Tag Archives: Food Stamps

Food Stamps Make People Fat

food_stamps-600x395A recent government study found that those on food stamps are more likely to be obese than those not taking the government assistance.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture looked at data from 2007 through 2010, then compared average weights of those on food stamps — officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — to those who weren’t.

The findings, released on Tuesday, are striking. Food stamp recipients are far more likely to be obese than poor people who are eligible but don’t take the help. And they’re even more likely to be obese than those with higher incomes.

Fully 40% of food stamp recipients are obese, the study found, compared with just over 30% of those who don’t participate in the program.

The report also found that children of families on food stamps (SNAP) are also more likely to be obese.

What the report tells us is that the foods government-assistance recipients choose to buy with their benefits are not healthy or are in too great of a quantity. Clearly, no one on food stamps is starving.

What the report also indicates is that Michelle Obama may be targeting the wrong crowd with her school lunch program. The kids hate the food and are throwing it away by the ton, school lunch providers are skirting the rules just to keep kids fed and administrators are struggling under the increased cost of the undesirable foods.

Perhaps the first lady should turn her attention to the diets of food stamp recipients. Maybe they should only be able to buy the foods that her school lunch program allows.

No more french fries, sodas, burgers or pizza – just baked fish and veggies. If the first lady is serious about stopping obesity in America, and especially childhood obesity, this government report shows her exactly where to target.

States hiring ‘foodstamp recruiters’ to increase cashflow

Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_ProgramA Washington Post article demonstrates how states are spending taxpayer money to put more people on taxpayer funded programs.

Agood [sic] recruiter needs to be liked, so Dillie Nerios filled gift bags with dog toys for the dog people and cat food for the cat people. She packed crates of cookies, croissants, vegetables and fresh fruit. She curled her hair and painted her nails fluorescent pink. “A happy, it’s-all-good look,” she said, checking her reflection in the rearview mirror. Then she drove along the Florida coast to sign people up for food stamps.

Oddly, there are no news reports of “get off of government assistance recruiters” using pet toys, food or other enticements to pull people off the taxpayer dole and into the real economy. No surprise then that America now has the lowest percentage of the population actually participating in the economy at this point in Obama’s reign.

You see, shiny things don’t entice those that want to do for themselves, strap on a briefcase or put on a pair of overalls and just get things done. Cat food and dog toys just aren’t enough for those Americans.

The recruiter in the post isn’t just some progressive saint, she’s paid .. by the state of Florida to get at least 150 people on to food stamps each month. A goal she exceeds on a regular basis.

As the government is already cutting back hours from FAA air traffic controllers, cancelling childrens’ spring trips to the White House and  seeing the Obamaphone program experience ghastly spending,  why is it that states would be using taxpayer money to fund recruiters to expand programs that are already costing more than the economy can bear? Because they too recognize the benefit of taking in federal taxpayer money and distributing it to others.

the job also has a second and more controversial purpose for cash-strapped Florida, where increasing food-stamp enrollment has become a means of economic growth, bringing almost $6 billion each year into the state. The money helps to sustain communities, grocery stores and food producers. It also adds to rising federal entitlement spending and the U.S. debt.

With almost 50 million Americans now taking in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, states see a way to increase their local economies at the expense of federal taxpayers.

Florida isn’t the only culprit in the SNAP lottery:

Rhode Island hosts SNAP-themed bingo games for the elderly. Alabama hands out fliers that read: “Be a patriot. Bring your food stamp money home.” Three states in the Midwest throw food-stamp parties where new recipients sign up en masse.

While this program is intended for the less fortunate, hearing the tale of those able to afford golf carts motorized scooters doesn’t sound much like poverty:

She watched as a few golf carts and motorized scooters drove toward her on a road lined with palm trees, passing Spanish Lakes signs that read “We Love Living Here!” and “Great Lifestyle!” The first seniors grabbed giveaway boxes and went home to tell their friends, who told more friends, until a line of 40 people had formed at Nerios’s table.

Most middle-income families don’t have golf carts and certainly don’t need nor want food stamps.

One story the Post chose to magnify was of a gentleman who had made some bad investments and flushed away his life savings. While a sad story, the article also showed a better support network that he could have used, but why when he has American taxpayers instead?

A few weeks after they moved in, some of their 11 grandchildren had come over to visit. One of them, a 9-year-old girl, had looked around the mobile home and then turned to her grandparents on the verge of tears: “Grampy, this place is junky,” she had said.

Eleven grandchildren? They came from somewhere – his children. If he is to “dig himself out” at someone’s expense, why is it everyone’s responsibility when not that of his own family?

While individuals find the “SNAP” lable easier to carry around than “food stamps” or “commidities” (old reference), states simply like the revenue. As the SNAP brochures handed out from the recruiter say, “Every $5 in SNAP generates $9.20 for the local economy.”

Food stamp benefit enrollment has skyrocketed under President Obama. The greatest benefactors seem to be the states while everyone else sees the disposable incomes shrink.

Brawl in the Food Stamp Line

Tuesday, a brawl disrupted those waiting in line to receive assistance from the Department of Human Services office in Chicago. According to witnesses the fight broke out over someone taking cuts in food stamp line.

Which brings one to three observations:

  • Some receiving government assistance really do feel they are entitled and shouldn’t have to wait in lines.
  • No matter where you go, there is always a phone ready to take pictures and capture the event in video for perpetuity.
  • How does someone receiving food stamps afford a smart phone?

Read more at: CBS

Mayors Challenged to Food Stamp Life Should Visit Military Families

 

Do you ever watch reality shows? I am not a fan because most of the participants are ill-equipped to handle the assigned tasks. I mean really, if you have never lived without modern appliances using a wood cook stove is a tremendously difficult way to prepare dinner as in PBS 1900 HouseIf you have never been out of the city you’ll be a greater disadvantage living in the wilderness than the guy who built his own cabin in Frontier House.

So how realistic is the recent challenge to mayors and other celebrities to live off the allotted funds for food stamps? Greg Stanton the mayor of Phoenix did it for a week and complained that he barely had enough to eat, losing four pounds in the week. You can watch the clip below or read his diary on Facebook.


The mayor of Newark is planning to do the same next week. Both want to be able to empathize with families who are living off food stamps alone. It’s a nice gesture but does it have any basis in reality? The article about Mayor Booker states that he makes $13,400 a month. What are the chances that either of these mayors has cooked from scratch or actually purchased grocery staples that a family might use to stretch their food budget?

On the other hand to get a real feel for life on a shoestring budget I talked to Ro over at The Conservative Kitchen about Food Stamp assistance and reality. She has an interesting article on military finances at her November 30, blog.  As an Army wife Ro explained many military families are eligible for Food Stamps, WIC and the like with assistance offices located right on base. They have to choose between needs and wants. Young wives with small children plan their menu before shopping so they can live within their meager budget.  They quickly learn that packaged foods and ‘junk food’ are usually more expensive but still many don’t have cooking skills to make meals from scratch.

I think it’s noble and good that these mayors want to see the challenge of living off government assistance. But is it reality? Are these men able to make the best food purchase choices, remember the Phoenix mayor chose Top Ramen as part of his menu, probably because it was cheap. Did he discover that ramen noodles, popular choice of college students offers little nutrition and even less hunger satisfaction?

Perhaps if these mayors really want to understand living on Food Stamps while trying to feed a family they should eat with one of these military families rather than doing a big show that really doesn’t have much reality.

 

Taxation Without Participation

It’s easy to vote for higher taxes when you’re not paying.

Michael Kinsley described a “gaffe” as anytime a politician is caught telling the truth. This is particularly accurate for Republicans and conservatives as is demonstrated by the reaction to Mitt Romney’s comment regarding Obama’s base.

The setting was unfortunate — a $50,000–a–plate fundraiser — but the message was accurate. As he discussed campaign strategy — not governing philosophy — Romney explained: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… And the government should give it to them…

Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful…”

Romney neglected to mention another solid portion of the Obama base: the welfare–industrial complex composed of government workers and associated special interest groups. The simple fact is the more people receiving government handouts, the more government employees you need to distribute the geetus.

The size of the two populations increases in lockstep as does the size of the Obama base. There is no exit strategy for the War on Poverty.

And this is nothing new, as Ann Coulter pointed out, “Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.”

Democrat “compassion” for the poor and underprivileged always comes with a healthy dose of self–interest. Just like any attack on Republicans while defending welfare programs is done with elections in mind. They know a reduction in dependency threatens to result in a reduction in Democrats.

Why do you think the Obama administration imitates Tupperware and throws food stamp parties to urge people to apply for handouts? Why did the number of able–bodied participants in the food stamp program double after Obama suspended the work requirement? Why do a record 8.8 million Americans collect disability checks? Why do federal unemployment checks continue for almost two years? And why is the Obama administration spending a record 15.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on direct cash payments to individuals?

The answer is simple: Obama’s building his base. That’s why Democrats at their national convention had no problem with an Orwellian video that proclaimed, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

Realizing this 47 percent voting block constitutes a problem isn’t a targeting decision made inside the Romney campaign. It’s an issue with the potential to rend the social fabric of the nation. It is a serious enough problem to offer Democrats a trade.

Conservatives agree to abandon photo ID requirements for voting if in return Democrats agree any citizen who is dependent on the federal government for his livelihood is not eligible to vote. This important reform would not mean a permanent loss of voting privileges and the creation of lifelong second–class citizens. On the contrary, as soon as the dependent citizen re–establishes financial independence the individual regains his vote. Regaining his vote acts as an incentive for personal responsibility.

When 47 percent of the populace is dependent on government benefits the nation is fast approaching a tipping point. Once the number passes 50 percent, American society will no longer have a crucial element of shared sacrifice. Instead the dependency block gets to vote for their share of increased benefits and taxpayers make the sacrifice. Even Democrats should be able to recognize that situation is unfair and inequitable.

For example, are McDonald’s customers allowed to set the price of a Big Mac? Do employees of Government Motors vote to set their own salaries? Do football teams get to vote on how many points the opposing defense will surrender?

There already exists a precedent for temporarily relinquishing the vote. Judges, Congressmen and even members of the city council are not supposed to vote or rule on matters in which they have a financial interest.

Naturally government employees would retain voting privileges. As would Social Security recipients, simply because seniors have been told since the program’s inception the money is not welfare. It’s not true now and it was a lie in 1935, but I’m not prepared to penalize seniors because the government misled them.

This reform would leave us with an electorate that bears the responsibility of paying for the government it advocates. Without this reform the Obamatrons continue to benefit unfairly from Taxation Without Participation.

In November one might cynically term Obama’s 47 percent “pocketbook voters,” only the pocketbook they’ll be voting is yours.

Taxpayer Dollars Advertising Food Stamps?

If you’ve listened to the radio or television the past few months you’ve likely heard advertisements from the USDA promoting the Food Stamp Program (or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—SNAP as it is now called).

Last week the government released ten new Spanish Novella type ads; mini soap operas touting the benefits of food stamps. Following is one of the radio spots and beneath it the English translation.

  The Poet – English Translation

(An observation: Friday July 13 the novellas were readily available on the USDA website. On Monday July 16 they are not.)

After a ‘surprising’ amount of backlash the USDA is considering pulling these ads. Why is the government surprised? They thought these commercials would be helpful to reduce the stigma of receiving food stamps as well as improving public awareness of the program. With Congress debating the farms bill (of which SNAP is a part), looking for ways to trim the budget this food stamps self-advertisement certainly seems an area in need of review. Many would wonder at this naivety, after all the Food Stamp Program has increased in usage to the point that now one in seven are receiving benefits. There appears to be plenty of awareness on the part of average citizens. The uproar against this program is on several issues. One, that taxpayers are paying a great deal of money for these ads to promote a government program.  Another, that the USDA refuses to release details of what food types are being purchased by the users. Nutritionists and those against government waste are concerned that too much of the program is going to buying junk food. And a third issue, that the government has not been able to get control of the massive fraud in this program. People take their cards, redeem them for cash through unscrupulous retailers or sell them online. Food Stamps are meant to offer basic meals; sure that no one goes to bed hungry.

From Star Parker’s blog: The New Food Stamp Plantation

Liberals tell us that the mind-boggling growth of this program is explained by our floundering economy. But, as Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., points out, spending on this program increased 100 percent from 2001 to 2006, a period during which there was no increase in the rate of unemployment. From 2007 to 2011, spending increased another 135 percent. But CBO attributes only about 65 percent of the dramatic growth in program spending and the number of recipients to the recession.

No one argues that SNAP is not necessary. Many are concerned that this temporary assistance program is not turned in to a way of life for the recipients. The program was not designed to be a permanent hand-out. The best solution to this program would be a better economy and job creation once again.  

 

VOODOO Food Economics

The USDA, in trying to increase participation in the SNAP or food stamp program, claims that for every dollar transferred to beneficiaries a dollar and seventy-two cents in economic activity is generated.

If we were to follow this mushy thinking to it’s logical conclusion, then if we all quit our jobs, closed our businesses and went on the program, we would live in a prosperous nation.

To illustrate this thinking, and expose it’s fallacy, suppose you have ten dollars to spend on food. The government takes one of those dollars from you, and gives it to someone else to spend on food. Now you only have nine dollars to spend on food, and someone else has one of your dollars.

It gets worse. It costs money in governmental bureaucracy to transfer your dollar to someone else, so by the time the recipient receives your dollar, it is only eighty-four cents. Now you have nine dollars to spend on food, and someone else has eighty-four cents.

Still it gets worse. Suppose instead of your original ten dollars, you only had nine dollars and sixty cents. The government takes your sixty cents, and borrows the other forty cents from China, at 3% interest, and gives you the bill. Now you have nine dollars to spend on food, but you owe China forty cents plus 3% interest on the forty cents, and someone else has eighty-four cents to spend on food.

The Chinese are better off by $0.012 (the interest on the forty cents borrowed in your name), the government is better off by $0.16 (administrative costs), but you are worse off by $1.012

Now instead your original $9.60 to spend on food, you only have $8.588 and the person your money was taken to help has $.084, making the total amount to spend on food $9.428

Wouldn’t it be better to improve the job outlook by putting into practice the recommendations of Obama’s own Jobs Czar Jeff Immelt, who told CNN in September of 2011 the way to create jobs in America was to create a stable and predictable tax environment with lower corporate rates and closed loopholes to be competitive with other countries, smaller government, reduced debt and deficit, a trained workforce, a friendlier regulatory environment, and more certainty on health care costs and regulations.

Food Stamp Nation [video]

“We haven’t had a quadrupling of the number of people that are hungry in the country; that’s what the food stamp program was meant to be. What we have [is] a political ideology in power in Washington of liberalism which believes that a measure of success of government is how many people it quote-unquote ‘helps.’ Or, to look at it another way, how many people it makes dependent on its ministrations. And therefore for them this is a great success. They want to see this sort of natural American aversion to taking a handout… whittled down.”

Weak Senate Votes Down Minimal Food Stamp Cuts

Americans are speaking out demanding that the excessive spending be stopped. But is Congress hearing?

Under the Obama administration the Food Stamp program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) has skyrocketed with 44 million now receiving assistance. A proposed amendment by Senator Jeff Sessions giving a modest cut to the program was voted down by the Democratic Senate. The amendment was hoped to add financial eligibility to the program (28 states currently have no limit on financial assets for those receiving assistance) and to stop the bonuses paid by some states used to increase enrollment. Watch Senator Ron Johnson as he explains the challenges of making even small changes to this program.

 

Married To The Game: Where Have All Of The Entrepreneurs Gone?

In this episode of the Married to the game, we discuss:

-Why Mitt Romney’s supporters should thank Newt.

-Why sex offenders should volunteer to remove themselves from society.  (self deportation)

-Where have the entrepreneurs gone?

-Can we make people “work” for their welfare?

-Why does Day Care cost SO MUCH???

-Have we reached a point where government regulation is killing our small businesses?

-What is America going to look like, if ONLY the irresponsible people continue to reproduce/have children?

-What if YouTube made you have to join an Actor’s Union to create and post videos?

-What did Michelle Ray do to risk Social Services being called on her?

CLICK HERE NOW to listen to the lengthy, yet fresh discussion.

 

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Democrats by the Numbers 2007- 2012

In late 2006, Americans were rolling along with 4.4% unemployment,  the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.20,  and America’s total national debt stood at $8.5 trillion dollars.

When comparing the statistics above with those of today after Democrats took over both houses of Congress in ’07, held the Senate in the ’10 elections and the Hope n Change White House of the past 3 1/2 years, the average citizens of other nations must be wondering just what were Americans thinking during the 2006 and 2008 elections?  As the saying goes, numbers do not lie, and Americans made monstrous uninformed voting decisions in ’06 and ’08 and now future generations of Americans will pay the price for these irresponsible actions for decades to come.

 Not only can the consequences of voting for the undefined Hope and Change Liberal’s  “fundamental transformation of America” be measured in [massive new debt] dollars and cents, it must also be measured in the [sure-to-come] loss of American freedom to a big debt-spending, all too powerful nanny-state plutocracy-in-the-making. (also known as the fake Democratic party of 2012.) The current all-powerful Liberal plutocracy must tax the workers more and steal a bigger chunk of American’s wealth to feed the nanny-state monstrosity of big government vote-buying through welfare-style handouts. (always done at the expense of the working man.) The following are the true numbers to consider when thinking about voting for four more years of the Obama/Liberal nanny-state destruction of America  in 2012:

 

TOTAL DEBT end of 2006 – $8.5 trillion (sourced above)  Total debt as of Jan. 2012 – $15.23 trillion dollars.  U.S. debt now equals 100% of the U.S. economy today. In comaprison to other advanced economies, only Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan and Portugal have debts larger than their economies. Four of those countries are also at the root of the current European debt crisis.  Add to that the projected 2012 deficit of another trillion-plus dollars, and America has went from $8.5T in total debt to approx. $17T dollars since 2007. That statistic represents the doubling of all the national debt accrued in America’s history… in just six years of Liberal-Democratic rule.

Gasoline cost Americans $2.20 a gallon in Nov. 2006. (and $1.86 a gal when Obama was sworn in) Today, under Barack Obama’s often-stated {back in ’07, ’08 on the campaign trail] skyrocketing energy prices, Americans are being crushed under the weight of paying $3.80 (national average) for a gallon of gasoline to try to get back and forth to work.  That means the average working American using 20 gallons of gas to get back and forth to work, now pays an extra $32.00 a week. Add that to the increased cost of groceries and other necessary items due to high fuel prices driving up transportation costs, and middle class America is in a world of hurt when it comes to trying to stretch the paycheck today. For many, this will also mean no summer vacation for the family, which happens to be a longstanding tradition in America.

The U.S. unemployment rate was 4.4% in late 2006. Today it is at 8.3%, and has been over 8%  under Barack Obama’s hope and change years in the White House. Should the Bureau of Labor’s numbers-crunchers decide to inject the truth of how many Americans have been taken out of the workforce, (and don’t exist according to them) the effective unemployment rate in America today is actually approaching 15%.

The price of food is also skyrocketing since Liberals took over Congress in 2007, further crushing middle class Americans. As a matter of fact, the price of groceries from 2007 – 2010  increased by an astounding 58%!  Add to that the 4.8% increase in 2011 and the projected additional 3% increase for this year and we have seen the price of groceries increase by a whopping, 65.8% since just 2007, under Liberal [fake]Democrats and the Hope and Change Community Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama since 2007. Of course, big daddy government has a solution for skyrocketing food prices: They will just take more money from the working class taxpayers to hand out more food stamps to buy Democratic votes, as in this reported whopping 70% increase in people receiving food stamps in America since….2007. With facts like these is it any wonder folks refer to Barack Obama and his Liberal operatives in Congress as the Food Stamp President and his Liberal food stamp party of big government nanny-state creators?

Clinton and today’s fake Democrat’s role in causing the housing crisis. Millions of hard working Americans have lost billions of dollars in home equity savings due to the depreciated value of their homes caused by the housing and mortgage crisis. A home bought for $330k in 2007 is now worth about $260k today. Most Americans are actually misinformed about the cause of the housing mortgage crisis.  The actual cause started back in the 90’s, when Congress required government-sponsored enterprises to purchase CRA loans as part of their affordable housing mandate. As these goals increased over time, the GSEs were forced to seek out even riskier loans to purchase. Then, in 1995, the Department of Housing and Urban Development permitted Fannie and Freddie to purchase subprime securities. Then it steamrolled out of control starting  when Republicans were calling for an end to Fannie and Freddie’s “everyone deserves a home, regardless of ability to pay” programs, yet Democrats in Congress let the madness continue unabated. President Clinton was a big part of enabling the housing crisis. With the stroke of his pen, Bill Clinton loosened housing rules  by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. Liberal Democrats went from “everyone deserves a trophy. regardless of accomplishments”  straight to “everyone deserves a house, regardless of ability to actually pay for said house.” Bottom line is that Bill Clinton could have prevented the housing crisis train wreck by vetoing that bill. Without it Fannie and Freddie could not have put the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in home loans to folks who simply could not afford to buy a house.

In summary, middle-class Americans have experienced high unemployment, skyrocketing energy prices, along with budget-busting cost increases of everyday necessities such as food, clothing and transportation since 2007. We have also effectively doubled our national debt since Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and Obama  started implementing his hope and change fundamental transformation of America in 2009. Also of note is that President Obama recently took time out from his 24/7 reelection propaganda-spewing campaign ( funded by the taxpayers) to throw a multi-million dollar dinner party for the great and the good, which also just happened to include… 50 Obama reelection campaign bundlers. ( which is technically illegal) While many Americans struggle to put food on the table today, the elitists gathered in the White House to sip champagne and dine on extravagant menu items, all the while rubbing American’s noses in it with minute by minute television coverage.

Middle class Americans are currently suffering through a 4-year stagnant economy, high inflation ( with more coming) and record amounts of irresponsible new debt to be added to the backs of future Americans. There were about 20 million unemployed or underemployed Americans as of May 2011, and the jobs added during the last 8 months have not averaged enough to keep up with population growth, let alone expand the work force.

Do Americans really want four more years of Obama-nomics, which are rooted in the denial of the above facts?  More importantly can Americans afford four more years of Obama’s fundamental transformation of America? Ask the people of Greece how that irresponsible big government debt-spending works out. Simply put, “American austerity measures are coming, and hell is coming with them.” Which way will Americans vote in November?

 

« Older Entries