshire, spoke about remarks he would theoretically make if invited to speak to the NAACP.
"I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said.
The former House speaker has made a habit of calling President Obama the "food stamp president" -- a nickname he used on Thursday as well -- and has often painted the contrast between himself and Mr. Obama as a choice between paychecks and food stamps.
"The fact is, if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple: Food stamps versus paychecks," Gingrich said. "Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history." [CBS News, 1/6/12]
Gingrich: "More People Have Been Put On Food Stamps By Barack Obama Than Any President In American History." During the January 16 GOP primary debate, Gingrich had this exchange with Fox News contributor Juan Williams:
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can't you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?
GINGRICH: No. I don't see that.
[...]
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion that you made was about a lack of work ethic. And I've got to tell you, my email account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.
You saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina. You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina, where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as "the food stamp president." It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. [Fox Nation, 1/17/12]
Fox News Parrots Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President"
Eric Bolling Echoed Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President." On Fox News' The Five, Eric Bolling defended Gingrich, saying of Obama:
BOLLING: But he is the food stamp president. There I have no problem with this. Allow me, and I'll shut up the rest of the block. Obama has presided over the biggest expansion in food stamp usage, in numbers: in pure dollar amount, it went from $60 billion to an $83 billion program -- the fourth-largest entitlement program in America. Under Obama, it's exploded. Why can't he be -- and by the way, food stamps, there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So it's not a racial issue. [Fox News, The Five, 1/17/12, via Media Matters]
Dick Morris: "Newt Is Right. ... Obama Has Basically Put Everybody In The Country On Welfare." On the January 18 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated:
MORRIS: Newt is totally right. When Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps. Now, there are 46 million. What Obama has done is, under Clinton, he cut the welfare rolls in half, and now Obama has basically put everybody in the country on welfare. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12]
Sean Hannity: "He Is The Food Stamp President. Look At The Numbers, They Speak For Themselves." Fox News host Sean Hannity pointed to increased food stamp usage to label Obama the "food stamp president," saying: "He is the food stamp president. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves -- 32 million to 46 million, 12 million increase. Obama's policies have resulted in a lot more people being on food stamps. What's the problem?" [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]
Tucker Carlson: "More People Have Joined The Food Stamps Program Under Obama Than Any Other President." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson praised Gingrich for the "great job" he did explaining why he thinks Obama is the "food stamp president," adding: "And more people have joined the food stamp program under Obama than any other president." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12]
Monica Crowley: Record Number Of Food Stamp Usage Is "A Direct Result Of The Obama Administration's Policies." On Fox News' America Live, contributor Monica Crowley argued:
CROWLEY: At this point, what Newt is saying is that this administration took a bad economy and made it so much worse, with polices that have really oppressed job creation, suppressed economic growth, to the point where people cannot find jobs. And also, you know, one thing he didn't say, which is the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and so on.
You know how the situation in America, Megyn, where you have record numbers of people not just on food stamps, 46 million, but record numbers of people on at least one or more social welfare programs, and that's a direct result of the Obama administration's policies. [Fox News, America Live, 1/18/12]
Sarah Palin: White House "Protests Too Much Because The Facts Are What They Are." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin criticized the White House for pushing back on Gingrich's statement, saying that "they protest too much because the facts are what they are -- and that's hundreds of thousands of more Americans are now on food stamps than before Barack Obama took over." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12]
In Fact, More People Have Been "Put" On Food Stamps By Bush Than Obama
Bob Beckel: "The Largest Percentage Increase In Food Stamps Happened Not Under This President But Under George W. Bush." As co-host Bob Beckel noted on The Five, "the largest percentage increase in food stamps happened not under this president but under George W. Bush":
BECKEL: I want to say something to my friend Juan Williams who sat in here for me. That shot by Gingrich was a cheap shot. You used a lot of courage, Juan, coming up with what you did and said to Gingrich. His response that he turned into an ad now was a cheap shot. Those people who -- those yahoos that stood up in that audience and cheered that were unbelievable to me that they would do it.
And let me make one other point, Newt. If you ever want to get your facts straight, the largest percentage increase in food stamps happened not under this president but under George W. Bush. [Fox News, The Five, 1/18/12]
FactCheck.Org: Food Stamp Program "Has So Far Grown By 444,574 Fewer Recipients During Obama's Time In Office Than During Bush's." In a "fact check" of what it called "Newt's Faulty Food-Stamp Claim," FactCheck.org stated that "Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible," writing: "Newt Gingrich claims that 'more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.' He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures." The article continued:
Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.
But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.
It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then. [FactCheck.org, 1/18/12]
CBS News: "Percent Increase In Beneficiaries During Mr. Bush's Presidency Was Higher Than It Has Been Under Mr. Obama." CBS News noted that the increase in food stamps enrollment "hardly makes Obama the 'best food stamp president in American history,' " adding that the "percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama." From CBS News:
While the number of people on food stamps is indeed at a record level, that's in part because of eligibility rules being relaxed under the administration of George W. Bush. It's also due in part to the economic downturn that began under Mr. Bush.
[...]
For the most recent month with available data, October 2011, 46.2 million people were enrolled in the food stamp program, which is formally known the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Since Mr. Obama took office, the percent increase in enrollment has been 44.5 percent.
However, that percentage increase hardly makes Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," at least when you look at the question proportionally. The percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama: The number of beneficiaries went from 17.3 million in 2001 to 28.2 million in 2008 -- an increase of 63 percent in years that are mostly considered non-recessionary. [CBS News, 1/17/12]
And The Recent Increase In Food Stamps Enrollment Is Due To The Economic Downturn
US News & World Report: Food Stamps Enrollment Was On The Rise "Well Before" Obama Took Office. From US News & World Report:
Food stamp usage has, as Gingrich suggested, increased dramatically during the Obama presidency, but hanging the increase on the president is difficult. Participation in the Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the program to which "food stamps" refers, has increased from an average of 28.2 million people per month in FY 2008 to 46.2 million as of October 2011, the most recent month for which data is available. However, SNAP participation has been on the rise since well before President Obama took office. Nearly 17.2 million people in FY 2000 participated in the program, a figure that increased by nearly 64 percent by 2008. [US News & World Report, 1/17/12]
AP "Fact Check": Food Stamp Usage Increase "Due Mainly To The Ailing Economy." In a "fact check" of the GOP debate, the Associated Press identified Gingrich's statement as one of the "distortions" of the debate, writing that the facts prove that the increase in food stamp usage is "due mainly to the ailing economy" and "rising food costs." The article also noted that "[e]ligibility rules [for the program] were relaxed in 2002 and 2008 during the Bush administration." [Associated Press, 1/17/12]
CBPP: Growth "Reflects The Fact That More Households Are Becoming Eligible Because Of The Recession." According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the "rapid caseload growth primarily reflects the fact that more households are becoming eligible because of the recession." CBPP added: "SNAP caseloads can grow for two reasons: because more households are qualifying for the program and enrolling or because a larger share of eligible households are signing up. Both of these occurred in recent years." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/12]
CBPP: "SNAP Kept More Than 5 Million People Out Of Poverty In 2010." According to CBPP, "SNAP caseloads have increased significantly since late 2007, as the recession and lagging recovery battered the economic circumstances of millions of Americans and dramatically increased the number of low-income households who qualify and apply for help from the program." CBPP further stressed that recent growth in SNAP "is temporary." CBPP added:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that SNAP spending will fall as a share of GDP in coming years as the economy recovers and the Recovery Act provisions end. By 2021 SNAP is expected to return nearly to pre-recession levels as a share of GDP. Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the overall economy and thus is not contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problems. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/12]
Krugman: Spending On Food Stamps Surged "Because The Economy Is Depressed." On his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained the increase in "income security" spending, including food stamps, writing:
"Income security" is unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits -- in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged -- because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.
What we're seeing isn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we're seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. [The New York Times, 4/25/11]
This Isn't The First Time Fox Has Promoted Obama As The "Food Stamp President"
Gingrich Blamed Obama For "Set[Ting] An All-Time Record For The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps." In September 2010, then-Fox News contributor Gingrich stated that Obama "has set an all-time record for the number of Americans on food stamps." He added: "I mean, that's not where you want to go. You want to go to a paycheck, not a food stamp." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 9/12/10]
Ann Coulter Suggested Calling Obama's Bus Tour "Food Stamp Express Live." On Fox & Friends, Ann Coulter replied to the hosts' question about "what to call President Obama's bus tour" by saying: "How about Food Stamp Express Live?" Co-host Clayton Morris responded: "I think Newt Gingrich would be on board with that one." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/7/11]
Greg Gutfeld Proposed A "Food Stamp Wallet" As A Souvenir That Would "Fit Obama." Talking about souvenir items "that fit Obama," Fox News host Greg Gutfeld stated: "You need a food stamp wallet. That would be nice ... because there are millions and millions of people on food stamps right now, so that would be nice." [Fox News, The Five, 8/17/11]
Laura Ingraham: Obama Re-election Bumper Sticker Should Be "Food Stamps For Everyone." Discussing Obama's statement that benefits programs like SNAP stimulate the economy, host Laura Ingraham said: "So it would be a bumper sticker: Re-elect Obama: Food Stamps For Everyone." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 8/7/11]
Fox Graphic Adopted Gingrich's "Paychecks Vs. Food Stamps" Slogan. During an edition of Fox & Friends, Fox adopted Gingrich's slogan, "Paychecks vs. Food Stamps":
[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/8/10]
The base understands perfectly.
Do you support letting Americans starve instead of helping Americans who are hard working and can't afford food for their tables?
Just ONE little question.
NewsWeek, News Flash: "why Obama critics are so dumb".
That's what Newt wants for America, and those smelly peasants didn't get foodstamps! When the King wanted to squeeze more out of them, he would turn the screws and those who had no money or food could just die and stop being such a burden.
Newt: Making 2012 feel like 1412.
King Newtie the 8th!
He loves colonialism. He's technically a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. He seems like the kind of guy who would have just beheaded his first few wives when they no longer held interest for him if he could have.
And the wingnuts consider this a bad thing ?
Many of us do, mari2jj, it is true. It seems that some of those who have tasted power or fame or glory tend to somehow forget those simple rules though. As a liberal Christian, I sometimes feel like a double outcast: A liberal who believes in God? A Christian who is a liberal?
It does appear that many of the Religious Right use the Bible as a cudgel to beat their opponents with, and to beat down those less fortunate as somehow less worthy, less human. Both of these ideas are the antithesis of Christianity as I understand it to be. Caring for the widows and orphans, visiting those who are in hospital or prison. These are things that Christ commanded us to do. Gay bashing? Not so much.
Some of these so-called Christians have their own version of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. That may work here on earth, but God is not fooled.
I point these things out because I am saved through no merit of my own, but rather through the grace of God, sinner that I am.
GINGRICH: No. I don't see that.
Well then, case closed.
The writing is on the wall. The Republican Party will be gone within a generation.
Good riddance. I hope I live to see it.
Or, am I missing some sarcasm or hidden meaning to pete's post?
Those cheer that politician are worse.
The news is just as hungry for money as the political parties in this country. This makes Fox News the first Perpetual Motion machine. It creates is own income environment that will never stops.
I helped my neighbors organize our own food shelf and Saturday BBQ, during the summer months, and potlucks for the kids in the complex. We did this because there are a number of struggling single mothers in the complex and, at least here in Minnesota, it has become harder to get emergency food support. Essentially, they don't consider it an emergency if a parent has any money in a bank account. For example, if a father abandons a family but doesn't clear out the checking account? The family gets moved to the end of the line. So, seeing a need, we decided to take care of our own.
We take up a collection and, working with a local supermarket, buy up gift certificates with any excess from the potlucks and BBQs. During our events the kids eat free and parents who were unable to contribute pay $2.00 a head. There's been no sign of abuse and we are actually facing a challenge to distribute what we are taking in and are turning down donations rather than even appear to turn a profit. No kid in the complex will go hungry if we have anything to say about it and, even if the parents are too proud to ask for help, those kids will get one good hot meal a week.
I suppose that the vile little freaks on FAUX"News" would call me a socialist and I'm proud to bear the title. I am equally sure that they have never even considered providing a meal for a hungry child.
See, for every potential voter that could be swayed by a somewhat misleading anti-Obama 'hands out food stamps' message, there's a person on food stamps that benefit from the program or may well need it for survival that would be entirely turned away by the message.
For tens of millions of Americans, Obama allowing our social safety net programs to function makes him a 'food stamp President' for the better. It's not there's a desperate search to find new members or that the Federal Government is actively trying to keep the numbers up. It's a program no one wishes had to exist.
Oh, wait, I get it, food stamp is racial code for black people.
First, they cite Factcheck.org to show that food stamp recipients grew by nearly a half a million more under Bush than Obama. But they were comparing the full 8 years of Bush to 3 years of Obama.
Then, they cite CBS' use of a percentage increase under Bush vs. Obama. But, again, it was the full 8 years of Bush to just 3 years of Obama.
A more true comparison would be the 7.2% annual food stamp growth under Bush vs. the 13.1% annual growth under Obama. Or to the average of 1.6 million people per year added to food stamps under Bush vs. 6 million per year added under Obama.
No doubt, a large portion of the increase can be attributed to the economic downturn. But the economy has been growing since June 2009. Unemployment has dropped from a peak of 10.1% in Oct. 2009 to 8.6%. And yet the number of people on food stamps continues to increase. 4.4 million more people were added last year alone. With the economy growing (albeit slowly) and unemployment dropping we should be seeing a decrease in the need for food stamps, not an increase.
Given all that, the "food stamp president" label would seem appropriate.
And you don't know what you're talking about when you claim that more people getting on the rolls is Obama's fault or something to blame him for. Eligibility requirements were lessened under Bush, and during lengthy downturns, people run out of other options and have to resort to food stamps more often - again, not Obama's fault.
And one of the biggest reasons that the numbers haven't come down sooner? We had 3 very large natural disasters and a few smaller ones last year, and so all those affected are getting food stamp aid due to those devastating events. There was a huge spike, for example, after the terrible tornadoes in Alabama and elsewhere back in the spring of 2011.
And contrary to your assertion, per CBS news
So, Bush is actually worse when one looks at the issue fairly, unlike the way you parse it, "JamesBond/jamesB/tommy/rightON/etc"
And lastly, it's not Obama's fault that we had a terrible economic downturn that started before he got into office and lasted until now - he actually made the downturn less severe and he's been helping with the recovery.
Oh, and one P.S.
This claim is a dogwhistle. It's meant to smear a black man for helping black people, and it's meant to resonate with bigoted white people who don't know that 36% of the recipients of food stamps are white while only 22% are black.
To look at the issue fairly, one would look at the annual rate of increase in food stamp recipients when comparing Obama to Bush. Using CBS's 63% increase during Bush's term works out to a 7.2% annual rate. Obama's 44.5% increase works out to a 13.1% annual rate, or close to twice Bush's rate.
When Bush took over, there was a giant surplus, the market was doing well, there were jobs aplenty, and we were at peace with the world.
When Obama took over, the deficit was humongous, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, the markets had crashed, and we were fighting two wars. And you, you friggin simpleton, want to compare the tenure of these two executives as though they faced the same challenges.
I LOVE WINGNUTS AND THEIR TOTAL INABILITY TO GRASP LOGIC!!!
The point being, JamesBond, Bush had it easy, mostly because the brunt of his tax cuts was dulled for years by the prosperity of the markets. But as the bubble burst, the rot in government became immediately apparent because the drop in tax revenue caused by his tax cuts, along with the two wars and the unpaid-for Medicare Part D that was designed to destroy Medicare, limited the Federal government's ability to ameliorate the effects of the economic downturn. But the consequences of Bush's failed policies weren't borne by his Administration because he just ignored the recession until the 11th hour, then passed TARP and left town.
Obama inherited an economic situation not of his making, and mouthbreathing sycophants like you have been doing your best to rewrite history so that he can be blamed for the ill winds blowing all over the country today. It just won't wash, as a recent Gallup Poll shows that only 12% of Americans blame Obama for the recession, while 43% blame Bush. You idiots are losing the message war.
Oh, and just as an aside, the term "liberal logic" is redundant. The only kind of logic available in American politics is liberal. Your side just doesn't do rational thought all that well (see Exhibit A: Republican Primary field; Exhibit B: Scott Walker's attack on unions; Exhibit C: openly attacking poor people in the middle of a terrible recession that has relegated a stunning 60% of Americans poor or nearly poor).
Bush tanks the economy, creating more need for food stamps, but you're blaming Obama?
That's some fancy logic for you, neighbor!
Actually NO. That still would not be fair since the entire economy was in FREE FALL when Obama took office. The momentum of the cratered economy was still being felt for months. Meanwhile Bush took over a fairly strong economy.
STOPPING the hemorraging still meant more were going to be getting food stamps. Even if Bush had quadrupled the amount of foodstamps being used he would NEVER have been called the food stamp president because it wouldnt have had the same racist dogwhistle effects.
There's a ton of content besides my accurate portrayal of your usage of multiple screen names. Pointing out how you parse words to dishonestly describe something no matter what screen name you use is relevant information.
And to your non-point distraction - you're looking at outlier years for Obama that won't continue into the future, and so it's unfair cherrypicking to look at these 3 years as though they're going to be representative of all of Obama's years!
100% dishonesty on your part, "tommy/Wesley."
And, in fact, it's NOT fair to compare Obama to Bush, since it's almost certainly true that over an 8 year period, Obama's numbers will look much better than they have over his first 3 years! Blasting him for 3 terrible years when they are outliers in our economic history isn't fair.
"Barack Obama put more people on Food Stamps than any other president."
What a Conservtaive THYNKS:
"Wow, that's guy creating all kinds of poverty!"
What a Liberal THINKS:
"Wow, that guys sure is doing a lot to address the poverty that he inherited from his predecessor!"
*shakes head*
I don't knwo how these people remember to breathe.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
A conservative sees an increase in food stamps as a failure to address the root causes of poverty.
You are FAR too stupid to be tellins us liberals what we think. You are incapable of thought period. You dont even know what thinking is so trying to tell us what we think is blatant stupidity on your part. You are just a brainwashed Randinista propaganda parrot spewing out what you were programmed to parrot.
For instance Eddie didnt SAY it was a way to address the PROBLEM OF POVERTY. He said it was a way to address poverty which only morons like YOU dont understand includes addressing the symptoms of poverty. See you are too stupid to think so stop trying to tell us what WE think
You are a LIAR. Since conservatives are CONSISTANTLY against doing the things that would address the root causes of poverty like jobs programs, making higher education more available, attacking the privations of poverty like subsidized housing. You Randinistas are selfish and soulless. You dont WANT to address the root problems of poverty. You want to punish people for being poor
"For instance Eddie didnt SAY it was a way to address the PROBLEM OF POVERTY. He said it was a way to address poverty " You really believe the phrase "problem of poverty" is different from just the term "poverty"?? Eliminate the "problem of" phrase from my post above and my point still remains the same.
Just like government spending during an economic downturn, in general, addresses the absent capital that missing consumer spending used to provide. It doesn't make those consumers spend money lke they should be spending it - remember, from another lesson I taught you months ago, idiot, that we wouldn't have bad recessions if only those directly affected by economic downturns constricted their spending! It's because people who don't lose their jobs and still have plenty of money also constrict their spending that we have bad recessions!
Government spending doesn't make them spend money, but governmnet money mitigates the damages that the missing consumer spending does to our economy, just as food stamps don't resolve the issue of missing jobs, but it puts food on the table of the unemployed and underemployed and it helps stimulate the economy.
No one's claiming that it attacks the underlying issues that caused all those people to need food stamps! That's your distraction of a strawman argument.
God but you are stupid and pathetic. I know you are too mindless to understand this but you SHOULD be ashamed of yourself and you SHOULD stop humiliating yourself. For instance. You are not clever. You are too stupid to BE clever and should leave the heavy lifting of clever and humorous to those of us capable of higher brain function
Maybe that's what you meant...otherwise you're an idiot.
Or maybe Newt Gingrich is more your flavor, or as I like to call him, "Father of the Slagboys". Generation upon generation of unchangeable, recognized labor classes.
Oops, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to turn you on.
The Super-Pacs haven't disclosed since last JULY.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/alarming-lack-of-transparency-in-go.html
Will MMFA get off their "OOOH did you hear what so and so said on Fox News" obsession and start reporting the Mainstream Media's indifference to this blatant lack of transparency on the part of the Republicans?
John
Which I would not be surprised to see.
a) repeat Bush's policies that have been in effect the whole time we haven't had jobs
b) do something different than what Bush did