More College-Educated Millineals Are Jobless & Living In Poverty Than Any 20th Century Generation At Same Age

Another Obama Record… More College-Educated Millineals Are Jobless & Living In Poverty Than Any 20th Century Generation At That Age – Gateway Pundit

Another record!

.

.
Forbes reported:

It’s not all good news, though. The Pew found that both the share of college-educated 25 – 32 year-olds unemployed and those living in poverty is greater than any other generation of the 20th century at the same age. And while salaries for college grads have grown by $7K over the last 40 years, median earnings for those 25 – 32 have been stagnant for decades, even as the cost of education has soared. Other data from the University of Waterloo actually shows Millennials underearning their parents at the same age.

As well, there are important limits to the Pew’s research to consider. Their data only includes Millenials who were employed full-time during the previous year, regardless of education level. In essence, they’re only surveying those Millennials for whom education has actually paid off as to their views on education. It’s easy to say that education is a worthwhile investment if your degree has actually benefited you in the form of gainful, career-oriented work. Absent from the discussion and from the Pew’s somewhat heartening news are the attitudes of the millions of recent college grads who are unemployed or underemployed, like the 15% of 2013 grads who fall into one of those camps, or the 36% working jobs that don’t require their degrees.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

AEI: 80% Reduction In World Poverty Thanks To U.S.-Style Free Enterprise (Video)

Greatest Achievement In History: 80% Reduction In World Poverty Thanks To US-Style Free Enterprise – Gateway Pundit

.

.
According to the American Enterprise Institute the chart above could perhaps qualify as the “chart of the century” because it illustrates one of the most remarkable achievements in human history: the 80% reduction in world poverty in only 36 years, from 26.8% of the world’s population living on $1 or less (in 1987 dollars) in 1970 to only 5.4% in 2006.

American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks explained how capitalism made this possible:

.

.
From the video: “I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Thanks Barack… Nearly 50 Million Americans In Poverty, Worst Since LBJ

Nearly 50 Million Americans In Poverty, Worst Since LBJ – Big Government

Even as the Obama White House prepares for a star-studded White House concert featuring Queen Latifah, Cyndi Lauper, and Justin Timberlake, figures from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal that roughly 50 million Americans – one in six – now live below the poverty line.

.
…………………

Additionally, one in five American children have fallen below the poverty line; the last time poverty levels were this high, Lyndon Baines Johnson was president.

“In the last three years, there’s been a great change in the kinds of people we are serving,” said Director of Community Services at Catholic Charities of Baltimore Mary Anne O’Donnell. “There are increasing numbers of people who owned a home, lost their jobs, end up living in their car and are coming with children to our soup kitchen.”

The U.S. government defines a family of four earning under $23,021 as living in poverty. Income used to compute poverty status does not include non-cash benefits, such as food stamps and housing subsidies.

Welfare program enrollments have exploded under President Barack Obama. Americans on food stamps now outnumber the combined populations of 24 U.S. states, costing taxpayers more than double the amount spent on food stamps five years ago. In January 2009, 31.9 million Americans received food stamps. Today, that figure is 47.79 million.

The Obama Administration’s shift to looser eligibility requirements and lax oversight enforcement has also created what the Wall Street Journal dubbed a “food stamp crime wave.”

Also benefiting from the rapid rise in food stamps are companies like JP Morgan – which donated $808,799 to Obama’s 2008 campaign – who administer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. A recent report by the Government Accountability Institute found that since 2004, JP Morgan’s 24 state EBT contracts have totaled at least $560,492,596.02.

Other government programs, such as the disability program, have now morphed into proxy forms of welfare. A recent National Public Radio (NPR) investigation revealed that 14 million Americans now receive disability checks each month, costing taxpayers $260 billion annually. The report chronicled the rise of the “disability industrial complex,” a program fraught with fraud and abuse. In Hale County, Alabama, for example, one in four residents are now on disability.

Still, Obama promises that jobs and opportunity are on the way. “We’re going to fix our economy,” said Obama last week in Miami, Florida. “We’re going to fix our immigration system, we are going to make sure that our young people are getting a great education, we’re going to prevent them from being victims of gun violence, and we are going to make sure that everybody in this country has a fair shot and is doing their fair share.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Follow the Liberal Logic here

Liberals care about the poor, the working class, the “little” guy. They care about kids. They care, which is why they want higher taxes on the “rich”. They care about Mother Nature, so they support higher gas prices. They care, so they demand more regulation, more taxation, more government. I had a guy tell me the other day that I should have voted for Obama, because he “cares” about poor people. Hmmm, if the Left cares so much, why do their policies always impact those they “care” so much about? You know, like millions LOSING their employer insurance because of Obamacare? Or the spike in health care premiums because of Obamacare? Or the fact that those with pre-existing conditions might not be helped by Obamacare? Or paying almost $1,000 a year more for gas?

A question someone should ask Liberals

Think Progress is out with another “we could end homelessness with the money Americans spend on…….” line of propaganda. In this case, they are saying that we could end poverty with the money we spend on Christmas decorations. This is a bogus claim, if throwing money at poverty, and homelessness were going to end it, it would have been over decades ago. Smitty nails it

Memeorandum features this headline from Think Progress:

We Could End Homelessness With The Money
Americans Spend On Christmas Decorations

This is false. It could only be true if the complex problem known by the misleading label ”homelessness” were just a matter of money, but it’s not.

Homelessness made headlines in the 1980s and was exploited for purposes of partisan propaganda by liberals who saw an opportunity to dramatize what they construed as consequences of “Reaganomics.” In fact, as researchers discovered, homelessness is primarily caused by non-economic factors: mental illness, substance abuse and family disruption.

All very true, but there is the question I would love to ask Liberals who always demonize Republicans for being greedy. If Liberals truly buy that line of thinking fine. But, I must ask this question. Why do Liberals NEVER say if President Obama donated all the campaign contributions he got, we could “end poverty”? Why do they never look at themselves? Why do Liberals always look at consumerism and blame it, as if consumer greed was allowing poverty, or homelessness to continue? Why do they never look in the mirror? I think we all know why? Liberals expect OTHER people to sacrifice. Liberals expect everyone else to get it done. And of course, Liberals want the government to fix homelessness, and other societal ills, by
“taxing the rich” and spreading the wealth around.

 

Over $60,000 In Welfare Spent Per Household In Poverty

Over $60,000 In Welfare Spent Per Household In Poverty – Weekly Standard

New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. “If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.”

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. “If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link),” the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.

To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).

But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.

As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:

A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget – including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support – such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)

Here’s a breakdown of the welfare spending:

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

No, Conservatives do not hate government, we hate too much government

Despite what the Left says, Conservatives do not hate government, nor do we wish to see no government. We simply hold to the basic principle that once government gets too big, it begins to fail, and the larger it grows the larger the failures, and the deeper the erosions upon out liberties. And yes, this holds true for not just the federal government, it applies to state as well as local governments.

Zion’s Trumpet has a great example of a local government displaying this rule

It is essential to the liberal agenda that people believe there would be terrible suffering without government coercion. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise anyone when that very coercion is used to repress voluntary charity:

A Pennsylvania woman who offers free lunch every day to low-income children in her neighborhood faces a $600-a-day fine next summer if she continues because she did not clear the food giveaway with township officials.

Angela Prattis donates her time to distribute the meals — supplied by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia — and adheres to strict paperwork, like filling out weekly reports and being visited bi-weekly from a state worker, MyFoxPhilly.com reports.

That’s not good enough for the bureaurats, who don’t cotton to competition:

Chester Township, which has a per capita income of $19,000 a year, says Prattis lives in a residential zone, hence handing out food to children is not allowed. The township says she needs to go before a zoning board to ask for a variance, which would cost her up to $1,000 in administrative fees.

Yet another case of unintended consequences resulting from a stupid, useless law. The government really has no business telling one citizen whether or not they can pass out food do they? Especially in this case where the woman is bending over backwards to accommodate the bureaucracy.