Tag Archives: Food stamps

EBT Cards with No Debt Ceiling

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

President Obama claims to need the debt ceiling raised in order to pay America’s bills. Meanwhile, as Democrats and Republicans quibble, during a routine backup test the EBT system for food stamps crashed,causing a “glitch” in several states where, for a window of time, EBT cards had no limits.  

So, in other words, food stamp recipients got to experience what Barack Obama repeatedly demands, which is the ability to spend money that’s not his, and do it with wild abandon and no limits.

In Louisiana, one of the states affected by the backup test power outage that crashed the EBT system, food stamp recipients in Springfield and Mansfield seized the open-ended opportunity at a local Walmart, joining Barack Obama in his quest to steal from Americans by spending above and beyond the limit.

Viewing the “glitch” as having the food stamp threshold raised, and in keeping with the spirit of ‘raise the debt ceiling’ madness, patrons with EBT cards cleared the shelves when corporate Walmart allowed the EBT cards to be used despite the problem.  

Talk about “Let’s Move!” Based on the crowds of people who showed up in possession of open-ended SNAP entitlement cards, it’s apparent many of them alerted friends and family using their Obama phones, which explains how word traveled so fast.

Once word got around that the EBT ceiling was raised, voracious fraudulence ensued. So much so that police intervention was required because EBT recipients were clearing the shelves in a “glitch-spurred shopping frenzy.”

Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd says Walmart was so packed, “It was worse than any black Friday“ he’d ever seen.  For those who don’t know, Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving when crowds of people all over America stampede each other to death in a mad rush to get a good deal on a flat screen TV.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana, between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 pm, shoppers already habituated to getting free stuff loaded up their shopping carts supermarket-sweep style with whatever they could grab off the shelves.  

At 9:00 pm when the EBT cards came back online, people no longer able to scam the system just abandoned overflowing carts and exited the store. Police detained one woman who rang up a $700 grocery bill when her EBT card suddenly showed a balance of 49 cents.  Oops.

In Mansfield, the shopping free-for-all was so large that police were called in for crowd control and the shelves were cleared out before 9:00. Said one customer, “Just about everything is gone, I’ve never seen it in that condition.”

Corporate spokesperson Kayla Whaling explained that Walmart was “fully engaged and monitoring the situation and transactions during the outage.”  Ms. Whaling explained, “We did make the decision to continue to accept EBT cards (and purchases on WIC and SNAP) during the outage so that they could get food for their families.”

That makes sense.  Barack Obama just wants to spend more money than the nation has so he can “level the playing field,” and welfare recipients with 49 cents on their EBT card trying to rush the checkout with $700 worth of food are not stealing, they’re just trying to “get food for their families!”

With government on the verge of exceeding the debt limit and in dire need of more funding for existing debts, the president is setting an excellent example as a leader by demanding Congress vote to take the cap off his $16.7 trillion EBT card, so to speak.

So, as ‘raise the debt ceiling’ madness persists, to drive home the point that there should be no limit on American altruism, maybe Barack Obama can convince his political opponents to remove the limit on all EBT cards indefinitely and pay the bill Walmart shoppers run up when he strong-arms Congress into raising his own credit limit.

Al Sharpton and Sheila Jackson Lee Translate Racial Code

Originally posted at American Thinker

This whole “Differ with Barack Obama and You’re a Racist” thing is getting old.  Take for example Texas Democrat congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.  Sheila has already made it known that disagreeing with the first black president instantly makes you a racist.  Besides being at odds with Barack, more recently Jackson Lee has also declared racist any mention — by a white candidate, that is — of blue-collar work or, for that matter, any-color food stamps.

Thankfully, food stamps no longer come in a multicolored booklet that Sheila can scrutinize for racial undertones.  Even so, according to the congresswoman, Newt Gingrich daring to mention the words “food stamps” was inappropriate code whose intent was merely to “generate and signify race.”

Now, Sheila Jackson Lee’s official racially offended male counterpart, Reverend Al Sharpton, has decided that, if it seems rude and involves Obama and a Republican, it should immediately be exposed for what it is — racial antagonism.

The latest Republican to be installed in the Racist Hall of Shame is Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona.  After meeting and greeting President Obama on the tarmac of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport and despite being sued by his administration, Governor Brewer invited him to have lunch and join her for a tour of the border.

Barack Obama, hypersensitive narcissist that he is, decided to disregard Brewer’s gracious welcome and instead chose to immediately address what he felt was the governor’s negative depiction of him as “patronizing” in her book Scorpions for Breakfast.  Referring to the confrontation, Brewer said that she “felt a bit threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had.”

Exercising the type of feminist muscle liberals usually applaud, pint-sized Jan refused to be intimidated by Obama’s confrontational demeanor and fought back.  Thus, the newest addition to the “That’s Racist” laundry list: white governor refusing to be pushed around by black president.  And while pointing and wagging your finger in the face of anyone, let alone the president of the United States, is never a good idea, Sharpton’s assertion that Brewer’s spirited response to Obama’s rebuke was racist is a bit over the top.

Based on the incident, Al Sharpton also flagged as racist such mildly critical terms as “thin-skinned” and feeling “a bit threatened.”  Sirius XM radio host Joe Madison, who appeared on Reverend Sharpton’s MSNBC show Politics Nation, contributed the following to the indictment: “unacceptable” and “disrespectful” finger-pointing, refusing to apologize, asking to see a president’s college grades, and referring to President Obama by just his last name.

Speaking directly into the camera, Al Sharpton passionately addressed Jan Brewer directly, saying, “Thin-skinned?  You felt threatened?  What does that mean, you felt threatened?  By the president of the United States?  This is yet another example of disrespect and delegitimatizing this president.”  Hilary O. Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, concurred and posed a question of his own to Brewer: “What were you afraid he would do, steal your purse?”

So, according to Al Sharpton, henceforth, if you’re a petite Caucasian woman being reprimanded by a tall, imposing black president, and you’re intimidated and overreact, you’re a racist.

And that’s not all. Al Sharpton also feels that Jan Brewer giving a handwritten letter to the president that said “I’d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones” was sort of like mentioning “food stamps” and could also be considered racist code.

Sharpton contends that Brewer’s lunch/border invite was just a devious attempt to demean Barack Obama’s intelligence by implying that he needed to be “lectured” and could “learn at her knee.”  Thus, Al’s logic seems to conclude that the Arizona governor secretly believes that, because the president is black, he’s slow on the uptake and has a lot to learn.

The Right Reverend Al, who everyone knows is an expert at distinguishing truth from fiction, exposed Jan Brewer’s disingenuous nature in the following way:

So, Governor Brewer, when were you telling the truth?  When you just walked out of the meeting and told the press in front of the White House, with a smile on your face, how it was cordial and how the tone was very good, positive — or when you wrote a book saying it was condescending, and he was lecturing you?

Does anyone beside me remember a girl in large, green, plastic trash bag smeared with feces and a torso sporting upside-down racial slurs?

Respectfully pontificating about the Barack-Brewer brouhaha, Joe Madison also conveyed to Sharpton that the president was wise to walk away from a “fool.”  Moreover, Madison also said he believes that people like Newt, Jan, and Joe “You Lie” Wilson are merely those “who cannot stand the fact that this is an African-American who is now one of the most powerful individuals on the planet.  And there are those who cannot consciously and subconsciously handle it.”

Accusing a person of subconscious racism is almost as absurd as Sheila Jackson Lee sniffing out prejudice in cola-tinted Pepsi commercials and hurricanes that insist on being identified by names she thinks are too white.

Nevertheless, Governor Jan Brewer probably should have kept her composure during the encounter and perhaps described the incident in a way that did not include the word “threatened” — a loaded word which could be easily misconstrued.  Yet one has to wonder if it would have even mattered to Sharpton and company — because regardless of the circumstances, every time a conservative opens his/her mouth, derogatory racial code is all they seem to hear.

Thus, I’m sure Sheila Jackson Lee would agree with Reverend Al when he says, “They brought race in.  They put a race deck on the table.  If you pull a card, it’s a race card because they set the deck.”  No, it’s Sharpton who put the race deck on the table, because in Al’s world, it’s all racist — the cards, the deck, and the table.


Entitlements as Economic Stimulus

Originally posted at BIG Government

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has officially joined a prestigious list of Democrat economic geniuses that believe entitlement programs stimulate the economy.First there was Nancy Pelosi who said, “Now, let me say about unemployment insurance…this is one of the biggest stimuluses [sic] to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating.”

Excuse me Nancy, isn’t cash obtained in a liquor store heist also spent quickly, and couldn’t theft be considered a job creator for cops, the courts, and prison personnel?

Even still, Mrs. Pelosi contends unemployment insurance “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.”

President Obama, the man who has also proven to be a fiscal whiz kid, concurs with Pelosi that the extension of unemployment benefits is “good for the entire economy.”  Obama said “It’s probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.”

The President might as well say smoking cigarettes creates a need for cancer doctors, provides customers for funeral directors and “shovel ready” jobs for gravediggers.

In the same vein, Tom Vilsack believes that food stamps, an entitlement program that makes available the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to approximately 46,000,000 people and 22,000,000 households, also stimulates the economy. Apparently, the Secretary of Agriculture gets excited in “terms of job growth,” when talking about food stamps because he’s convinced SNAP puts unemployed “people to work.”

Out touting the administration’s new job-creation initiatives, Tom Vilsack was asked to address the problem of a growing population of unemployed and poverty-stricken Americans forced to live on food stamps.  In response, Vilsack took the opportunity to promote the Pelosi and Obama Entitlement as Economic Stimulus agenda, saying:

When you talk about the SNAP program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus… If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, and ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times.

What Mr. Vilsack didn’t mention was that SNAP recipients usually live in low-income urban areas known for being what Michelle Obama calls “food deserts.” Subsequently,  the underprivileged are forced to purchase unhealthy foods with those economy-stimulating food stamps.

Although if one applies the logic of Pelosi, Obama, and Vilsack, the resulting health issues could end up being a win-win because while stimulating the economy, the unhealthy use of food stamps also provides jobs for health care workers and personnel to look after individuals disabled by diabetes, heart disease, and strokes.

Moreover, as an added stimulating benefit, money saved on groceries means poor, destitute people can then buy more frivolous things like jewelry, electronics, and designer clothes.

Therefore, Barack Obama’s detractors are wrong about him being clueless on the issue of jobs and the economy. The President does have a plan. The Obama administration is doing all they can to get as many people as possible on economy-stimulating government-funded entitlement programs like AFDC, housing assistance, school lunch programs, low-income energy aid, and of course unemployment insurance and food stamps, all of which promise to have the US economy and job market booming in no time.

Sharing the Shared Wealth

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Baby carrots may have made it into vending machines in Cincinnati and Syracuse, but it doesn’t look like the Salisbury steak and French fries on school menus are going to be swapped for turkey burgers and string beans any time soon.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move (the chicken nuggets off the lunch tray)” campaign “has stalled in Congress after anti-hunger groups and more than 100 Democrats protested the use of food stamp dollars to pay for it.”  Mrs. Obama, together with Congressional leaders, want to improve school lunches and offer low-income students $4.5 billion in feeding programs on the back of the national Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps).

It’s the newest socialist scheme to “share shared wealth.” Personal opinion of welfare programs aside, one must admit that for the wife of the Maharishi of Entitlement Programs to sanction purposeful deprivation to ensure healthy school lunches for children is perplexing at best.

Statistics show that “90% of black children will be clients of… [SNAP]…at least once by the time they turn 20.” In order for Michelle, disguised as the Department of Agriculture, to have ample funding to dictate fat and sugar content on school menus, needy families must receive fewer food stamps and less food.

Many don’t agree. Well fed/well off Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) received a missive from Democrats calling the plan “egregious.” “It’s just plain wrong,” said Jim McGovern, (D-MA).  McGovern, a longtime advocate for childhood nutrition programs, queried the bill’s sponsors, asking, “[is] dipping into people’s food stamps the way you plan to subsidize child nutrition?”

SNAP annually costs the American taxpayer $56 billion, which is why Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the healthy kid bill and its exorbitant price tag. Question: Can’t food stamp parents pack healthy school lunches with items already purchased with supplemental income?

Despite the opposition, Michelle Obama is a forceful supporter of stalled school lunch legislation.  Apparently the First Lady attempted, through “extensive outreach,” to goad Speaker Pelosi into denying food stamp provisions in order to fund foods eaten at school. What better way to interject government control than by replacing home-based Cocoa Puffs with school-based whole-wheat pretzels?

The healthy school lunch program, the “Let’s Move” campaign, and childhood obesity concerns are all part of the same “Ditch the Doritos®” movement.  However, with simple math, hesitant legislators could be influenced to support the bill. Crunching a few numbers reveals that if food stamp money is used, with minimum effort chubby kids could ultimately benefit.

Recent statistics indicate that 35.1 million people receive food stamps. Food stamps cost $4.68 billion a month.  The price tag for Michelle’s school lunch initiative is $4.5 billion, approximately one month’s worth of SNAP monies. Children require 1600 calories a day, so over 30 days that’s 48,000 calories.  It takes a 3,500-calorie deficit to lose a pound, so if one month’s worth of calories are eliminated, every SNAP youngster stands to lose 13.7 pounds. Thus, if the lost calories are not replaced elsewhere, in due course, Michelle Obama would have singlehandedly tackled childhood obesity by simply wresting a “piece of welfare pie” from the mouths of corpulent children.

If Michelle can successfully synchronize cutting SNAP calories, slashing salt, sugar and saturated fat from school lunches, and getting “Let’s Move” workouts implemented in America’s schoolyards, her efforts could justify denying $4.5 billion in funding to impoverished children.

Either way, the suggestion that food stamp money be used to fund healthy school lunches for low-income children signals a new low for the government, where even entitlements are now being considered “spreadable wealth.”

%d bloggers like this: