New Food Stamps (Name changed to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program "SNAP" in 2009) and Social Security Disability Recipients outweigh the number of Americans who have gotten jobs, by a lot. In what used to be a "safety net" program has been accepted as a "norm".
Interestingly Mitt Romney's recent comment about 47% of the population being dependent on the government and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them," has been blasted in the ridiculously biased mainstream media. However, a CNBC Poll (not scientific) shows that 76% of Americans agree with Romney.
Mitt Romney should pound the message even louder. The Mainstream Media be damned; they do not reflect the opinion of Americans.
Although former President George W. Bush should rightfully face criticism for the entitlement programs rising exponentially under his watch, these programs have soared under President Obama. Interestingly, the actual cost of running the SNAP program has also risen disproportionately under President Obama.
Kim Zigfeld from PJ Media has reported a stunning statistic. The cost of the SNAP program, "...under Obama rose from an average of $3.6 billion per month when he came to office to $6.2 billion per month now, a disproportional increase of 72% compared to the 46% increase in program usage." If that isn't bad enough, the article also points out the cost of running the SNAP program has risen by 135% from 2007 to 2011.
Thomas Sowell laments in a recent article,
"The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media — whether on billboards or on television...Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available."
Sent into supermarkets? No wonder the cost of SNAP has gone up disproportionately. As CNN points out, although one in seven people are on SNAP, "the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program." The United States government has been actively promoting SNAP and their campaign is clearly a resounding success, as the Weekly Standard reports that SNAP recipients number 46,670,373 Americans and "has doubled in size since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001."
If one was interested in conspiracy theories, he or she could easily make a case that there seems to be a deliberate overwhelming of the system, following the blueprint for revolution strategy proposed by Leftist Heroes Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven in 1966.
Thomas Sowell asks the question,
"At what point does a safety net become a hammock?"
Watch him here:
Photo Source (Grocery Bag): SNAP.NTIS.gov
Image source: Weekly Standard
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39 ( 1 removed by Renee Nal )
Cloward–Piven strategy
collapsing the system
Once a leader has enough "legal" power by making changes that by-pass the constitution... he can claim anything to be "for the good of the country"
(In family court the main issue is regarding children is "what is in the best interest of the children') Key phrase
I don't think it matters which President we have that will do this because it is the same group behind both political parties... and manipulating what is going on, whether this happens, this year, next year or the year after...
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/the-rothschilds-world-kingpins-worth-500-trillion-they-own-reuters-ap-and-fix-the-price-of-gold%E2%80%A6/
Rothschild quotes:
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”
“I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, …The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply.”
ROTHSCHILDS WANT IRAN’S BANKS — Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran…
You want some reason WHY people need that safety net? (You probably don't, but I'm posting them here and to Facebook anyway.)
1) In recent history, the GOP and Blue Dog Dems have blocked funding that would create jobs even when it is a program that is paid for and for US veterans.
2) The trickle down theory didn't work, won't work, and only results in the rich having more and the poor needing assistance to meet basic survival needs.
3) Churches are sucking at the government teat and providing damn little to people in need. Cut these cults out of the social services system and allow the government to assist people regardless of religious preference and race. The church-sponsored programs do not reach enough people in need and often attach religious strings to help.
Hungry people just don't shrivel up and die. They starve slowly and cannot be productive or reach their full potential.
I don't know of anyone that would disagree with a "safety net" for those in need.
But, I can think of a lot of people that would agree that we do NOT need a "hammock" for lazy cretins to lounge in when they are NOT in need.
"1) In recent history, the GOP and Blue Dog Dems have blocked funding that would create jobs even when it is a program that is paid for and for US veterans."
...since when do democrats give a rat'sass about US veterans?
"...blocked funding that would create jobs..."
...do you have a specific bill as your example? Let's look at exactly what you are talking about. What exactly was rejected or "blocked"? I think you're blowing smoke. And how exactly was it "blocked."
"2) The trickle down theory didn't work, won't work, and only results in the rich having more and the poor needing assistance to meet basic survival needs."
..."Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.
"trickle down" is the term created by the democrat/socialist/communists. It does work. The policies of the leftist democrat party have had the exact opposite effect. Those policies have driven jobs out of the US.
"3) Churches are sucking at the government teat and providing damn little to people in need. Cut these cults out of the social services system and allow the government to assist people regardless of religious preference and race. The church-sponsored programs do not reach enough people in need and often attach religious strings to help."
...Road Apples
(Gather Director of Chaos & Uprisings)
Political Affiliation: Socialist Commie Pinko
Religious Affiliation: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
...well, that about says it all now doesn't it?
"THAT'S WHAT i PAY TAXES FOR " HE TOLD HER .. so what are we paying taxes for now ??
To give to foreigners in foreign nations that will turn around and kill our people. Obviously those foreigners are more deserving of our tax money than the poor people here.
What big mama says.
Wow. Lots of working moms would love to be stay-at-home moms too, but they can't because they're paying welfare to women who should be working to support their own families.
So Social Security Disability recipients are fatter than people who have gotten jobs? Who knew?
Given the state of the economy it's not too surprising that the number of food stamp recipients is up. As far as Social Security Disability is concerned, it's surprising because it's extremely hard to get. Most people who get it have to wait for months or years for their application to be processed and often have to go through several rounds of appeals. Almost no one just applies and starts receiving benefits in a month or two.
Oh, it's not like the government just hands out food stamps. There is the little matter of income qualification. The program is intended to assist people who meet the income criterion. It's not supposed to be a secret.
The economy went into the tank in 2008. Since 2010 things have improved. Recovery has been verrrry slow. This year hasn't been as good as 2011 although GDP has increased.
Should we blame Obama? Probably not. It's hard for a president to have much of a positive effect on the economy. Our economic problems are related to the global economic problems. If nobody can buy anything nobody's economy grows. I sincerely doubt that "unleashing Free Enterprise" would have had any different effect than the present administration's economic policies, especially since the same large corporations dominate the economy and government regardless of which party is in power.
It doesn't matter that the GOP screwed up. It doesn't matter the rich hide their money and don't pay taxes on it. It's doesn't matter that the wealthy never created jobs in the US for US workers. It's all about blaming President Obama.
Amen!