(NaturalNews) If you're one of the nation's dwindling number of
taxpayers, you're probably not going to care much for this story. But
you need to read it anyway, because hopefully it will spur you to jump
head-first into the political process (if you're not involved already)
and demand some answers (and, more importantly, a solution) from those responsible.
Most
Americans are charitable but at the same time, we hate being taken for
suckers. That's what makes the U.S. Welfare State so controversial; on
the one hand, we want to help when those of us stricken with a bout of
misfortune need a temporary helping hand to get back on their feet. The
key words, however, are temporary and need - concepts which are being redefined on purpose to expand the Welfare State, and for purely diabolically political purposes.
To wit: New government data indicates that the number of Americans now receiving taxpayer-subsidized food assistance has grown to 101 million, which is roughly one-in-three of us (the current U.S. population estimate just over 316 million).
One-in-three on some form of food assistance - are you proud, America?
That's
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the
so-called "food stamp" program - a combination of 15 food programs
offered by the agency, which cost taxpayers a staggering $114 billion in
2012.
As noted by CNSNews.com, the number of folks
getting food assistance is higher than the number of full-time
private-sector employees in the country (the Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that number to be around 97.1 million).
Of that 101 million figure, 47 million were participating in SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - the old "food stamps"
program (nowadays recipients are issued a debit card with a pre-set
amount rather than a food stamp booklet, so recipients don't have to
deal with the "stigma" of receiving assistance).
According to CNSNews.com the USDA says the number of Americans on food stamps is a "historically high figure that has risen with the economic downturn."
And
that's been the standard line: Nothing to see here, we are told,
because the dramatic rise in food stamp rolls is due to the recessed
economy.
But wait - hasn't President Obama and the bulk of the mainstream media gone on record for claiming the economy is much improved? How can we have an improving economy and have more Americans than ever on food assistance?
The reality is the economy is not all that great, but still, at less than 8 percent unemployment, is it really bad enough that one-in-three Americans need food assistance?
'Hope and change' - no hope, all change
"The financial crisis is over and the recession ended in 2009. But one of the federal
government's biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the
economy convulsed, isn't shrinking back alongside the recovery," The Wall Street Journal reported in March.
"The
biggest factor behind the upward march of food stamps is a sluggish job
market and a rising poverty rate. At the same time, many states have
pushed to get more people to apply for SNAP, a program where the federal government
picks up the tab," the paper noted. "But there is another driver, which
has its origins in President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare overhaul. In
recent years, the law has enabled states to ease asset and income tests
for would-be participants, with the encouragement of the Obama
administration, allowing into the program people with relatively higher incomes as well as savings."
Welcome
to Obama's America, where poverty programs designed to provide
assistance to the downtrodden while encouraging them to become
self-sufficient have been transformed into voter-creation and savings
programs - all at the expense of the taxpayer.
If you're one of
those taxpayers this should bother you - a lot. Tens of millions of
Americans are now subsisting on your hard work, when in fact they could
have been - indeed, should have been - subsisting on their own.
Obama
once pledged to "fundamentally transform" our country. With
congressional assistance and the massive Administrative State, he's
doing just that. What those who fell for the "hope and change" message
of Obama, circa 2008, never bothered to ask was, "Change from what, to what?"
We're finding out now, aren't we?
Sources:
http://cnsnews.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://online.wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment