All errors should be reported to

Sunday, April 05, 2015

Oh no, welfare queens won't be able to take cruises

I am not talking about the Democratic Billionaires such as George Kaiser of Solyndra fame and Elon Musk. They will continue to rake in billions in tax subsidies, tax breaks, and government-backed loans that they may default on. President Obama's corruption will continue through January 20, 2017.

But in Kanssas, you no longer will be able to use welfare money to take a cruise -- and that has the Huffington Post crowd in a lather.

From the Huffington Post:
Kansas welfare recipients will be unable to get more than $25 per day in benefits under a new law sent this week to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback's desk by the state legislature.
The bill also prohibits welfare recipients from spending their benefits at certain types of businesses, including liquor stores, fortune tellers, swimming pools and cruise ships.
"We're trying to make sure those benefits are used the way they were intended," state Rep. Michael O'Donnell (R) said, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal. "This is about prosperity. This is about having a great life."
Why would any human being with an IQ above room temperature find any fault with that?

Nevertheless, the Huffington Post is against it.

Perhaps liquor stores and fortune tellers are their biggest advertisers.

From the Huffington Post:
Shannon Cotsoradis, director of Kansas Action for Children, said changes by the Brownback administration, such as shorter time limits, have already reduced TANF enrollment significantly. The number of Kansans receiving benefits has declined from 38,000 in 2011 to 15,000 last year, state data show.
Cotsoradis said she didn't know whether the dollar limit would further reduce enrollment, but suggested it probably wouldn't help families escape poverty.
"It adds stress to families already experiencing toxic levels of stress," Cotsoradis said an interview.
Ah, adding to the stress, which can only be relieved by getting drunk and going on a cruise.

By the way, shouldn't cutting the number of people who need welfare be considered a good thing?


  1. The huffers huffing with their panties in a twist, delightful. Tells me right off that whatever they are bitching about was the right thing to do.

    Sadly, "For.The.Children" has now become my number one turnoff. I hear that and the answer is ***NO***. PERIOD.

    Sadly. Why? The children are usually the last (if at all) to benefit from things that are claimed to be "For the children".

    Tired of being played for a sucker and ending up supporting something for a scam reason.

  2. Ah, the Puffington Host strikes (out) again. If a poor family can afford to go on a cruise, it would be obvious to most (not the self-blinded, like the PuffHo), that they are NOT POOR.

  3. Food stamps and welfare are supposed to be safety nets for those really down on their luck. To think it should pay for luxuries (or what should be considered luxuries) is absurd. Once upon a time the role of food stamps and welfare was played by church groups and families. That was before belonging to a church--or a family--was a bad thing.

  4. This strikes me as quite unfair; the Huffpost piece takes issue, rightly or wrongly, with the $25-per-day benefit limit, and does not object at all to the prohibition on liquor stores, fortune tellers and cruise ships.

  5. The HuffPo article has been corrected. The first paragraph was blatantly false and parroted by the liberals as fact. In fact MSNBC based an article on the lie. Here's the article exposing the fabrication: