Barack Obama Is the Food Stamp President
Newt Gingrich has taken to characterizing President Barack Obama as “the food stamp president.” That description of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’s current occupant is factually correct, both narrowly and broadly. Stating that fundamental truth does not make Gingrich or anyone else a racist, as leftist smear merchants in government, the Democratic Party, and the establishment press want America to believe.
Participation in the food stamp program, technically known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), has increased by 44% from 32.0 million in January 2009 to 46.2 million in October 2011, the last month for which data is available. During that time, the average monthly benefit per person has increased by over 18% from $114 to $135, even though the costs of food eaten at home have increased by only 5%, and even though gross benefits before deductions for income and assets three years ago roughly approximated what was needed to maintain adequate nutrition on a “thrifty meal plan.” Monthly program costs have increased by over 70%, from $3.6 billion to $6.2 billion.
So-called “fact-checkers” in the press are of course focusing on Gingrich’s one slightly wrong (for now) statement that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” That’s not exactly a whopper, especially in comparison to Obama howlers like “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan” and “My mother, who was self-employed, didn’t have reliable healthcare,” or even “The detention facilities at Guantánamo … shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the (January 22, 2009) date of this order.” Press hacks who have been falsely claiming during the past few days (examples here, here, and here) that more Americans were on food stamps under Bush than under Obama are making Gingrich look like George Washington by comparison on this issue.
The food stamp rolls indeed increased by 14.7 million under George W. Bush compared to “only” 14.2 million under Obama (so far). But Bush’s figure works out to an average of about 153,000 additional recipients per month during his eight years in office. Monthly additions during Barack Obama’s first 33 reported months have averaged 431,000. During the economy’s relatively strong years of 2005 through 2007, the food stamp rolls stayed relatively steady at 25-27 million. In the past fiscal year under Obama, while the economy added over 1.6 million seasonally adjusted jobs, the food stamp rolls still grew by over 3.3 million. Finally, food stamp program spending under Obama is on track to exceed all that was spent during Bush’s eight years by June, the administration’s 41st month.
More broadly, food giveaways under all guises have exploded under Obama. School food program costs have increased by 22% during the past three fiscal years, even though it should be obvious that the government is already paying many kids’ parents to feed them through food stamps. Women, infants, and children? Up 16%. Other food distribution programs? Up 52%. With all of this spending, what’s the main nutrition-related problem facing the country, even more among those in poverty than among the general population? You guessed it: obesity.
When the first of the bogus “food stamp challenges” began appearing throughout the country about five years ago, Mona Charen wrote:
Why is it that whenever you listen to a Democrat you feel that the year is 1966? They seem to live in a time warp in which no progress has been made on race relations, poverty, childhood malnutrition, and on and on.
Indeed. The “food stamp challenges” still occur quite frequently — eight Democratic congresspersons participated in one late last year designed to “prove” that they could not feed themselves on $4.50 a day — even though per-person benefits are 50% higher than they were when the idea was conceived.
As to Charen’s reference to race relations, the biggest smear of all coming from defenders of the indefensible is that anyone who points out that federal food assistance programs are too expensive, duplicate services, lack appropriate controls, and have eligibility criteria which are far too generous must be a racist. NBC’s Ann Curry went after Gingrich with that arrogant assertion on January 19, asking him, in light of his “food stamp president” criticism, “Are you intentionally playing the race card to win votes?”
Interesting article, the facts and data certainly support Gingrich’s basic claim. What isn’t clear is WHY participation in the SNAP program has expanded. Is it a function of the standards for eligibility being lowered or have there been greater efforts on the part of the administration to encourage participation? Or have that many more people simply become eligible due to the poor economy? What also is not clear is the alternative to SNAP; is the recommendation to tightening eligibility or reduce benefits?
You are right, it may not be a function of the Obama Administration actively lowering standards or promoting SNAP (though it probably is). But, it is clearly a function of Obama’s failed policies. If Hoover deserved the “Hooverville” comments the Obama deserves the “Food Stamp President” moniker.
Obama’s economic policies – Obozocare, tax increases, bailouts, and most of all, the environmental regulations – are INTENDED to reduce the middle class and working poor to penury.
Brutus, you asked why more on food stamps…as an eligibility worker I can tell you it is because the feds raised poverty level, we no longer require proof of income after initial application, no longer require proof of expenses or of household members, one page application, the list goes on and on…basically now whatever client says is good enough.
Yeah. He IS black. Who’s going to say otherwise?
I say otherwise. He’s half white, so where is this “he’s black” thing coming from? He’s half black. I believe he’s Frank Marshall Davis’ child, so I’ll at least give him the half black thing. But if he really is Barack Obama senior’s child, then that means he’s only a quarter black and a quarter arab.
That makes him mostly white……
Techno, he ain’t black. His father was born in the vicinity of Mombasa, Kenya from the Luo tribe. Which is predominately Christian, but his father happens to be muslim. Arabs owned the place before the Portuguese and British. His grandma I’m sure had a Arab “back door” man. In Islam, it is the father’s religion that is passed on to the son. Obama’s mom was white as rice. Put those races together, and he’s about 25% black.
Government programs by their very nature tend to grow from something that might be needed into something that can be and usually is vastly abused. Both those receiving benefits and by those whose careers and income are advanced by making food stamps a vast empire have a vested interest in making this program ever larger.
School lunch programs in some areas of Southern Calif have a 90% participation rate. Yet going to the homes in these same neighborhoods one finds big screen tv’s, newer suv’s and a mostly overfed population.
Lying about one’s income to qualify for free school lunches and food stamps has become as common today as falsefying one’s income to obtain for a large home loan used to be. Government winking a fraud to promote a liberal agenda leads to nothing but a nation without any moral principles.
All true. One other accoutrement of the “poor” is the ubiquitous cell phone, often another government freebie.
There’s a significant incentive for the states to enroll everybody in the food stamp program they possibly can.
A social worker told me her boss half-jokingly told her it helps “free up cash money for alcohol, tobacco, and the lottery, which pays our salaries!”
It is his way of insuring votes. Those on the dole will be threatened with loss of these “benefits” if obama is not re-elected.
Doesn’t a yearly injection of $30 billion of additional food script into the market necessarily create inflationary pressure on food costs. Can that partially explain rising food costs?
I don’t know much about inflation…but I do enjoy pointing out to proggs simpering about “corporate welfare” that billions of SNAP dollars pour into the coffers of Coca-Cola Co, Frito-Lay, ADM, Unilever, General Mills, RJR Nabisco, etc (minus cuts for the retailer, of course) every year.
What the Kolorblind Kiddies need, it seems to me, is a new hit comparable to their “welfare queens” golden oldie.
SNAP alone won’t do the trick, I don’t expect, but ¿perhaps if some clever _señorito_ could kinda weave food stamps together with People of WalMart?
Happy days.
Is The Stolen Teleprompter feeding on Karen Findley’s recycled corn again?
Yams. Yams.
What you see with SNAP is the difference between public and old-style private charity. In public charity the money always increases, there’s no incentive to move the people to self-sufficiency. In old-style private charity there was never any intent to make it a life-long handout. The intent was always to get the people on their feet, not to get them comfy on the couch. I recall back when I was a mere pup, many decades ago, when there was a needy family the women in the church would teach the wife how to cook, sew and shop. And if the family had a yard I’d get volunteered to plant a garden. If the husband was unemployed then the Church Women would find him a job, and he’d be happy to take any job just to keep them from hounding him… and believe, you didn’t want the Church Women hounding you. Now the public and private charities are designed to keep the “clients” dependent because that fuels the call for “more money”. If you think back to the glorious Bush days I’m sure you’ll remember that the food pantries were empty, the same as they are now which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of the new charity – the workers revel in the power that dispensing the “alms to the poor” provides. Watching their “clients” clutch their porridge bowls and beg for more must be orgasmic.
If you do the math, $4.50 per day is $31.50 per week, or $63 every two weeks… I spend less than $40 every two weeks but my mother made sure that I was self-sufficient before I left home. You can either count on yourself or live the sad life of depending on the kindness of strangers and hoping that they don’t have something better to do with their money.
There’s a corollary to your story (which I identify with): Churches need to step up to the task. I want the country to eventually get to the place where “public charity” (required reading: Marvin Olasky’s ‘The Tragedy of American Compassion’) disappears and private charity steps up, necessarily at a lower level and more effectively, and appeals for those dollars which are now evaporating in the perpetuation of misery.
Churches need to step up to the task.
They have long been stepping up. What – does anybody think we’ve been depending on atheists to aid the suffering and indigent all this time?
When you remove the stigma of being a freeloader, the incentive to become self-sufficient is gone. Therefore, the national socialists have a vested interest in controlling the language of welfare, with the help of the media. Ask George Carlin about how the media has destroyed the language and why we now call it “public assistance” and other nebulous terms that make no sense.
When a person is on the dole they SHOULD feel ashamed if they’re on it too long. Society is based on people being self-sufficient and not draining the money away from those who earn it. A lot used to be said in the 60′s about being a “productive member of society” in that a person had a job, wasn’t a criminal and generally held good character. All three of those things are now the direct targets of national socialists.
Reality and facts have nothing to do with non-factual emotions such as racism. How can stating a statistical fact be a racist action?
To define Obama as ‘the Foodstamp President’ is a fact; what does that have to do with the color of his skin (black/white) or his genes (white/black parents)?
Equally, even though blacks only make up a minority proportion of those on foodstamps, what does this have to do with race? Is the claim being made that
IF you are black, THEN, you will be poor?
Is poverty due to skin color or to sociocultural upbringing? Is it due to an increasing acceptance of single parent families, children from multiple non-existent fathers and a govt bureaucracy that encourages dependence on govt services? Is it due to the lack of medium skilled jobs in manufacturing and services, as union demands and high taxes drive these jobs overseas?
If the answer is these latter causes – then, this has nothing to do with ‘race’ and everything to do with the cultural and economic norms being established.
Obama’s economic policies, his support for unions, his high taxes – all contribute to the growth of the dependent population. He is, factually, the Foodstamp President.
Once what Obama had done in United (God damn America) Trinity Church hit home, I figured this guy saw all things through a racial lens.
I thought that if I was right Obama would start feeding programs to black folks wholesale and he has. It’s so hypocritical for black Americans and liberals in general to attach accusations of racism to any disagreement or political cartoon about Obama since the racism comes so conspicuously from the black elite in America and not white folks. Liberals want to take David Duke and Stormfront and expand it out to mean Conservatives secretly back such entities and talk in “code’>
The hate speech and racial advocacy that emanates so loudly from James Cone, Rev. Wright, Melissa Harris-Perry, Cornel West, the NAACP and Congressional Black Congress are light years worse than any white equivalent in the main stream since there exists not one single equivalent in the white mainstream, especially since one can persuasively argue there may not even be such a thing as a white mainstream since American popular culture is so heavily populated with a representation of all Americans.
This dumb idea that if I make a joke about two black guys who walk into a bar is racism is stupid. If I change it to two Scots or two Jews or two Frenchmen where does it reside then? Does the color or ethnicity of the teller matter?
Stereotypes that infest popular story telling or comedy are not the same things as people who believe in such stereotypes in their private lives and may act on them. The counter argument that film and TV that blithely reinforce such stereotypes might be valid for people who live in a cave but in reality drama thrives on archetypes and not racism.
You have the knight in shining armor, the black person who miraculously funkifies and liberates whites, the white person who miraculously shows black folks their inner worth, the Latino teacher who miraculously shows Latino students their math skills, (true story), Tarzan, Blade, the wise man in a turban, the stupid man in a checkered shirt and frayed baseball cap and it never ends. It’s normal. It’s not the KKK. It’s called writing.
Calling Obama the “Welfare President” could be construed as good. But, “The Food Stamp President”? True, dat. Great burn.
Here’s some good rap on the EBT card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
It’s funny (more like pathetic) to hear slightly brain dead whiners like James Clyburn and Sheila Jackson Lee complain that “food stamp president” is an obvious and blatant aspersion cast by Newt at blacks, couched in “code”.
Your mission (should you decide to accept it) is to count the number of times tonight that this food stamp president references “our American values” and alludes that he and coterie (that would be self-indulgent manipulators Michelle and Valerie) support said values while mean old republicans are only interested in their own personal wealth.
“American Values’ under this administration has come to mean dependency on Jabba The Hutt governance & control over your life from…here it comes…cradle to grave.
Obama took over the job as President when employment was higher than any time since the Depression—20 to 30 million. Even though people can’t get a job, they still need to eat—a fact conservative overlook. Let’s see if food stamp applications go down as the economy improve (and if Tom Blumer will note it then).
“Obama took over the job as President when employment was higher…”
Did you mean unemployment ? We’re $5 trillion additional in the hole under Obama and unemployment has markedly increased during Obama’s 3 years of tenure.
Except employment in the federal bureaucracy has increased some 20% and Obama likes to say…hey, bureaucratic BS jobs are important, too ! (he doesn’t say it quite like that, of course)
Another accurate observation Newt has made, this one relative to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits…”99 weeks is an Associate’s Degree”
Nancy Pelosi has said that unemployment benefits are the best way to stimulate the economy ! Harry Reid has muttered something similar.
Eating or not eating has nothing to do with the destruction wrought by this gaggle of morons.
I presume you mean ‘unemployment’. You are ignoring that Obama’s task, as president, was to decrease unemployment. His policies have increased it.
Don’t be simplistic and childish; to declare that ‘conservatives over look the fact that people need to eat’ is a non-factual opinion. Prove it; give me the statistics that prove that IF you are a conservative, THEN, you ignore ‘needing to eat’.
The choice is – do you enable the satisfaction of this ‘need to eat’ by empowering the individual or by making them lose their independent power and making them dependent on handouts and foodstamps from the state? Well?
Obama’s choice, and he made this choice, has been to increase dependency on the central govt.
He has done this by his borrowing of money; he has increased the debt as no other president has ever done. Increasing the debt means that there is LESS MONEY in the economy to use to set up new industries, new small and medium businesses, new factories, expand old factories and …guess what’s the result? NO JOBS.
When you take INVESTMENT money out of the economic system, because you are borrowing so much that you must use tax money to pay the interest on the debt ..then, there’s no money available to enable loans to develop new businesses or allowing the taxpayer to keep it to start up a business…
The superficial action of giving money to someone to buy food for the week – means that you’ve taken that money from the taxpayer…and he can’t use it to increase the size of his business and hire that without-food-person.
Obama has created a massive dependency of a great proportion of the population – on the taxpayer. The taxpayer must support himself – and a host of other people. That leaves NO MONEY FOR INVESTMENT in job-production.
Conservatives are very smart; they know that using taxpayer money and simply using it for CONSUMPTION purposes is not simply a vicious cycle. Because there’s no money available to create new jobs. It’s a DEAD END. Eventually – the taxpayer money dries up.
Taxpayers aren’t Magic Cauldrons. If the govt takes all their money, they can’t invest in expanding their small businesses. No jobs. No taxes.
THINK. Conservatives want the economy to focus on Investment and Production. They don’t want a nation-of-dependents that will implode once the money supply dries up.
Is that what you want? THINK!
Conservative postulate #7: When measuring the effectiveness of your argument, the louder progressives whine, the more progressives rant, the greater the deflection under the guise of racism, the more effective your argument in exposing the mendacious, duplicitous nature and cowardice of the Left.
Therefore, the cliche “Food Stamp President” when describing Obama should become much more frequent in its use.
It’s true.
Measure the accuracy of your claim as a function of the level and degree of vehemence expended to say it’s false.
I don’t believe the claim that food prices have only risen 5% in recent years. The rise has leveled out in the last six months, but the increase in the 18 months prior was probably more like 20 to 25%.
And the only reason the increase is as low as 20 to 25% is that Walmart (and to a lesser extent, Target) has increased it’s share of the market. On a store-to-store bases, the increase is greater.
From Allen West’s most recent eNewsletter a friend sent me…
• What was the National debt three years ago?
• What was America’s global competitiveness standing?
• How many more Americans are on the poverty rolls and on food stamps in the last three years?
• What have our deficits been the last three years?
• What was the average price for gasoline three years ago?
• What was the average price for health insurance premiums three years ago?
• What was the price of a gallon of milk or a carton of eggs three years ago?
• How many Americans have lost their jobs or careers in the last three years?
Austin Powers – 100 billion dollars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY
So why don’t people just add: Obama’s monthly food stamp increases during his term so far are 3 times any American President in history and that’s in only 3 years. That sounds even worse.
Please, let’s not take this racism charge as a real issue. It’s not. The left does not believe in free speech. Charges of racism are an effort to control the dialogue with peer pressure and shame. Control the terms of the discussion and you win the debate. This happens to conservatives all the time – liberals make a charge and we respond to its substance. Instead, we need to respond by pointing out the tactic. Gingrich has done this several times in the debates and been accused (by liberals, naturally) of sidestepping the issue. No, he is calling gotcha questions out for what they are.
I can go to the market, get salad, tuna fish and other goodies and eat healthy on what averages out to about $15/week. When I splurge, the cost can go up to about $20/week.
Eathing healthy and the salads last a full week.
So why am I supposed to pay for others to spend more on food, and from what I am being told, on less healthy foods.
But this is also a problem with government. When they give, they can demand. And so when one goes on food stamps it should be a trade off. You get the government money, but you can’t complain about what they are telling you to eat, and to be cost efficient.
You can waste all your own money, when it is your money and not your neighbors.
In order to have grown something, one must cultivate it by supplying the inputs conducive to its growth. While you have exhaustively listed the growth, you have not shown how the Obama Administration has supplied the inputs to its growth. My understanding is that people are qualifying for food stamps due to changes in eligibility requirements implemented during the Bush Administration. Therefore it would be true to say that the Bush administration reforms grows the food stamp program under the Obama Administration.
But do not look for truth in this post, for it has forsaken it.
David G – your understanding of the rise of food stamps – which you attribute to changes in policy by Bush – is totally false.
Here’s an analysis:
http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2011/08/09/bush-vs-obama-food-stamps/
Take a look at the statistics- ratio and dates.
And read what it says – read what came in with Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Bill:
“The fact is that President Obama’s policies have allowed more people than ever to qualify for food stamps, including those outside the traditional low-income demographic. The program used to be limited to 3 months in a 3-year period for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) “who were not working, participating in, and complying with the requirements of a work program for 20 hours or more each week, or a workfare program.”
However, President Obama, and the then-Democratically controlled Congress expanded the program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more popularly known as the “Stimulus Bill”, to ABAWDs:
“Beginning April 1, 2009, and extending through FY 2010, SNAP benefits of Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) will not be limited under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 unless an individual does not comply with the requirements of a program offered by the State agency that meets standards contained in the Act.”
According to The Daily Caller, the USDA is “pushing to regional SNAP offices to ease eligibility requirements and forgo checking people’s financial situations before providing benefits.”
Certainly, the use of food stamps rose under Bush, but they’ve exponentially increased under Obama – and he hasn’t done a thing to reduce them or to move investment capital into the private sector – to create jobs rather than food stamps.
Remember, Obama’s Stimulus wasn’t money given to the private sector but to enable the unionized public service to continue to exist…off the taxpayers. The public sector doesn’t create jobs; it consumes taxpayer money. Only the private sector creates jobs – and Obama has been starving this sector of investment capital. THINK.
Obama is the food stamp president just like Franklin Roosevelt was the soup line president. Funny how some things never change with far-left liberal progressives. Both of them were terrible failures when it came to getting us out of a depression, both of them want big-government solutions to solving all of our problems, and both of them just loved trying to spend our way out of our economic problems. Yes, some things never change.
Since no one is standing up for the racism charges, here goes… http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/because-there-is-no-racism/251554/
“The notion that Gingrich is somehow unaware of that “food stamp president” has racial connotations, that he is being on the level when he says the black community should not be satisfied with food stamps, requires an extension of supernatural generosity.”
This is pure BS. This follows the line of “thinking” that a guy who learned “eenie-meenie-minie-moe” with “tiger” as the operative term instead of the “n-word” is somehow naive of the “racial connotations”.
It is the same line of “thinking” that the statement “reneged on the deal” has racial connotations.
In fact, the argument is specious and very weak at best. In reality, it’s a non-valid point. Newt most likely DOES know that there are more white people on welfare than black. His point was never intended as a racial slight and only the left wants to take it that way, to use as such and to try to bend the argument that “See? Republicans hate black people!”
I have worked with blacks all my life and there are those who will find racism in everything, every sentence, everything a white person does. Then there are those who just don’t have time for it. They are mature, thinking people who know what it used to be like and that it’s no longer that way and some of them have actually confronted the ones who spend their time looking for it that they are a problem.
When a person is perpetually angry, which is a very powerful emotion, they will find ways to justify that anger. Because it is a very personal and core emotion, it takes control if the owner of said anger lets it. Few are able to actually rise above it and respond rationally. It used to be a trait revered by men but in more recent years, the petulant child-like behavior gets more media attention, especially if it’s a conservative who’s just plain had it. But it’s a given for liberals and national socialists who, like the brownshirts of 1930′s Germany, feel their anger is more justified than anyone else’s. Since the media and the national socialists are one and the same, they get a pass for bad behavior.
I don’t know… I think that a stereotype does exist about blacks and food stamps, but the heroism of Newt in this instance is that he is showing that he is above that, knows better, and is trusting in people to realize the difference between racism, and poignance. I guess that is actually pretty novel in presidential elections.
People who want of themselves and others to be sensitive to stereotypes in society perpetuate stereotyping.
Ta-Nahesi Coates is a race-obsessed moron, racial advocate and eternal apologist for black Americans. Like Muslims in the middle east, his “people” can do no wrong and never are.
By the numbers: President Obama’s economy Jan 24, 2012
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1411776809001/
Mr. Blumer,
Your “Barack Obama is the Food Stamp President” is the first article I have read on the pjmedia web page. After reading the first paragraph I had two thoughts; first: saying something that is half true or mostly false or even factually correct does not mean the speaker (pun intended) is not a racist, and second: it was clear your bias against “leftists” is so partisan that it would cause you to look at things only to try and prove your preconceived Tea Party-like position.
Then I scanned down the page and saw the food stamps with our president’s image photo shopped onto them. Again your bias and hatred for America’s president seemed to prevent you from being at all objective so I skipped reading the article.
Dave Anderson – could you explain:
1) How does stating a reality, that food stamps use has massively increased under Obama – and this use is among whites, blacks, hispanics, asians etc – how does this fact suggest racism?
You could equally say that the increase of high school dropouts, another factual statistic, is ‘racist’.
Are you seriously suggesting that we may not state the facts?
2) Could you explain what you mean by ‘Tea-Party like position’? What is such a position? My understanding of the Tea Party’s basic axioms are a promotion of a balanced budget, lower taxes, constitutional adherence, free markets, individual freedom and responsibility. Could you explain your use of the Tea Party?
3)I think that criticism of Obama and his actions and policies is justified. Surely you aren’t setting him up as above and beyond criticism? To then declare that such a criticism is irrational (hatred) is without evidence. Could you justify your rejection of criticism of Obama?
Demonstrating how the food stamp program has irresponsibly grown shows that characterizing Obama as the Food Stamp president “is factually correct, both narrowly and broadly.” The column did that. Race has nothing to do with it, and as noted, those who accuse someone of racism for merely pointing out the inconvenient facts about the food stamp program’s growth are the ones engaging in racism and operating from racist assumptions.
Your loss. Your closed mind.
I didn’t make the graphic. But I like it, because it fits the circumstances, and all of your whining won’t change that.
Hogwash. The decades-old Lee Atwater Southern Strategy lives on in this meme of the “Food Stamp President”. All fifty people who read this website are old enough to remember Reagan’s dog-whistle statements about the “Cadillac welfare queen” and the “strapping young buck” using his food stamps to buy steaks. They are old enough to remember the Willie Horton ads, too. But a long memory is not required when we have Gingrich presently claiming that “blacks should be demanding jobs instead of food stamps,” and the Republican audience applauds him on cue.
Racism has everything to do with it. How else in 2008 did we end up with images emailed among Republicans of the president with a bone through his nose, or that classic, the photoshopped “welfare buck” featuring Obama, watermelon and fried chicken? This trash does not foment in a vacuum; it is generated by conservative politicians and shills like yourself fostering the ignorance of your readership, a group of entitled aging American whites, heavily dependent on Medicare and Medicaid, who apparently can’t appreciate the irony of hating people on federal assistance.
So go ahead and hide behind the fact that you don’t directly charge blacks as being a welfare community or that the first black president is engendering a culture of welfare because of his ethnicity; anyone watching closely can see that this rhetoric is exactly the sort of divisiveness that the GOP has been using for 40 years to keep frightened angry old whites voting for candidates who don’t care about their interests in the least. What you attribute to cleverness, I attribute to cowardice.
Could it be this Dave Anderson?
http://chefdavidanderson.wordpress.com/bio/
Seems to fit but to be fair, there are probably a lot of Dave Andersons. However the writing style is a close match, right down to the poor use of punctuation.
It’s funny. The Bible verse about judging others: “Judge not, lest you be judged [so, do not be a hypocrite]” is regularly observable in the news, especially when it comes to these matters of racism charges. Ann Curry (a beautiful dope), and all others who’ve made the similar accusation, expose their own stereotyping of blacks being poor and on food stamps with their own indignant posturing. And the supposed “dog-whistle racism” is more of the same – it truly is an inaudible cue, and they are the ones who hear it. They are either severely evil, or so dumb as to be dangerous. Another one a while back was the Graduation Card that, apparently, someone thought sounded like it said “black hoes” in the cards’ 2 cent speaker. The NCAAP got involved, and proved how irrelevant they truly are. By their own actions, by their own words, they expose their own animus and hypocrisy.
more on food stamp under bush then Obama get you fact straight folks
Read the piece. Get your criticism straight.
Another factoid concerning government teet-sucking is:
Consider the safety or lack thereof with respect to communities who rely HEAVILY on government ahem ‘entitlements’ (i.e. private sector/productive members of society working stiffs).
If in-your-face-government is such a fantastic construct why are these same communities total s hitholes?
Obama’s Class Warfare–Mission Accomplished?
Anyone who has closely or even cursorily followed the actions, declarations, and proposals of candidate Barack Hussein Obama and the enacted socio-economic policies of the Obama presidency has to be aware that he represents the greatest threat to domestic and international tranquility in the history of the United States.
Obama’s slip-of-the-lip to Joe the Plumber in 2008 that his intent was to “share the wealth” should have alerted Americans to his radical Marxist inclinations, but it didn’t.
His repeated statements pitting rich against the poor, the haves against those who haven’t, should have informed the electorate that he was launching class warfare, but they didn’t.
His Justice Department’s black racist decisions and his demeaning of white Americans should have shown he was fostering racial antagonisms and pitting race against race, but they didn’t.
His foisting of Obamacare on the American people, a socialistic scheme designed to kill off the sick and elderly patterned on Britain’s failed NHS, should have proven he was far more committed to his legacy than to the well-being of Americans, but it didn’t.
His enthusiastic support for the revolutionist Occupy movement intent on subverting the capitalist system that has made America great should have been a giveaway that Obama wasn’t a real American, but it didn’t.
None of that evidence was sufficient to convince Obama idolators who still mindlessly subscribed to their illusion of Barack was their dream rather than what he is, a nightmare and a fraud.
The president’s designated apologist, Press Secretary Jay Carney, was hit with an easy question at his Monday press briefing, a simple query as to whether a picture of Saul Alinsky hangs in the White House. The reporter was motivated to ask since Newt Gingrich has reasonably claimed Obama’s vision comes from the man who coined the term, “community organizer,” Saul David Alinsky.
Amid titters, Carney scoffed, waffled, defended his boss’s background as a Chicago “community organizer,” and replied without answering the qustion, ”I’ll just leave it at that.”
See Carney dance around Saul Alinsky here http://bit.ly/y0KKJn.
I doubt there’s a framed portrait of Alinsky in the executive mansion. There would be no need since Alinsky extremist socialism is firmly embedded in this president’s psyche and philosophy so who needs a picture?
Alinsky never became a registered Communist. He was so full of chutzpa that he refused to be bound by Communism’s “doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated” rigidity. Instead, he blazed his own trail of doctrinaire, humorless, intellectually constipated independence that served to supplement Communism’s and which, if anything, was more radical.
He virtually invented the job of community organizer, a euphemism for a rabble-rouser engaged in stirring social discontent and societal revolution and developed that profession on the streets of Chicago, the same streets on which his disciple Obama later practiced Alinskyite tactics.
As Linn and Ari Armstrong noted, “Beneath his [Alinsky's] platitudes about democracy and the ‘importance and worth in the individual,’ Alinsky reveals his core goal: to ‘use power for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people.’ “
Sound familiar? It should because Obama said much the same thing when he told Joe the Plumber that his aim was to “spread the wealth around” through political force.
In another relevant observation, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12244.)
I’m sorry to hear the Obamas are on food stamps.
Maybe if they got real jobs, instead of spending all their time vacationing and playing golf, they wouldn’t be in this fix.
How is it that Obama is called a “President” and Chavez, Castro, et el are called “Dictators?” are they all not of the same cloth?
Having heard Mona Charen rail against Newt speaking with John Batchelor, I wonder if there is much more than a dime’s worth of difference between Ms. Charen and your run-of-the-mill media person. (Or, on Newt, is she merely faithful to the National Review party line? Funny, I recall seeing Newt address a D.C. gathering under NatRev auspices, January 2007. Did Newt say something to offend Rich. L on that occasion?)
I have been a food stamp recipient since April 2010 — although it wasn’t easy for me to get regularized notwithstanidng an income level clearly justifying participation (I am, I think, in the bottom 4%.) Food stamps seem to enrage prominent conservative talkers — which distracts them, I guess, from the insiders who, un, capitalize on their campaign donations to get insider treatment from officials. Indeed,the food stamp issue is a clear distration from crony capitalism which I thought I heard conservative talkers denounce, previously.
Now where is the GOP candidate who will accurately describe President Obama as the crony capitalism president? Or would Newt et all emulate Presisdent Obama in this respect?
Let’s see what’s behind this. Unemployment spiked from Bush/Cheney policies and lax regulation tanking the economy in 2008. Millions lost their jobs and couldn’t bring home the bacon. Employers weren’t hiring anywhere till 2010 and 8.5% unemployed don’t find work today with employers and right wingers in congress blocking all jobs efforts. Hmmm. For families to eat more people need food stamps. Hmmm. Record unemployment. Record loss of paychecks. Record food stamps. Hmmm. I think I see a connection between Bush/Cheney and food stamps, being resolved slowly by Obama, slower because of right wing obstructionists in congress. Let’s see–that’s a food stamp Speaker Boehner; a food stamp House Majority Leader Cantor; a filibuster promoting Senate Minority Leader food stamp McConnell; an opposition to jobs food stamp House TEA party caucus. Why, that’s 5 reactionary republicans and a right wing caucus against 1 president!!! Seems to be a republican food stamp leadership and caucus, not the president. Hmmm.
Food stamps were being marketed like crazy in Pennsylvania during the bush years. I can recall those radio commercials.
And yes im being serious.
AND, the Petulant President: Words Have Meanings, in Books and at Airports
Remember when your mother told you, “Words have meanings! Be careful of what you say because what you say can hurt people. What you say and how you say it tells others the type of person you are and what they will think of you.”
No? Well, I can’t remember my mom saying anything like that either. She was always too busy warning me not to play in the street and telling me to go wash my face.
But both spoken and written words can have powerful meanings and can be reflective of both the character of the speaker and the speaker’s estimation of the character of the addressee.
President Barack Hussein is very adept at using words, words and cliches fed to him by his handlers and dictated by his teleprompters, meaningless vocabulary like “hope,” and “change,” and “yes, we can.” He’s not so adept at dealing with those who disagree with him.
The notoriously thin-skinned Obama who early on in his run for the presidency expressed sensitivity over the obsession with his Dumbo ears and ruled out any political exploitatation of his daughters and then consistently exploited Malia and Sasha, met face-to-face Wednesday with Arizona governor Jan Brewer who seemed to mince no words with the president.
Brewer didn’t mention Dumbo but they did engage in a heated exchange on the Phoenix-Gateway Airport tarmac. Obama’s MSM and the leftist blogosphere have latched onto the photo of Brewer wagging her finger at the president of the United States as clear evidence conservatives have no respect for the presidency and as emblematic of conservatives’ disrespect for the country.
Based on a picture, the ever-objective, HufPo’s Michael Shaw described Brewer as “a reactionary governor, overflowing with the same lack of respect for the President as the radical far-right she’s aligned with” and called it an “ambush” despite raw video showing Brewer greeted him warmly with a big smile and handshake.
Although she had to publicly say Obama “loves his country,” the polite and dignified Gov. Brewer may have no respect for him at all but she is concerned over the integrity of America’s borders and has the deepest regard for our country, a concern and patriotic feeling the president has yet to demonstrate.
Full details of that brief airport contretemps and the contents of the letter the governor handed to Obama haven’t been released, and may never be.
However, it is known that the governor and the president weren’t happy with one another. He didn’t like her criticism of him in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast, she wasn’t pleased with his rudeness and walking away before she was done speaking.
(As an aside, sales of Scorpions for Breakfast skyrocketed after the finger-wagging picture hit the blogosphere.)
According to Politico.com, a disingenuous committed Obamian supporter, Brewer said, “He brought up my book. And he was a little tense. I asked him if he read [it] . . . and he said he read the excerpt and he didn’t think that I was very cordial. He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least. I was trying to be very calm.”
It seems our president is developing a petulant pattern over pesky, un-cordial words. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12287.)
Obozo is first and foremost the “Parasite” president, and I use the term president loosely; simple as that. He’s made a living off taxpayers his whole life and panders to those who think the same. I’m only talking about those who’ve never paid into the system, yet are always taking….and complaining.
I also don’t think you can become wealthy if just taking from taxpayers, so there’s got to be some “under the table” dealings in his background.