MAGA: ONE MILLION Fewer People on FOOD STAMPS Since Trump Took Office

BAISH| Former President Barack Obama loved to claim that he was all about helping the American people, but in my personal opinion, helping people doesn’t entail babying them until they are so dependent on the government that they can’t fend for themselves or put food on the table for their families. Thankfully, we have Trump in office now, and he has proved that he is all about helping Americans thrive. There is concrete proof that President Trump has been making positive changes for the people of America, and one huge change that we have witnessed is the drastic decrease in the number of Americans using food stamps.

Since President Trump has taken his seat in the Oval Office, the number of Americans on food stamps has dropped drastically, actually by nearly 1.1 million. In the seven months since Trump’s inauguration, he has successfully weaned 1.1 million people off of our welfare system. Changes like this one will be a determining factor in the fate of the success rate of American citizens.

The United States Department of Agriculture reported that the number of Americans registered under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is known by most people as “food stamps” plummeted from 42.6 million people under former President Barack Obama to 41.5 million under President Trump. This huge decrease displays the lowest levels of Americans on government assistance since 2010. SNAP enrollment within the first few months of President Trump’s time in office has made a significant decrease of 2.79 percent. Keep in mind that this only happened within a few months. Imagine what Trump will accomplish by the end of his first term!

It is believed that the drastic drop of enrollment in the programs is due to illegal immigrants fearing that their involvement with government programs will prove their illegal inhabitance in America and will lead to their deportation. So, it seems that President Trump’s serious stance on illegal immigration is finally getting through to aliens in our country, and hopefully they stop feeding off of our welfare system, a system that was put into place for Americans during times of need, not people who entered our country illegally.

During Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential run, he made sure to let the American people know that he was serious about decreasing the amount of people using government programs to feed themselves. He explained that fraud and abuse would be a focus, making sure to put a stop to misuse of government aid. President Trump has also ordered a significant cutback in federal funding on the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP). His 2018 budget proposal delved into his thought process for the SNAP cuts. He has encouraged states to supplement around 20% of funding of this particular welfare program and enforce very strict work-requirements for adults.

President Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney stated, “if you are on food stamps and you are able bodied, we need you to go to work. There is a dignity to work and there’s a necessity to work to help the country succeed.”

It has been reported that Federal lawmakers are involved in working on legislation in order to increase requirements needed to obtain food stamps. They are also trying to establish exact time limits on just how long individuals will be allowed to be enrolled in the programs.

Food stamp enrollment has SIGNIFICANTLY dropped in states such as Georgia and Alabama. This only happened following the institution of work requirements for “able-bodied adults.” Both Georgia and Alabama completely implemented these specific work requirements for those receiving food stamps in 2016 and 2017.

Americans have become so comfortable not working, because with the way Obama was running the country, it paid more to sit home and feed off of the government than it did to go to work and earn a living. It’s obvious that something needs to change, and it needs to change immediately. President Trump’s main goal in cutting welfare is to encourage Americans to get back to work and get out of the habit of leeching off taxpayers’ money.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’