Dear Millenials: 1 Out Of Every 5 Of You Live In Abject Poverty

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 6.03.09 PM

By V. Saxena, December 16, 2014.

I strongly believe that the current generation of young adults among us suffer from a severe case of entitlement syndrome. Many of them lack a job, let alone even the motivation to work. They live off their parents, avoid chores and waste their free time doing absolutely nothing productive. While it might all seem like fun and games at their age, I know for a fact that time catches up with everybody – and that the young grasshoppers who neglect their duties wind up paying for it in the long run.

These days, the need to work hard and avoid improvidence is stronger than ever, all thanks to Obama’s dismal economy. Speaking of which, according to data dug up from the Census Bureau by the reporters at CNS News, “one in five young adults – ages 18 to 34 years old – live in poverty“:

In 1980, according to the Census, 14.1 percent of the total population ages 18 to 34 were living in poverty, which is determined by the millennial’s income in the past 12 months. In 1990, the percentage of millennials in poverty increased to 14.3 percent. In 2000, it climbed to 15.3 percent. And in 2009-2013 it reached the highest level recorded in the dataset of 19.7 percent.

Hear that, millennials? One out of every five of you either lives in poverty now or is slated for a life of poverty.

But it gets worse. According to CNS News, almost two-thirds of all children in the United States live in a household that requires the assistance of federal aid programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women.

CNS News places the blame squarely on the “disregard for marriage and traditional family life” seen in contemporary culture. Not surprisingly, the Census Bureau backs this claim up to a T. It notes that single parent households are the most likely to be living in poverty. Next on the list are unmarried, cohabitating parents.

Scared yet, millenials? Too bad, because I got more bad news for you.

According to CNS News, the number of Americans receiving food stamp benefits is at an all-time historic high. Over 46 million Americans have been collecting food stamps now for 37 months straight. And if you millenials don’t get your act together, you could inevitably wind up being one of them.

Here’s a tip: Life is not a game. Take what you do and how you live very seriously, because time passes quicker than you realize. Anybody can dream of having a nice job and a nice home, but only those who put forth the effort now will truly succeed. So take hold of your future TODAY by working hard, staying focused, avoiding excuses, shunning laziness and making the right choices! Trust me; it’ll make a world of difference in how your future turns out.

And oh, avoid chasing after perfection. It took me a decade of grinding hard as hell to acquire this position at Downtrend. If you enter the job market with the intention of landing the perfect job, then sorry, but chances are high that you will wind up broke, unemployed and on food stamps. Just speaking the truth . . .

Remember, you must learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.

Food Stamp Beneficiaries Exceed 46,000,000 for 37 Straight Months

Screen Shot 2014-12-13 at 11.43.52 AM

By Ali Meyer

( – The number of beneficiaries who receive compensation from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, has topped 46,000,000 for 37 straight months, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In September 2014, which is the latest data from the USDA, there were 46,459,998 Americans who received assistance from the SNAP program. The number of beneficiaries has exceeded 46 million since September 2011, a total of 37 months, or more than three years.

In September, the number of beneficiaries was down from the 46,476,410 beneficiaries there were in August, a decline of 16,412. During that same time frame, the number of families receiving SNAP benefits increased from 22,724,624 in August to 22,750,019 in September, an increase of 25,395.

Households on food stamps in September got an average of $252.69 during the month, and the program benefits cost taxpayers $5,748,809,023.

In 1969, the average participation in the SNAP program stood at 2,878,000. In 2014, average participation grew to 46,536,000 showing an increase of 1516.96 percent.

Omnibus Bill Keeps Welfare Spending at Massive Levels

Screen Shot 2014-12-11 at 2.33.56 PM

By Rachel Sheffield

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty. Since that time, annual means-tested welfare spending has increased by 16-fold, now costing taxpayers nearly $1 trillion a year. And the omnibus bill keeps spending at this sky-high level.

The means-tested welfare system is massive and is the fastest growing part of government spending. The federal government currently operates roughly 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to poor and lower-income Americans. Nearly one-third of Americans receive benefits from at least one of these programs.

Food stamps is one of the largest of the welfare programs. Its cost has jumped dramatically over the last decade or so, doubling from less than $20 billion in fiscal year 2000 to about $40 billion in fiscal year 2007. By fiscal year 2012, costs doubled again to nearly $80 billion. The omnibus keeps food stamp spending at historically high levels: $82 billion.

Congress had the opportunity to make much-needed policy reforms to food stamps when it passed the farm bill earlier this year. Yet it failed to make the needed changes that would help point the program as a whole toward self-sufficiency. Instead, the bill included a work option that does not change the character of the food stamp program overall.

The most important reform to food stamps should be a work requirement that requires able-bodied adult recipients to work, prepare for work or at least look for work in exchange for receiving assistance. This would promote self-sufficiency and ensure funding is going to those most in need.

Congress also should address welfare’s out-of-control spending. Along with promoting work in programs such as food stamps, policymakers should place a cap on total means-tested welfare spending, allowing costs to increase only at the rate of inflation. A cap would make it necessary for policymakers to prioritize where welfare money is spent. A cap like this would save approximately $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

The U.S. welfare system has been expanding for decades, and its track record of helping low-income Americans achieve self-sufficiency is poor. If policymakers want to help those in need, as well as get welfare spending on a more prudent course, then they must take welfare reform seriously.

Not All Kids Born in the US Should Be Made Citizens

Screen Shot 2014-11-12 at 10.22.03 AM

Genevieve Wood

Human experience and common sense tells us you get more of the behavior you reward – and there has been no better case study of that on a policy level than the issue of illegal immigration.

That is why any serious immigration reform considered in the next Congress should revisit the concept of birthright citizenship (namely that all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ status), or what is sometimes referred to as the “anchor baby” issue.

Congress should do so for primarily the following reasons:

It incentivizes illegal immigrants to have children on U.S. soil in hopes it will allow them, the parents, to gain legal status.
It fuels chain migration, the process whereby one legal family member, once 21 years of age, is able to apply to bring in parents, siblings and in-laws. At the age of 18, one is able to apply to bring in a spouse and any unmarried children.
It is costly to the U.S. taxpayer. While illegal immigrants themselves do not qualify for welfare, they can obtain Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Findings in one study show that “nationwide, 40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare.”
And last but not least, birthright citizenship, as currently understood, is arguably unconstitutional.
According to NumbersUSA, citizenship is given to “an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don’t have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant.”

Simply having a baby in the U.S. doesn’t mean the parents, if here illegally, will be allowed to stay – they and the child can still be deported and the child can then apply to re-enter the U.S. when he/she reaches 21 years of age. But there’s no question that an illegal immigrant who has a U.S.-born child has a better chance than others of getting an immigration court or judge to grant him some sort of legal status or delay in deportation.

And when it comes to increasing immigration numbers in the U.S., findings from a report by the Center for Immigration Studies in 2010 show chain migration is the main driver:

Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. A change to U.S. immigration laws in the late 1950s — one that allowed for the admission of extended family members outside the nuclear family — resulted in the average annual flow increasing from 250,000 then, to over 1 million today.

For America’s first 100-plus years, the idea that just because someone was born on U.S. soil made them a U.S. citizen was disavowed. But a Supreme Court decision in 1898 (yes, there was judicial activism back then, too) that broadly and wrongly interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause changed all that.

A recent study of 194 countries shows that only 30 grant a form of birthright citizenship.

The original intent of the Citizenship Clause was to ensure former slaves were given citizenship status. It was never intended to give such status to children born here because their parents were living here as foreign ambassadors, diplomats or consuls, or simply because their non-citizen parent(s) had a baby while visiting or residing, legal or otherwise, in the U.S.

Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky puts it this way:

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens. They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

I rarely suggest America follow international trends, but this is one area where we could take a cue from others around the world. A recent study of 194 countries shows that only 30 grant a form of birthright citizenship. No European countries allow it – the United Kingdom ended the practice in 1983 and Ireland in 2004. Among advanced economies, the U.S. and Canada are the only two countries that still allow it.

Congress is empowered via the Constitution to determine our country’s naturalization laws and should put an end to “birthright” citizenship.

Georgia’s New Plan To Arrest Welfare Abusers

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 5.50.24 PM

As many know, the food stamps program is intended to help low income families afford food. Recently, however, more and more stories are coming to light revealing dishonesty and abuse of the system. It appears that when given the chance, many people tend to trade the food stamps for cash, and end up buying whatever they want. Such action is illegal.

Georgia authorities have discovered this new type of fraud, and 54 people were arrested for opening “grocery stores” that service welfare recipients. According to reports, food stamps were being traded in for cash at the store, for only a percentage of their actual value. 90 people were arrested for using the service to commit fraud.

Although there is currently no indication of legal penalties for committing welfare fraud, the first punishment that occurs for an offender is to lose funding. In that case, the person facing charges will not be able to obtain food stamps for a period of time, and could even be permanently banned for the program.

What do you think of welfare abusers?


Screen Shot 2014-11-20 at 12.19.16 PM

Thursday evening will mark a momentous announcement from President Obama


Thursday evening will mark a momentous announcement from President Obama concerning his hugely controversial executive order to “shield” and otherwise legalize millions of ‘undocumented’ illegal immigrants living in the United States.

But is this tide turning presidential address scheduled to be carried live on TV for all the country to witness?

No. It seems that the big four networks – ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox – have all opted out of broadcasting the 15 minute speech, instead airing their November sweeps shows as scheduled in hopes of maximizing viewer ratings:

The administration announced today that POTUS will be speaking live from the White House at 8 PM ET on Thursday. ABC has the fall finale for Grey’s Anatomy on at that time while CBS has ratings powerhouse The Big Bang Theory, NBC has reality show The Biggest Loser and Fox has Bones. As of right now, three of those networks will not see any changes in their November sweep schedules due to the speech.

While Obama’s speech will be seen on their cable news siblings, Fox and NBC are not carrying it live on their broadcast networks tomorrow night.
Out of sight, out of mind?

Moreover, according to, the White House never asked the networks to carry the address:

The broadcast networks were not asked for time by the administration, sources tell me.
Wow! Sounds more like a blackout than a snub. While the cable networks, watched by news junkies, will carry the speech, the heartland of America will have drama, dancing and entertainment on their minds rather than the astounding wholesale immigration amnesty implemented unilaterally by the president – outside of Congress – through the stroke of his executive order pen. As SHTF previously reported, Obama will, specifically, reassign more than 12,000 immigration agents to other duties and shield resident immigrants residing in the country from deportation.

But, curiously, there are two regular TV networks with massive viewing audiences who will be broadcasting the speech LIVE despite hosting similar big TV award shows (which will be interrupted)…

They also happen to have the largest broadcast Hispanic and Spanish-speaking audiences:

Univision Network will air the POTUS announcement regarding Executive Action on Immigration live tomorrow. We will proceed with our coverage plans for the Latin GRAMMY’s, immediately following the President’s remarks. Complete coverage of the announcement, reactions and what it means for the US will be covered across Univision’s news platforms, as well as on the Network’s “Despierta America” morning show.

Fellow Spanish language network Telemundo will also be showing the President’s speech live with reaction and analysis to follow at least until 9 PM.
There is absolutely no question here as to why Univision and Telemundo would find Obama’s speech so broadcast worthy, while the other major stations are keeping with the regularly scheduled program.

Nothing to see here, no skyrocketing costs for health care, education, food stamps and social programs. Move along… the season finales are starting soon.