Hey everyone, I'm back after a few days of being glued to the TV watching March Madness lol.
Big news today from the Eurozone! Most of you are probably aware by now that the island of Cyprus is on the verge of financial collapse. They've been hoping to secure a bailout deal for almost a year now, but until today they hadn't been able to reach any kind of agreement with the European Union.
Last week there were reports that the Cypriot government was planning to seize citizens' bank assets through taxes on their savings accounts, but there was enormous backlash from the public, rightfully so, and they scrapped the idea. Or so we thought...
As reported today, Cyprus has struck a deal with the EU to secure a $13 billion bailout. As part of the agreement, Cyprus has to come up with $7.5 billion of its own money that essentially acts as collateral for the loan. Being that the country is basically bankrupt, the Cypriot government has decided to go forward with the seizure of citizens' assets in order to raise the money to secure the loan. All bond-holders and people with more than 100,000 euros (about $130,000) in their accounts could see a seizure of up to 40% of their assets without their approval.
You can read the full story here: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/25/cypriot-leaders-creditors-secure-agreement-toward-bailout/?test=latestnews
This story is the latest example of government overreach. We're seeing government's worldwide becoming more and more Communist-like in their actions. As the article notes, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev linked last week's reports about asset seizures to "a certain period of time by Soviet authorities, who did not stand on ceremony when it came to people's savings." Now we see even more extreme seizure measures in today's deal than those Medvedev was speaking about last week.
When Russian leaders are speaking out against these kinds of tactics the world should probably pay attention...
Medvedev's statements could be driven by the fact that a great deal of the money in Cypriot banks belongs to Russians, but I'm not sure his statements are based on that alone. In recent months, there have been several articles from Russian newspapers warning people in the U.S. that certain measures taken by the Obama administration mirror those of the Soviets as they established Communism.
When we hear these stories we of course begin to wonder if something like this could ever happen in this country, and the answer is yes. I say yes because it has happened before.
In 1933 in the midst of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 forbidding the hoarding of gold by U.S. citizens, claiming it would stall economic growth and make the depression worse. The Executive Order also required all citizens to turn over their gold to the Federal Reserve.
The following year, the Gold Reserve Act was established nationalizing all gold and requiring it to be turned over to the U.S Treasury, effectively ending the gold standard for our currency. Without the gold standard in place, the Federal Reserve now had the ability to issue more money into circulation. More money in circulation equals more national debt.
Eighty years later we find ourselves knocking on the door of $17 trillion in debt with an extremely weak economy, which gives credence to the idea that something like the seizures in Cyprus could indeed happen here in the future.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Coming Disaster
In an Op-Ed article this week, Forbes outlines the nightmare that is Obamacare and its effect on the economy and unemployment.
As the days go by and more and more businesses are realizing the effects Obamacare will have on them, they are becoming increasingly reluctant to hire more employees. As the article notes, the tax burden on insurance companies in the next several years is enormous; rising from $8 billion next year to $13.9 billion in 2017 and $14.3 billion in the years beyond. This tax burden will then be passed onto the consumers in the form of higher premiums. Over the next 10 years, premiums are estimated to rise anywhere from 2 to 3.7% based on different studies. That will result in roughly $5,000 in higher premiums for families and $7,000 for small businesses on average; in some states it could be much higher. Obamacare will also force higher premiums on seniors in Medicare Advantage plans as well as those in Medicaid plans.
Complete story here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/03/18/the-more-businesses-learn-about-obamacare-the-more-reluctant-they-are-to-hire/
When Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it, she clearly wasn't joking. Obamacare passed three years ago and as it has slowly began to take effect, we are starting to find out exactly what is in it and it's not good. Republicans have called Obamacare a "job killer" from the get go and based on the figures in this article, it's easy to see why. All of the taxes from this legislation are literally robbing businesses of the ability to hire people in the future and even forcing some to layoff employees they already have.
Liberals just flat don't get it when it comes to running a business. Most of them have never had a real job outside of the public sector; Obama makes it glaringly obvious he hasn't. They don't understand the concept of a budget and having to allocate certain amounts of money for certain things and actually only being able to spend that amount. They don't understand that higher taxes means less money to pay employees and/or hire new ones. They don't understand that businesses pass added costs onto consumers as a way to make up for losses. Even if they did, there's no reason to think anything would change because liberals just aren't logical.
Putting aside Obama's policies on income taxes and regulations that are holding back growth already, Obamacare alone points to an extremely bleak future with little hope for improvement. Once the legislation is fully in effect next year, the barrage of new taxes is permanent (assuming no miracle occurs before then), and businesses will appear to be facing an indefinite battle not only in hiring new employees but maintaining their current ones with an ever-shrinking budget.
If you think the economy has been bad over the last four years, the next four are going to be a disaster...
As the days go by and more and more businesses are realizing the effects Obamacare will have on them, they are becoming increasingly reluctant to hire more employees. As the article notes, the tax burden on insurance companies in the next several years is enormous; rising from $8 billion next year to $13.9 billion in 2017 and $14.3 billion in the years beyond. This tax burden will then be passed onto the consumers in the form of higher premiums. Over the next 10 years, premiums are estimated to rise anywhere from 2 to 3.7% based on different studies. That will result in roughly $5,000 in higher premiums for families and $7,000 for small businesses on average; in some states it could be much higher. Obamacare will also force higher premiums on seniors in Medicare Advantage plans as well as those in Medicaid plans.
Complete story here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/03/18/the-more-businesses-learn-about-obamacare-the-more-reluctant-they-are-to-hire/
When Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it, she clearly wasn't joking. Obamacare passed three years ago and as it has slowly began to take effect, we are starting to find out exactly what is in it and it's not good. Republicans have called Obamacare a "job killer" from the get go and based on the figures in this article, it's easy to see why. All of the taxes from this legislation are literally robbing businesses of the ability to hire people in the future and even forcing some to layoff employees they already have.
Liberals just flat don't get it when it comes to running a business. Most of them have never had a real job outside of the public sector; Obama makes it glaringly obvious he hasn't. They don't understand the concept of a budget and having to allocate certain amounts of money for certain things and actually only being able to spend that amount. They don't understand that higher taxes means less money to pay employees and/or hire new ones. They don't understand that businesses pass added costs onto consumers as a way to make up for losses. Even if they did, there's no reason to think anything would change because liberals just aren't logical.
Putting aside Obama's policies on income taxes and regulations that are holding back growth already, Obamacare alone points to an extremely bleak future with little hope for improvement. Once the legislation is fully in effect next year, the barrage of new taxes is permanent (assuming no miracle occurs before then), and businesses will appear to be facing an indefinite battle not only in hiring new employees but maintaining their current ones with an ever-shrinking budget.
If you think the economy has been bad over the last four years, the next four are going to be a disaster...
Monday, March 18, 2013
A New GOP?
There's an interesting article today from The Wall Street Journal regarding the Republican Party moving forward. The Republican National Committee released a report issuing a tough self-analysis as to why the party has struggled so much with its message in the last two elections and why it continues to lose ground nationally on the federal level.
As the article notes, the report outlines the public perception of the party as the main obstacle to breaking through and winning in presidential elections. The RNC has conducted focus groups to find out from the people exactly why they left the GOP, and they described the Republican Party as "scary," "narrow-minded," "out of touch," and as the party of "stuffy, old men." The report cites the success of many of the party's gubernatorial candidates as a model despite the struggles on a national scale. In the report, the RNC admits a weak message, insufficient ground-game, and the need for improvements in the primary and debate process among other things. To remedy these problems, the party proposes greater outreach to areas they wouldn't normally go (minority neighborhoods) and a greater focus on grass-roots efforts going door to door.
Full article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323415304578367311933111522.html?mod=e2tw
I agree with this but don't agree with this at the same time. I agree that the party needs to reform its approach. They need a stronger ground-game for sure; a more grass roots approach going door to door. Democrats are killing Republicans in the get out the vote campaign. They are organized and aggressive. They talk to people and get them to the polls; especially the poor, elderly, and minorities. In the last two elections, the Republican primary candidates have done more damage to themselves than Obama did. By the time the eventual nominee was elected, he had already been torn to shreds by his own party and Obama really didn't have to make much of an argument. The nominees' debate tactics have been downright awful. Romney was outstanding in the first debate and really had Obama back on his heels and looking flustered, but in the subsequent debates he took a passive approach and Obama stole the election from him. McCain quite frankly just sucked in 2008.
What I don't agree with is the perception of the party as being true. The perception that the GOP is only for the rich and only includes old, white men is 100% predicated by the media's propensity to portray the party that way. The bias in the mainstream media drives this perception. The GOP is full of young and rising stars, many of which are minorities, but the media purposefully excludes them from the public eye. The media also drives the perception that if you're a minority and conservative, you have abandoned your race. You aren't "down with the cause" as is said of black conservative candidates. Black conservatives are constantly called names like "Uncle Tom," "puppet," "token," and even the disgusting term "house ni**er." By doing this, the media makes it appear as if the GOP is nothing but white elitists that the poor and minorities should run from.
In reality, the African American and Hispanic communities are conservative by the nature of their values, but the scare tactics and constant pandering keeps them glued to the hip of the Democratic Party. As a Republican in New Mexico advised last week about his ability to keep winning in a primarily Hispanic district, Republican candidates just need to "show up everywhere, all the time." Minorities generally believe in conservative values, but the GOP absolutely must make an effort to reach them. People have to feel like you care about them and in the last two presidential elections the GOP has done a piss poor job of that.
George W. Bush as recently as 2004 received over 40% of the Hispanic vote. In the last two elections, the GOP candidates both received under 30%. I don't believe that in just four year's time the Hispanic community changed that much; the messaging has just been way off. If the GOP can improve their grass roots efforts and stop the lynching of candidates in the primaries, I believe they can regain prominence in Washington. I still believe this is a Center-Right country in its majority.
As the article notes, the report outlines the public perception of the party as the main obstacle to breaking through and winning in presidential elections. The RNC has conducted focus groups to find out from the people exactly why they left the GOP, and they described the Republican Party as "scary," "narrow-minded," "out of touch," and as the party of "stuffy, old men." The report cites the success of many of the party's gubernatorial candidates as a model despite the struggles on a national scale. In the report, the RNC admits a weak message, insufficient ground-game, and the need for improvements in the primary and debate process among other things. To remedy these problems, the party proposes greater outreach to areas they wouldn't normally go (minority neighborhoods) and a greater focus on grass-roots efforts going door to door.
Full article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323415304578367311933111522.html?mod=e2tw
I agree with this but don't agree with this at the same time. I agree that the party needs to reform its approach. They need a stronger ground-game for sure; a more grass roots approach going door to door. Democrats are killing Republicans in the get out the vote campaign. They are organized and aggressive. They talk to people and get them to the polls; especially the poor, elderly, and minorities. In the last two elections, the Republican primary candidates have done more damage to themselves than Obama did. By the time the eventual nominee was elected, he had already been torn to shreds by his own party and Obama really didn't have to make much of an argument. The nominees' debate tactics have been downright awful. Romney was outstanding in the first debate and really had Obama back on his heels and looking flustered, but in the subsequent debates he took a passive approach and Obama stole the election from him. McCain quite frankly just sucked in 2008.
What I don't agree with is the perception of the party as being true. The perception that the GOP is only for the rich and only includes old, white men is 100% predicated by the media's propensity to portray the party that way. The bias in the mainstream media drives this perception. The GOP is full of young and rising stars, many of which are minorities, but the media purposefully excludes them from the public eye. The media also drives the perception that if you're a minority and conservative, you have abandoned your race. You aren't "down with the cause" as is said of black conservative candidates. Black conservatives are constantly called names like "Uncle Tom," "puppet," "token," and even the disgusting term "house ni**er." By doing this, the media makes it appear as if the GOP is nothing but white elitists that the poor and minorities should run from.
In reality, the African American and Hispanic communities are conservative by the nature of their values, but the scare tactics and constant pandering keeps them glued to the hip of the Democratic Party. As a Republican in New Mexico advised last week about his ability to keep winning in a primarily Hispanic district, Republican candidates just need to "show up everywhere, all the time." Minorities generally believe in conservative values, but the GOP absolutely must make an effort to reach them. People have to feel like you care about them and in the last two presidential elections the GOP has done a piss poor job of that.
George W. Bush as recently as 2004 received over 40% of the Hispanic vote. In the last two elections, the GOP candidates both received under 30%. I don't believe that in just four year's time the Hispanic community changed that much; the messaging has just been way off. If the GOP can improve their grass roots efforts and stop the lynching of candidates in the primaries, I believe they can regain prominence in Washington. I still believe this is a Center-Right country in its majority.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Out Of Control!
I apologize for doing a third post this week about Democratic Senator Patty Murray's proposed budget, but after the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee has had time to dig through the budget, they have found some incomprehensible numbers.
This proposed budget is outrageous!
As The Weekly Standard reports, Senator Murray's proposed budget would increase federal spending by 62% over the next 10 years to an astonishing $5.7 trillion in 2023. The increases in spending begins in the very first year as the proposal calls for $162 billion more in spending for 2014 than is expected to be spent this year.
The full story with a graph of the spending increase here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proposed-dem-budget-increases-spending-62-over-next-decade_707579.html
Over the last couple months, both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama have firmly denied that we have a spending problem. Pelosi, who has come to be known for some really dumb statements, provided us with another doozie back in February when asked if we have a spending problem. Pelosi is quoted as saying, "So it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem, we have a budget deficit problem." I guess Mrs. Pelosi doesn't understand where deficits come from... On Wednesday, President Obama did an interview with ABC and basically acted like our debt was no big deal and that these monumental deficits are sustainable for the next decade.
You can read the full quote from Pelosi and watch the interview here: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/02/11/pelosi-we-dont-have-a-spending-problem-n1509431
When liberals say we don't have a spending problem, we have a deficit problem, they really mean we have a revenue problem and taxes need to be raised.
Here's the problem with that mindset. If spending increases over the next decade to these levels, it is impossible to tax enough to keep up. Tax revenue simply can't keep pace with the rate of increase in spending. We are already running trillion dollar deficits because tax revenue can't keep pace with spending. The U.S workforce is limited and as we've seen under this administration, it is actually shrinking. Since Obama took office, the workforce has shrank by 6.8 million. Between baby boomers retiring and the lack of jobs available, the number of taxpayers contributing to federal revenue is decreasing.
With the workforce shrinking, liberals say let's take more from the wealthy because they need to pay their "fair share" so they advocate for higher taxes. As history has shown us, higher tax rates doesn't necessarily mean more revenue. After a certain point the wealthy will get fed up with their rates constantly going up, and they'll look for ways around paying taxes and revenue will level off. If spending keeps increasing and revenue levels off, the deficits will grow larger and larger. With this budget proposal projecting $5.7 trillion in spending in 2023, we could see deficits knocking on the door of $2 trillion per year or more.
Things are out of control!
This proposed budget is outrageous!
As The Weekly Standard reports, Senator Murray's proposed budget would increase federal spending by 62% over the next 10 years to an astonishing $5.7 trillion in 2023. The increases in spending begins in the very first year as the proposal calls for $162 billion more in spending for 2014 than is expected to be spent this year.
The full story with a graph of the spending increase here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proposed-dem-budget-increases-spending-62-over-next-decade_707579.html
Over the last couple months, both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama have firmly denied that we have a spending problem. Pelosi, who has come to be known for some really dumb statements, provided us with another doozie back in February when asked if we have a spending problem. Pelosi is quoted as saying, "So it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem, we have a budget deficit problem." I guess Mrs. Pelosi doesn't understand where deficits come from... On Wednesday, President Obama did an interview with ABC and basically acted like our debt was no big deal and that these monumental deficits are sustainable for the next decade.
You can read the full quote from Pelosi and watch the interview here: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/02/11/pelosi-we-dont-have-a-spending-problem-n1509431
When liberals say we don't have a spending problem, we have a deficit problem, they really mean we have a revenue problem and taxes need to be raised.
Here's the problem with that mindset. If spending increases over the next decade to these levels, it is impossible to tax enough to keep up. Tax revenue simply can't keep pace with the rate of increase in spending. We are already running trillion dollar deficits because tax revenue can't keep pace with spending. The U.S workforce is limited and as we've seen under this administration, it is actually shrinking. Since Obama took office, the workforce has shrank by 6.8 million. Between baby boomers retiring and the lack of jobs available, the number of taxpayers contributing to federal revenue is decreasing.
With the workforce shrinking, liberals say let's take more from the wealthy because they need to pay their "fair share" so they advocate for higher taxes. As history has shown us, higher tax rates doesn't necessarily mean more revenue. After a certain point the wealthy will get fed up with their rates constantly going up, and they'll look for ways around paying taxes and revenue will level off. If spending keeps increasing and revenue levels off, the deficits will grow larger and larger. With this budget proposal projecting $5.7 trillion in spending in 2023, we could see deficits knocking on the door of $2 trillion per year or more.
Things are out of control!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
More Of The Same, As Usual...
Earlier this week I did a post about the proposed budgets from the two parties and their differences when it comes to a "balanced" approach of reigning in the deficit.
The Daily Caller has two stories out today shedding a little more light on the budget proposed by Democratic Senator Patty Murray.
In the first story the DC reports that a staffer for Senator Murray was pressed by Republican Senator Mike Crapo today about the budget proposal's deficit reduction in the first year. "You're talking about $1.85 trillion deficit reduction over 10 years," Crapo said. "How much of that happens in year one?" The staffer's response was less than remarkable... "There are spending savings in year one, but in total, it's about no - in the first year." Puzzled by the response, Crapo continued to press the staffer for clarification until he got an answer of zero deficit reduction in the first year.
Full story here: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/14/dem-staffer-democrat-budget-will-produce-zero-deficit-reduction-in-2014-video/
In the second story, the DC reports that the original figures for tax hikes released Tuesday were about half a trillion dollars lower than they actually are. On Tuesday, we were told the Democratic budget proposal called for $975 billion in new tax hikes on the nation's top earners, but in reality that number is $1.5 trillion as found by GOP staffers after digging through the document. Republican Senator John Thune points out that Americans have already seen $1.7 trillion in tax hikes during this administration. It was also found that the budget would increase spending next year by $162 billion, pushing this year's spending of $3.8 trillion to the cusp of surpassing $4 trillion.
You can read the rest here: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/14/democrats-budget-plan-seeks-1-5-trillion-tax-hike-plus-10-year-spending-boost/
As usual the Democrats are using the narrative of the wealthiest Americans paying their "fair share" to try to drum up public support for the proposal. I don't know about you, but I am absolutely sick of the phrase fair share. What do liberals consider fair? They got $600 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy at the beginning of the year with a nearly 5% rate increase on income for the top tax bracket; now they want another $1.5 trillion. When is enough enough? Where is the cutoff for fair? When you get to keep 50 cents of every dollar you make, 40 cents, 30? These liberals are tax and spending addicts. They refuse to cut spending under any circumstance unless it comes from the defense budget and to try to make it appear like they are attempting to fix the deficit, they scream for tax increases to try to outpace spending increases.
They just don't get it.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Are People Starting to Wake Up?
In recent weeks Obama's approval rating has started to slide down. Polls taken from multiple news agencies have showed the same trend. If you listen to the liberal media though, you'd think we were seeing the greatest economic output in U.S. history, and if you listen to Chris Matthews...well, anyone who listens to him needs their head examined. Are people starting to finally wake up a little and ignore the narrative of the liberal media? Perhaps...but only slightly based on the numbers from the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-approval-drops-as-americans-take-a-dimmer-view-of-his-economic-policies/2013/03/12/4ddfd240-8a79-11e2-a051-6810d606108d_story.html
Obama's overall approval rating is down to 50%, but considering over 12 million people remain unemployed altogether, another 8 million are stuck working only part-time, and nearly 7 million people have given up looking completely, this number should be much lower. Obama continues to hold relatively good numbers because even after four years of liberal policies with little improvement, the majority of people still blame Republicans for the economy.
There does seem to be a little hope for people yet though. When it comes to who people trust most to handle the economy, Obama's numbers are plummeting. In December, he held an 18 point advantage over Republicans; now it's only 4, 44 to 40. More importantly, the numbers among his core supporters are even beginning to slide. Since December, the number of liberals who trust Obama more than Republicans to handle the economy has fallen 14% including a 12% drop among women, one of his strongest support groups.
As I said though, people are only slightly starting to wake up. We're now two weeks out from sequestration, the $85 billion in automatic spending "cuts", and the majority of people hold Republicans responsible despite the fact sequestration was Obama's idea to begin with; 47% blame Republicans in Congress to only 33% who blame Obama. Similarly, people still have a more favorable view of Congressional Democrats, 34%, than Congressional Republicans, 24%. However, both parties continue to hold unprecedented unfavorable numbers.
Possibly the most frustrating numbers from this poll are the ones involving spending cuts. The majority of people are fed up with debt and deficits, but when it comes to cutting spending they reject cuts from the programs driving the deficits and debt. Seventy-one percent reject cutting Medicaid and 60% oppose raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
People do seem to be waking up slightly to the idea that Obama is doing a terrible job with the economy and that our debt and deficits are becoming a major problem, but they are still extremely reluctant to advocate for the tough choices needed to fix these problems. Once people become dependent on government programs like Medicaid, it is nearly impossible to get them to agree to reductions in these programs and ultimately it will take a total collapse before they fully wake up and even then some still won't get it...
Story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-approval-drops-as-americans-take-a-dimmer-view-of-his-economic-policies/2013/03/12/4ddfd240-8a79-11e2-a051-6810d606108d_story.html
Obama's overall approval rating is down to 50%, but considering over 12 million people remain unemployed altogether, another 8 million are stuck working only part-time, and nearly 7 million people have given up looking completely, this number should be much lower. Obama continues to hold relatively good numbers because even after four years of liberal policies with little improvement, the majority of people still blame Republicans for the economy.
There does seem to be a little hope for people yet though. When it comes to who people trust most to handle the economy, Obama's numbers are plummeting. In December, he held an 18 point advantage over Republicans; now it's only 4, 44 to 40. More importantly, the numbers among his core supporters are even beginning to slide. Since December, the number of liberals who trust Obama more than Republicans to handle the economy has fallen 14% including a 12% drop among women, one of his strongest support groups.
As I said though, people are only slightly starting to wake up. We're now two weeks out from sequestration, the $85 billion in automatic spending "cuts", and the majority of people hold Republicans responsible despite the fact sequestration was Obama's idea to begin with; 47% blame Republicans in Congress to only 33% who blame Obama. Similarly, people still have a more favorable view of Congressional Democrats, 34%, than Congressional Republicans, 24%. However, both parties continue to hold unprecedented unfavorable numbers.
Possibly the most frustrating numbers from this poll are the ones involving spending cuts. The majority of people are fed up with debt and deficits, but when it comes to cutting spending they reject cuts from the programs driving the deficits and debt. Seventy-one percent reject cutting Medicaid and 60% oppose raising the eligibility age for Medicare.
People do seem to be waking up slightly to the idea that Obama is doing a terrible job with the economy and that our debt and deficits are becoming a major problem, but they are still extremely reluctant to advocate for the tough choices needed to fix these problems. Once people become dependent on government programs like Medicaid, it is nearly impossible to get them to agree to reductions in these programs and ultimately it will take a total collapse before they fully wake up and even then some still won't get it...
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Increased Socialism or The Tough Economy?
According to new data released from the USDA, we have again set records in both the number of children receiving free school lunches and the cost of these free lunches to the taxpayers. A record 18.7 million students received free lunches during 2012, up from 18.4 million in 2011, at a cost to taxpayers of $10.4 billion. The complete story can be read here: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record-187-million-students-fy-2012-got-free-lunch
Every time a report like this comes out I shake my head. Under this administration, we are constantly setting new records in the area of freebies. The size of the workforce continues to shrink and the number of people receiving some sort of government assistance continues to expand. Welfare programs have exploded over the last decade and particularly over the last four years, but this is a trend that has been steadily increasing for the last 50 years.
As the article states, in 1969 only 2.9 million children received free lunches through the National School Lunch Program. In 1990 that number had risen to 9.8 million and now another 22 years later it has nearly doubled to a record 18.7 million. Obviously, the population of the United States has increased since 1969 and thus there would be more children in need in theory, but that increase has far exceeded the rate of population growth. In the 43 years from 1969 to 2012, the U.S. population increased by 54%. Over that same time period, the number of children receiving free lunches increased by 644%.
In the course of those 43 years the U.S. saw two deep recessions which would undoubtedly increase these numbers to some extent. With high unemployment during tough times parents can need a little help providing for their children, but even with those recessions it doesn't justify an increase of nearly 12 to 1 like this. If you look at the food stamps numbers over this same time frame the numbers are strikingly similar with food stamps increasing even more dramatically. In 1969, 2.8 million people received food stamps. By 2012, that number increased to 46 million people; an increase of over 1,600%.
When you couple these two things together it gives a lot of merit to the argument that America is transforming into a socialist society where people rely on government assistance through taxpayer funded programs instead of self-reliance through employment.
Every time a report like this comes out I shake my head. Under this administration, we are constantly setting new records in the area of freebies. The size of the workforce continues to shrink and the number of people receiving some sort of government assistance continues to expand. Welfare programs have exploded over the last decade and particularly over the last four years, but this is a trend that has been steadily increasing for the last 50 years.
As the article states, in 1969 only 2.9 million children received free lunches through the National School Lunch Program. In 1990 that number had risen to 9.8 million and now another 22 years later it has nearly doubled to a record 18.7 million. Obviously, the population of the United States has increased since 1969 and thus there would be more children in need in theory, but that increase has far exceeded the rate of population growth. In the 43 years from 1969 to 2012, the U.S. population increased by 54%. Over that same time period, the number of children receiving free lunches increased by 644%.
In the course of those 43 years the U.S. saw two deep recessions which would undoubtedly increase these numbers to some extent. With high unemployment during tough times parents can need a little help providing for their children, but even with those recessions it doesn't justify an increase of nearly 12 to 1 like this. If you look at the food stamps numbers over this same time frame the numbers are strikingly similar with food stamps increasing even more dramatically. In 1969, 2.8 million people received food stamps. By 2012, that number increased to 46 million people; an increase of over 1,600%.
When you couple these two things together it gives a lot of merit to the argument that America is transforming into a socialist society where people rely on government assistance through taxpayer funded programs instead of self-reliance through employment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)