No Smoking Gun, But .... (Part I)

There may be no smoking gun with any of the many scandals plaguing the Obama administration, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to find this group of clowns guilty in a court of law. This administration has already admitted to guilt by incompetence and or by ignorance. This has to be very suspicious in its own right.

On Fast and Furious Holder and Obama claimed no knowledge of the gun running program that left a border agent dead as well as thousands of other civilians in the Mexican drug wars. If Obama and Holder had no knowledge of this operation than why are hiding behind executive privilege? And what’s worse, no one has gone to prison for the failed program. Incidentally, Obama and Democrats have pushed for new gun control laws including banning the same assault weapons the Fast and Furious program has put in the hands of dangerous drug cartels – this is hypocrisy at its worse.

On the AP and Fox News probe there is no other way to explain this action but it is a first amendment infringement by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Liberals who are first amendment fanatics would have to agree (especially how much they object to the Patriot Act – And these probes pushed the limits of the Patriot Act). Prosecuting Fox News’s James Rosen would put an end to the freedom of the press and would mean all journalists would be guilty for doing their jobs. What is troubling about this scandal is that the DOJ is targeting journalists and not the people guilty of supplying top secret national security information. One also has to wonder why the New York Times was not targeted since they obtained national security leaks about the cyber warfare used to slow Iran’s nuclear ambitions and information about the killing of Osama bin-Laden. Of course, the classified information printed by the NY Times made Obama look staunch on national defense and it would come as no surprise if the administration purposely leaked this information to provide the public with a favorable view of Obama.

The IRS targeting of conservative tax exempt groups is just creepy. This is big brother at work (Orwellian). Liberals brag about wanting equal protection and equal rights for all Americans. They do not want the government to profile terrorists and want equal rights for gays and entitlements for impoverished minorities. However, liberals only want equal rights to people who think the same way as they do. What makes this matter even more troubling is that the person in charge of the department who targeted conservative groups is now in charge of the new ObamaCare division of the IRS. Under oath, the IRS admitted they provide “poor customer service”. So what do they do – they promote the person who was guilty of targeting and poor customer service.

On Benghazi there is sufficient evidence to show that the administration and state department rewrote talking points twelve times to cover up their incompetence of failing to heed to the continuous warnings that our Benghazi embassy needed more security. However, the most glaring and inexcusable act made by the White House was their failure to send any help. Even if they did not think help would arrive on time, they still should have acted. If anything, the help could have secured the crime scene, which incidentally went ten days unsecured before the FBI arrived - and by that time the evidence had been compromised. If an American calls 9-11 for help, emergency vehicles and personnel must be dispatched. Law enforcement and or emergency vehicles are dispatched regardless as to whether or not they will get to the scene in time – it would be negligent otherwise. Besides, what ever happened to leaving no Americans behind in battle? And if Obama, our commander in chief is claiming ignorance when our country is being attacked by terrorists – this clearly says Obama is guilty of failing to do his job.

What Does Obama, Holder, and Banner Have in Common?

They know nothing! They See Nothing! They Hear Nothing! They know Nothing!

 

These clowns (Obama and Holder) are our present day Sergeant Schultz. Is it possible these guys knew absolutely nothing about Fast Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP scandals?

 

If this is true, it proves my point that government is way too big. If it is false, then these guys need to go to jail. It is a sad state of affairs in Washington.

Benghazi, the IRS, ObamaCare, and AP Oh My!

I have covered the Benghazi White House and administration cover up from the beginning. The talking points about the Benghazi terror attack were scrubbed 12 times to mislead Americans into believing that one, Benghazi was not a terror attack, and two, that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden which was Obama’s campaign narrative. The Benghazi scandal failed to gain traction for 8 months, which incidentally followed another huge cover up which garnered little media attention even though it led the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and U.S. Border Agent – Fast and Furious. Now it appears there is one scandal a week being revealed about the Obama administration’s handling of all types of affairs.

I touched briefly about the IRS scandal in my last post in which the IRS specifically targeted conservative organizations. The IRS not only broke the law by using bias in its audit process, they also failed to act in a timely matter when conservative groups sought tax-free exemption. All of this occurred during the 2012 election cycle and undoubtedly helped Obama win reelection.

We also learned this week that Kathleen Sebelius, the head of the Health and Human Services Department, was seeking help from healthcare providers to fund the implementation of ObamaCare. Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander has asked the Government Accountability Office to review the legality of Secretary Sebelius' unorthodox and ethically-suspect fundraising efforts. Alexander suspects the scheme "could violate Congress' power to direct policy through appropriations." And this isn't the first time Sebelius has been accused of violating the law by testing the boundaries of her official duties.

Finally, if all of this is not bad enough, it has also come to light the Department of Justice (DOJ) had secretly monitored the phone records of dozens of journalists at the Associated Press (AP). The DOJ suspected there was a leak in the White House who was providing information to the AP that related to National Security. This is really a massive expansion and abuse of the Patriot Act. First, the reporters were not the source of the leak. Secondly, a subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period". Thirdly, news organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules.

Many of these scandals / cover ups are Nixonian in nature. Nixon’s paranoia got the best of him and it may do the same to Obama. Obama claims to have known nothing about Fast Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, ObamaCare funding, and the secret monitoring of journalists. If this is true, then Obama is a bad President who is not doing his job and proves that government is too big. If it is false, then Obama should be impeached like Nixon – he is a criminal doing anything possible to bring down his adversaries and win elections. After all, the above actions by this administration are far worse than what Nixon did.

Cheating, Lying, and Breaking the Law to Win Elections

The media always talks about the way Republicans and conservatives try to intimidate minorities to win elections (like for instance requiring a picture ID to vote and purging voter lists of deceased individuals to curb voter fraud). This is nonsense! The minority voting rate and trend is growing much faster than other groups of people. One reason for this is due to new early voting and mail-in voting laws in most states which makes it more convenient to vote.

On the other hand, the media never covers how the liberal election machine works to steal elections. In 2008, it was uncovered how the liberal organization ACORN committed thousands of cases of fraud by illegally registering unqualified voters. The outcome was ACORN was forced to rebranded itself into a bunch of smaller entities – no one was prosecuted. During the 2008 election, at precincts in the Philadelphia area, the Black Panther Party had individuals with clubs guarding the outside of voting locations. What was the outcome – the DOJ never pursued any charges against these people.

In 2012, the election appeared as if it could be a close one. This was obviously a concern to the Obama administration and hence, they began to lie, cheat, and conduct illegal operations to win. We have already learned that the administration purposely misled the American public about the Benghazi attack. If the truth behind the attack come forward prior to the election Americans would have learned that al-Qaida is alive and well (this would contradict the Obama campaign narrative that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden). Americans would have also learned the administration was negligent in the attack and not only denied the Libya embassy the more security they requested, they reduced it. Americans would have learned that Libyans who brought Ambassador Stevens to a hospital were not good Samaritans, but they were complicit in the attack and were setting up an ambush. And finally, if all this is not bad enough, most people forget that Obama went to war unilaterally in Libya and the weapons he supplied the revolutionists were used to attack our Embassy.

Just when I thought this administration could not stoop any lower, they have. Now we have learned the IRS specifically targeted non-profit conservative groups. Specifically, groups who had the following phrases in their names were illegally audited by the IRS: Patriots”, “9/12″, “We the People”, “Take Back the Country”, “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement”, "Issues include Government spending, Government debt, or taxes”, Education via advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”, “Criticizing how the country is being run.” Obama says he is “outraged” by this and has “no tolerance” for this behavior. We’ll see, but I am sure this investigation will yield similar results as others conducted under Obama such as Fast and Furious and Benghazi where no one has been brought to justice. I am sure this investigation will be as slow as the implementation of ObamaCare, the closing of Guantanamo, and Obama’s “redline” with Syria. I mean are we really supposed to believe that this was carried out by low level IRS employees without the knowledge of higher ups and the Obama administration? If this is true, it only proves that government is too big. The same can be said about Benghazi, if Clinton or Obama was really not in the know – it proves government is too big. But, remember, Obama and this administration joked about using the IRS to audit adversaries and generated a website for Americans to “snitch” on their neighbors who disagree with the administrations ideas. Finally, the DOJ was illegally monitoring AP reporter's business and personal phone calls. Face it, Obama is just as paranoid as Nixon and would have done anything to protect his super ego – including breaking the law to win elections.

Remember, this is the same administration who openly accepted campaign contributions illegally from foreign sources. Where is the IRS investigation into this!

Hillary "What Does it Matter" Clinton (Part II)

1. A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why.  If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he?  Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop. 

2. The US' security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Secretary Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens') repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's signature appeared on the memo denying those requests. Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare minimum global security standard for US diplomatic missions -- despite being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to previous attempted attacks. Only the Secretary of State has the authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.

3. Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made. If the intent was to find the truth, then why haven’t any arrests been made?

4. It took the FBI nearly a week to arrive and control the crime scene. By this time the crime scene had been compromised. In fact, many U.S. media sites had compromised the site and removed evidence.

So why would the Obama administration and State Department cover up the Benghazi attack. There are several reasons:

1. The election was less than two months away.

2. Obama campaigned on the fact that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden, and this attack would refute that claim.

3. The attack showed the negligence of the administration and State Department who continually not only denied increased security for the embassy, they decreased security. The Benghazi embassy was only one of 14 U.S. embassies around the globe that had a security rating of high or critical in all 6 state department classifications. And to make matters worse, the State Department planned on making the Libya Embassy a permanent outpost. So this only further questions light and reduced security at the embassy.

4. If the truth about the terrorist attack were to come to light, then Obama’s true intentions were premeditated from the get go – that he never intended to try to save those being attacked. If he sent in reinforcements, it would only admit the attack was not spontaneous over a YouTube video, but was in fact, a terror attack. Think about it, the decision to send reinforcements should have been an easy one to make. If they did not get to Benghazi in time, so be it. But at minimum reinforcements could have protected the crime scene.

I do not know if they will ever tie some of these disturbing events to the President or Clinton. But it is obvious from a circumstantial case that these two were not only complicit in the aftermath to cover up of the Benghazi attack, they were planning to cover up the incident from the onset.

Hillary "What Does it Matter" Clinton (Part I)

In a testimony, before congress about the Benghazi Terror attack on the U.S. Embassy, Hillary Clinton emphatically stated “What does it matter” to questions inquiring into the who and why 4 Americans were killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens. So what did we learn from the Congressional oversight hearing with 3 Benghazi whistleblowers (Gregory Hicks – second in command at the Libya Embassy, Mark Thompson – A career State Department counter-terrorism specialist, and Eric Nordstrom – The Libya security chief)? We learned the death of four Americans due to a terror attack did not matter to Clinton, Obama, Democrats, and liberals alike. If it did matter than the following would have occurred:

1. There has been limited media attention and scrutiny about the attack on most major news stations. In fact, there was not one article about the Benghazi whistleblower hearing on Google or Yahoo news.

2. The administration and state department lied that the attack was due to a spontaneous protest that broke out because of an anti-Islamic video. The Benghazi whistleblower testimony uncovered once and for all this was not true and in fact, an email circulated the day after the attack saying the terrorist group Ansar Al-Sharia, which ties to al-Qaida, was responsible for the attack. Remember, Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president's hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube video.  This was never true.  Hicks called the YouTube a "non-event" in Libya.  He and others on the ground -- including Ambassador Stevens -- recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning.  Hicks testified that he personally told Secretary Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff.  Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen.  Hicks said he never mentioned any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call with Clinton. This raises some serious questions. How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking points get scrubbed and re-written?  Why did the president refuse to identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently false information on his behalf?

3. The administration and State Department also lied about the intent of the Libyan people who took Ambassador Stevens to a local hospital. The administration and State Department claimed this was the “goodwill” of the Libyan people trying to support and help Americans. The whistleblower hearings uncovered the hospital was run by the same terrorists who committed the assault on the embassy. And for this reason no one went to the hospital to recover Stevens’ body after the attack because they knew it could be a trap.

4.  The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone.  The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last?  How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.

5. Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks' discussions with members of Congress. In fact, Hicks was later demoted for not conforming to State Department threats, just weeks after his service was praised by both Obama and Clinton.

Obama's Rocky Second Term Start (Part III)

Terrorism has been a colossal failure by the Obama administration, especially over the past eight months. Here are some administration blunders:

Boston Bombings: Let’s review the missteps of this administration as well as local and federal authorities that could have prevented this terrorist attack. First, Russia warned the U.S. the elder Tsarnaev brother was suspected of being involved with radical Islamic forces in the Chechnya region of Russia. Secondly, once federal authorities began to treat the younger Tsarnaev brother as a U.S. criminal he lawyered up and shut up. Thirdly, it was recently uncovered that Saudi Arabia also sent a written letter to Homeland Security warning them that the elder Tsarnaev brother was a Jihadist. Fourthly, local authorities failed to question the elder Tsarnaev brother in the triple homicide in which one of the dead was Tsarnaev’s best friend. Fourthly, the United States granted the Tsarnaev brothers citizenship in 2009. And finally, the U.S. federal government provided the Tsarnaev brothers and family over 100 thousand dollars in welfare since 2009. Promoters of Jihad push for followers to collect welfare and use their time to plot terror activities while living off the wealth of others. To make matters worse, the elder Tsarnaev brother was collecting welfare when he was in Chechnya for six months. The bottom line is that there was enough activity for authorities to use the Patriot Act to check into the elder Tsarnaev brother’s life. A sure sign that federal authorities dropped the ball was when they posted pictures of the Tsarnaev brothers on TV looking for tips on how to identify who they were after the bombings. Even if federal authorities did like they said, checked into the elder Tsarnaev brother past and found no wrong doing – there still should have been a file on him and his picture should have been identified using facial recognition. This would have saved the life of the MIT police officer who was killed while authorities tried to identify the Tsarnaev brothers. The fact the government had no clue of the elder Tsarnaev brother’s identity only shows they did not investigate Tsarnaev at all – if they did there would be a record of such.

Benghazi: It has been nearly eight months since four Americans including Ambassador Stevens had been murdered. Yet, there have been no arrest in the attack despite the fact the entire act was filmed. First, the administration and State Department lied about the attack calling it a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim film and claimed it was not a terrorist act. Secondly, it was uncovered that then Secretary of State Clinton lied under oath that she had no knowledge of persistent requests for more security at the Benghazi embassy. Now, the administration is trying to prevent government whistleblowers from testifying about the attack. To this day the number of people wounded in the attack and their identities had been withheld – why haven’t these people been allowed to testify? Also, the whistleblowers in this case would testify to the fact that lives would have been saved if Obama ordered in reinforcements from Europe. However, Obama was too busy going to Las Vegas on a campaign trip to make the call. This would also refute earlier testimony made under oath that there was nothing they (administration or State Department) could have done to help save American lives in that attack. Remember, this is the same Obama administration who claims to be the most transparent administration in history. And this is the same administration who rewards whistleblowers (and provides them legal counsel) in the private sector.

Guantanamo: Obama claims that he still intends to keep his promise and close Guantanamo Bay – a promise he said would have been completed over 3 years ago. This is one promise that Obama may eventually be able to keep – but it will be long after he is out of office. Since the Obama plan on terror is to take no prisoners of war, but instead is to kill them, eventually there will be no need for Guantanamo or for enhanced interrogation techniques (since there will be no more prisoners). I find it odd that this President and liberals feel it is a civil violation to conduct enhanced interrogation techniques on enemy combatants and to prevent them from having civilian trials, but it is okay to kill unarmed terrorists? How is that not a violation of their civil liberties? Besides, dead terrorists provide our intelligence community no information to thwart future attacks which makes this president’s strategy a very bad one.

Obama's Rocky Second Term Start (Part II)

ObamaCare: Implementation of the law is becoming a glaring issue for the administration. First, many states are refusing to expand its Medicaid payrolls (they can’t afford it) placing most of the onus on the federal government. Secondly, there is mass confusion over the meaning of many ObamaCare provisions, rules, procedures, mandates, and policies. Thirdly, ObamaCare is a highly flawed law and therefore, the administration is being forced to hand out thousands of waivers. In fact, many Democrats want to rewrite provisions of ObamaCare such as taxes on medical devices. Fourth, ObamaCare is not applied equally amongst people, corporations, organizations, and states. For instance, federal funding is not handed out to states equally on a per capita basis and organizations such as unions are exempt from luxury health insurance taxes. For this reason many people, corporations, states, and organizations are pushing back against the law. And what’s worse, healthcare and health insurance costs continue to spiral out of control. In other words, ObamaCare has done nothing to curb rising healthcare costs – the main objective behind ObamaCare.

Sequestration: In an attempt to win approval over his anti-sequestration beliefs, Obama deliberately forced flight delays around the country. Obama said FAA budget cuts of 5% (incidentally the FAA / TSA budget has soared by 50% over the past decade) are the reason for the flight delays. This ploy failed when House Republicans acted quickly to transfer funds to the FAA and the TSA. Remember, Obama promised chaos when the sequestration cuts became a reality and when chaos failed to happen immediately after the cuts became law, Obama acted like a child to force his will on the American people. Obama denies having any part in these delays, but it is hard to believe a 5% cut in funding resulting in a 30% drop in flight on time performance. This simply does not add up.

Budget: Obama finally introduced a budget, his first in four years. Despite raising taxes, Obama’s 2014 budget includes a record 3.77 trillion in spending and another 750 billion dollars added to our deficit, which is fast approaching 17 trillion dollars. Also, keep in mind, this budget takes into account that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are over which Obama has claimed would lead to deficit reduction.

Syria: President Obama, who earlier said use of chemical weapons by Syria on its people would be a “red line” requiring action by the U.S., walked the stance back on this past week, saying he needs more information on the reported attacks before responding. Administration officials recently said intelligence analysts had "varying degrees of confidence" the embattled government of Syrian President Bashar Assad has gassed civilians with sarin. However, Obama said the administration is using all its resources to determine the facts about a weapon that he has said would be a "game changer" for U.S. policy in the war. Obama made so such caveats when he originally issued his “red line” stance. If Obama does not act (and his action does not necessarily has to be going to war with Syria – placing troops on the ground) it shows the rogue states of North Korea and Iran that Obama is soft and his stern words means very little.

Obama's Rocky Second Term Start (Part I)

To celebrate Obama’s first 100 days of his second term, let’s look at the liberal’s crowing achievements (low lights) thus far:

Gun Control: The Obama administration politicized the Newtown Connecticut massacre to push for gun control, which eventually failed. Obama predictably carried on like a baby when his ploy failed by berating and chastising Republicans for his failed policy. Obama insists that Americans should not judge Muslims for the actions of a few when it comes to terrorism. I agree, but the same can be said about gun control – it is hard to penalize the majority for the actions of few insane persons. Besides, the gun control legislation proposed by the Senate would not have prevented past or future gun violence since the Obama administration only prosecutes less than 1% of falsified gun permit applications (a violation of federal law). Therefore, until the federal government gets its act together and enforces federal laws, there is little chance any new laws will prevent future violence. Also, the proposed legislation did nothing to address mental illness which is the main culprit behind mass killings – not guns. Below is a good example of a gun violence cause that I found (it is sarcastic but it makes a point):

 

Disability is the Most Common U.S. Profession

What is the most common profession in the U.S.? Is it teachers? No. Is it postal workers? No. The answer may not surprise many, but it is people on social security disability – 11 million strong and growing fast. This equates to 6% of the declining U.S. workforce. Do not get me wrong, I know many good people on social security disability who really cannot work. But there are many people abusing this entitlement. Fifty years ago, 0.65% of the workforce was on disability. And what’s even more troubling, people added to the disability payrolls today are outpacing jobs produced by the economy since 2009 by 19%. The disability payrolls are up 53% over the past 10 years. Applications for social security disability are up 24% since 2008. Today, social security disability accounts for about 16% of social security and Medicaid funding. It is alarming, but there are 1.65 people working in the private sector to every 1 person on some form of welfare assistance.

Part of what I said above is misleading because people on social security disability are not included in the U.S. workforce numbers. And this expansion of the disability payrolls helps to explain the drop in the U.S. workforce by 2% under president Obama. And this also works to artificially lower U.S. unemployment numbers. Fifty years ago, 89% of all eligible working age males were part of the workforce; today that number is 73%.

If we evaluate this issue a little closer it is apparent that there are millions of people associated with the disability system that are complicit with the alarming rate of expansion of the program. Applicants for social security disability need to be approved. It used to be hard to receive social security disability benefits, but it is much easier to qualify for these benefits today - meaning the government has really relaxed its standards to qualify for this entitlement. Today, nearly 80% of all applicants are accepted as opposed to fewer than 30% 50 years ago. Lawyers, who seek out so called injured people, are complicit to this issue. Many unethical lawyers would do anything to see their annual income rise at the expense of the taxpayers. Doctors are complicit to this issue. Today, there are more medical excuses for people not to work than ever before. Over the past 50 years hundreds of new syndromes and disorders have been identified and more and more people are being identified with these types of disorders – eating, drinking, substance, attention, personality, mental, and so forth.

Matt Rutledge, a research economist at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research says “We see a lot of people applying for social security disability once their unemployment insurance expires”.

The problem with social security disability payrolls is they have become a permanent solution to many, not a temporary one. About 700,000 people drop off social security disability payrolls each year, but nearly half of these cases are because people have reached retirement age or have died.

A big liberal complaint about welfare assistance is it does not provide enough to help people in poverty. They say food stamp assistance only amounts to $1.75 per meal. I have heard them say “Let me see you live off $1.75 per meal!” My wife and I life on about $19 dollars per day for food and if food stamps only covered $10.50 per day (for 3 meals for both of us) then our out of pocket expense would $8.50 per day. Food stamp assistance is not meant to compensate families 100% for what they consume. If food stamps covered 100% of our meals than what is the incentive to work at all? The same goes for social security disability benefits. I qualify to collect $2,400 dollars a month of social security benefits – enough so I do not have to work. As I have written before, I am 100% certain I could qualify for these benefits (chronic neurological disorder) if I applied, but I would never expect my neighbors to pay my bills.