Socialism and Totalitarism? Sure looks like it to me.

With a grocery bills priced as high as $1,300 per month as of late, some American workers simply cannot afford all of their groceries on top of everything else they already have to buy. This is why the government offers food stamps.

Learn Improvement Tips to Fix up Your Home

 

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reports that as of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual food stamp recipients (22.7 million households) receiving an average benefit of $123.74 each (around $257 per household).

To be eligible, a household has to earn a gross income amount that’s less than 130% of the poverty level, or a net income amount (gross income minus deductions) that’s less than 100% of the poverty level for their family size.

This means, a single person can be eligible for food stamps if his or her gross monthly income is under $1,265 ($15,180 per year), and a family of four can be eligible if they gross less than $2,584 per month ($31,008 per year). The applicant also can’t be a wealthy person who simply doesn’t have a steady income source. So, if the applicant has thousands of dollars sitting in the bank, for instance, they won’t apply as cash assets are considered as well.

So overall, the program makes perfect sense on paper. It sounds completely reasonable: If you earn too little money, you can temporarily receive a card for your groceries for a while. Food stamps help millions of individuals and families, but the corresponding billions of dollars that the program costs make some taxpayers critical of it.

A taxpayer’s view of the welfare system depends on many factors — his or her upbringing, personal experiences, and even where he or she lives. In some areas of the country, food stamp use is more common than in others.

We’ve created a list of the states that have the most food stamp recipients per capita. To determine the states on this list, we used the USDA Food Nutrition Service’s most recent state-by-state data, coupled with population data from the Census Bureau. States with the highest number of food stamp participants relative to population ranked highest. We’ve also included a state-by-state breakdown of food stamp use in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

States with the most people on food stamps

What do you think?

(Information is current as of February, 2015. Rankings have also changed to reflect current data.)

---

7. Louisiana

• Number of food stamp recipients: 877,340
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 18.87%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $108.22 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $23.27

---

6. West Virginia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 362,501
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 19.59%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $44.71 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.17 per person

---

5. Tennessee

• Number of food stamp recipients: Just over 1.31 million
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.04%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $161.9 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.72

---

4. Oregon

• Number of food stamp recipients: 802,190
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.21%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $98.96 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $24.92 per person

---

3. New Mexico

• Number of food stamp recipients: 430,622
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 20.65%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $53.12 million
• Cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $25.47 per person

---

2. District of Columbia

• Number of food stamp recipients: 142,707
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 21.66%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $17.6 million
• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $26.72 per person

---

1. Mississippi

• Number of food stamp recipients: 656,871
• Percentage of the state’s population on food stamps: 21.94%
• Total cost of just these benefits alone (That is, how much do just the money on those EBT cards cost the state?): Around $81.03 million
• Estimated cost of benefits alone per capita in this state: $27.06 per person

Your Reaction?

Graphic by Erika Rawes//data from Census and USDA

Read more: http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/7-states-with-the-most-people-on-food-stamps.html/?a=viewall#

Assimilation or infiltration?

I copied this post from the Tea party review that is sent to me evry month. I found this VERY interesting and MOST LIKELY TRUE..  Yes I am still a member of the Tea party yes I do believe in smaller government less government intrusion into private lives, Less taxes, Personal responsibility, and The constitution.
 I now share this with those of you that would read it.

COUNTRY WITHIN A COUNTRY

• Posted by Virginia Gomez on March 4, 2015 at 12:39am
• View Blog

The new illegal aliens are “seedlings” that will develop a “country within a country,” is the secret Obama administration plan. These foreigners will “navigate, not assimilate,” as they eventually “take over the host,” coming “out of the shadows” and “pushing the citizens into the shadows.” So said radio personality Sue Payne last Thursday, reporting on three conference calls involving administration officials that she, unbeknownst to them, was party to.
Payne, who co-hosts the Pat McDonough Radio Show Saturday night on WCBM 680, made the startling allegations while being interviewed by radio giant Mark Levin. Payne says that she became privy to the phone calls at an immigration rally and that they involved 16 Obama administration representatives. This allegedly included Cecilia Muñoz, an ex-senior vice president for the Hispanic triumphalism group National Council of La Raza (La Raza means “the Race”) and now director of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council. When asked to summarize what she heard, Payne began:

Well, what took place on the call was there was the Task Force on New Americans [TFNA], which Obama established on November 21st; remember when he went to Las Vegas the media said he was signing an executive order for five million illegal aliens to become deferred. In reality what he did was sign a “memorandum” that created the Task Force on New Americans, which was going to implement his amnesty mill for the five million illegals, which I believe is going to be more than that, Mark. I believe he [Obama] was planning, and on these conference calls it became clear, that he’s looking at 13 to 15 million to give protection [to] and move ... on to citizenship.

After pointing out that ex-La Raza operative Muñoz is co-chairing the TFNA, Payne explained that once the illegals are brought “out of the shadows,” the areas they’re in will be redesignated “receiving communities.” But while the TFNA is designed to create a “welcoming feeling” in these receiving communities, they will soon be transformed into what are labeled “emerging immigrant communities.” To accomplish this, the officials said “We need to start looking at the immigrant as a ‘seedling,’ and the seedling could grow, and the seedling needs to be in fertile soil,” related Payne.
Levin then asked what the plan’s next step was. Payne replied:

Well, eventually the seedlings will take over the host. And the immigrants will come out of the shadows, and what I got from the meetings was that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows. They would be taking over the country; in fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a country within a country. There was a couple of buzz words that were really disturbing to hear; that was one of them. One was from the White House spokesman [who] said that “immigrants need to be made aware of the benefits they are entitled to,” which led to another comment saying that this group that Obama is going to pardon or give amnesty to would not be interested in assimilating — they would navigate, not assimilate.

Levin then remarked that this is right out of Obama’s playbook — as he doesn’t talk about assimilation, either — and said this process is better characterized as “conquering.” Payne agreed, saying this became very clear when it was stated, as she put it, that “the receiving communities would be morphing into the emergent immigrant communities.” She then provided details about the benefits to which the foreign “navigators” would be entitled, relating:

As soon as this [amnesty] decision is pushed through, these immigrants need to be treated as “refugees” [said the officials]. They need to be given cash, they need medical care, they need to use a credit card to pay for any documents that they need. And also we need to convince state and local governments to cut these people no interest loans with taxpayer dollars, so they can then pay for their papers, as if we were funding our own destruction here.

... [The officials also] said there was going to be a great deal of older immigrants in this batch ... and that the government should understand that immigrants need to “age successfully.”... And we need to get them into Social Security as soon as possible, so they can age successfully within their country within a country.

Levin called Payne’s allegations “stunning,” saying it sounded like “Mao’s China” and that the “radicals are in control.” But this scheme comes as no shock to observers who have been warning for years that massive immigration — and illegal migration — are being used to import left-leaning voters and transform our nation. Note that the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965 radically altered our immigration regime and created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. Also understand that, perhaps owing to their wanting understanding of the Western tradition, approximately 70 to 80 percent of these new migrants vote for leftist Democrats upon being naturalized.
And occasionally a leftist lets this truth slip. For example, reporting late last month on comments made at an event sponsored by Causa, a prominent Oregon pro-amnesty group, Breitbart wrote, “‘Immigration reform [amnesty] is probably the biggest issue of the 21st century,’ Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) reportedly said at an ‘Immigration Day Action’ event this weekend. ‘It will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.’”
The operative principle here is, “If you can’t get the people to change the government, change the people.” And Obama himself alluded to this early last month. As the Daily Caller put it:

The spread of vibrant social diversity is constricting the GOP’s ability to champion conservative causes, such as smaller government and independent families, President Barack Obama said in a softball media interview.

“Over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks,” Obama told Vox editor Ezra Klein.

... That diversity hinders conservative priorities, he said.

So this strategy of targeting Western countries with massive immigration in order to usher in leftist hegemony is well known among those orchestrating the strategy — wherever the scheme is worked. Just consider, for instance, an even more striking admission by a former advisor to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair. The man is Labour Party operative Andrew Neather, and he confessed in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to “rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
And so it is in the United States. Providing 10 to 15 million illegals instant citizenship via amnesty would greatly accelerate the “fundamental transformation” of America Obama promised in 2008. Note, by the way, that a “fundamental” is not window dressing but the “essential part of” something, its “foundation or basis.” If you say your wife needs fundamental change, it means you don’t like her very much — and you want to alter the very essence of who she is