America is experiencing a cost of living crisis that’s forcing families to make impossible choices between basic necessities. In this video we examine the collapse of economic stability through real stories: SNAP benefits being cut before major holidays, full-time teachers unable to afford living, and workers spending entire paychecks on utilities alone.

We explore how this breakdown extends beyond inflation numbers to reveal grocery bills doubling, healthcare becoming unaffordable even with insurance, and middle-class families financing food purchases on credit. We analyze documented evidence of this systematic failure, the financial desperation gripping working Americans, the impact on household stability and what these trends reveal about economic reality.

Keywords like cost of living crisis, affordability breakdown, food insecurity, utility costs, healthcare expenses and middle class collapse aren’t abstract terms—they describe families working full-time yet still struggling to survive. If you’re wondering why paychecks don’t stretch anymore, why basic stability feels impossible to achieve, and what’s behind this financial pressure, this video documents the reality.

Don’t forget to hit like, subscribe, and ring the bell to stay informed on economic issues directly affecting American households.

Cost of living crisis is getting worse, wage stagnation, middle class struggle, U.S. inflation 2025, household debt, rising living costs, America economic collapse, paycheck to paycheck america, cost of living USA, housing crisis USA, preparedness, economic crisis America, us inflation 2025, living paycheck to paycheck, rising prices, middle class collapse, america cost of living, economic collapse usa, inflation USA

Source:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JONs3PXMVQA

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post Cost Of Living Crisis Is Worse Than You Thought appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Ofgem says the main driver of the increase in the energy price cap is the increased cost of switching off wind farms.  Critics argue that the cost of “wasted wind” will only increase.  NESO predicts that balancing costs will rise to almost £4 billion by 2030.

The figures are embarrassing for Ed Miliband, the UK’s Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who has promised to cut household bills by £300 a year by 2030.

The following is paraphrased from the article ‘Wind farms to blame for rising energy bills, says Ofgem’ published by The Telegraph on 27 August 2025.

Ofgem has said the energy price cap will increase more than expected, from £1,720 per year to £1,755 in October.  The price cap is usually largely driven up or down based on the wholesale costs of energy, but this time it’s different.

“[Ofgem] said the 2pc rise was driven by the amount of money being spent on switching off wind farms in remote areas when the network is too congested to transport the power to where it is needed,” The Telegraph said.

The cost of switching off windfarms is part of what is known as “balancing costs.”  Balancing costs are the expenses incurred by the National Electricity System Operator (“NESO”) to ensure that electricity supply matches demand in real-time, as electricity cannot be stored economically in large quantities.  This is achieved through the Balancing Mechanism, where the NESO pays generators to increase output or pay them to reduce output when supply exceeds demand.

The October price cap increase will add around £1.23 per month to bills, and is expected to worsen as the UK spends more on switching off wind farms and firing up alternative power sources, such as gas plants.  An estimated £815 million has been spent so far in 2025 switching off wind farms, up by more than a quarter compared to the same period just a year earlier.  And critics argue that the cost of wasted wind will only increase, with NESO predicting the bill to rise to almost £4 billion by 2030, which could rise to as much as £8 billion^[1] if grid upgrades are not delivered on time.

“The numbers are embarrassing for [Ed] Miliband, the Energy Secretary, as he pushes ahead with plans to build more wind and solar farms across the country,” The Telegraph said.

Adding, “On Wednesday, the Government blamed October’s higher bills on the ‘fossil fuel penalty’ being paid by households, with gas prices still above the levels seen before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

The Conservatives have criticised the Government’s response to the rising energy bills, with the shadow energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, stating that the bill rises are due to balancing costs and rising standing charges, rather than the “fossil fuel penalty” cited by the Government.

The Energy Minister, Michael Shanks, has defended the Government’s mission to transition to clean, homegrown power. But critics argue that this will not address the immediate issue of rising energy bills and that the Government is not interested in cutting bills or telling the truth about the causes of the price increases.

Energy Bill Increases to Coincide with Tax Increases

Ofgem has identified two major factors contributing to the increase in energy bills: balancing costs associated with wind farms, as mentioned above, and a separate levy to fund the Government’s Warm Home Discount scheme, which adds £1.42 per month to the price cap.

The Warm Home Discount scheme, which provides a £150 discount to vulnerable households per year, has been expanded to include an additional 2.7 million households.

The Telegraph quoted Craig Lowrey of Cornwall Insight, who said: “The rise in bills, however small it may look on paper, will feel very real for households as we head into the colder months.

“The increase in costs is in part due to the widely supported expansion of the Warm Home Discount. This will be a lifeline for many of the 2.7 million additional households now eligible for support, but for those still facing high bills, it will offer little comfort.  The reality is, when we give more help to those who need it most, we all end up sharing the cost.”

The rise in energy bills is expected to coincide with the Chancellor’s Budget, in which taxes are likely to be raised, putting further pressure on households that are already struggling with inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

Experts, including Andy Prendergast, GMB national secretary, and Sam Richards, chief executive of Britain Remade, are warning that any increase in energy prices could have a significant impact on household budgets, particularly for the poorest in society who should not bear the biggest burden for saving the planet.

^[1] Note:

The Telegraph has amended its article by deleting the statement about the potential rise of balancing costs to £8 billion.

“According to the National Energy System Operator, the bill is expected to rise to almost £4bn by 2030 – but could rise to as much as £8bn if grid upgrades are not delivered on time.”—The Telegraph, archived 27 Aug 2025 at 15:10:28 UTC (or 4:10 pm UK time)

“According to the National Energy System Operator, the bill is expected to rise to almost £4bn by 2030.”—The Telegraph, current version as of 28 August 2025.

Featured image: Wind turbines messing up our oceans and harming the life they support.  Taken from an article to promote the proliferation of these monstrosities: ‘How the UK’s Offshore Wind Projects Pave the Way to Net Zero’ published by Global Energy Talent Index on 6 July 2021

Source: https://expose-news.com/2025/08/28/switching-off-wind-farms-driving-an-increase-in-bills/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Cost of switching off wind farms is driving an increase in electricity bills in the UK appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Taylor Welch is an investor & business consultant. His portfolio of companies have serviced over 50,000 individual small businesses in the last 5 years. He currently lives in Nashville Tennessee with his wife and 2 kids

CHAPTERS:

00:00 Trailer

01:08 Announcements

07:00 Addressing Questions

16:30 Movements (Start)

26:59 Personal Struggles and Trust in God

35:49 Faith v Trust

37:43 Inner Lies and Bitterness

43:40 A Vision of NOT Being Chosen

54:02 Criteria for Being Chosen by God

01:04:13 Developing Competence

01:08:24 Perseverance and Anointing

01:15:06 The Consecration Process

01:22:47 The Clash & Building a New Remnant

01:29:21 Multiplication v Institutionalization

01:36:12 God’s Timelines

01:41:48 Consecration

01:50:05 Reflection

Source:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzK9FfuQocw

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post The Cost of Being Chosen (movements, obscurity, & submission) appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Source Link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Xg55oymCMBfh/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post ICE CUBE TELLS JOE ROGAN REFUSING THE COVID VACCINE COST HIM A $9 MILLION DOLLAR MOVIE ROLE appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

One of the major purported selling points for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a supposed increase in new jobs as a result of the controversial trade deal. The deal involves 12 nations, including the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Malaysia and more. However, two recent economic reports have contradicted the claims that jobs will increase. They have shown that, more than likely, the deal will lead to a loss of jobs.

First there was a World Bank report that predicted that TPP would produce negligible boosts to the economies of the U.S., Australia, and Canada. TechDirt writes:

“So according to the World Bank’s figures, the U.S. will gain an extra 0.04% GDP per year on average, as a result of TPP; Australia an extra 0.07% annually, and Canada a boost of 0.12% per year.”

This study was followed up by a review from Jerome Capaldo and Alex Izurieta at Tufts University. In a study titled “Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” Capaldo and Izurieta claim their study uses a more realistic model than past analyses. Specifically, the researchers state that their model incorporates effects on employment that were previously excluded from TPP calculations.

Their study found that economic growth is likely to be limited — and negative — for some countries, including the United States. The researchers also found the TPP would probably lead to increased unemployment and inequality. Capaldo and Izurieta explained:

“The standard model assumes full employment and invariant income distribution, ruling out the main risks of trade and financial liberalization. Subject to these assumptions, it finds positive effects on growth. An important question, therefore, is how this conclusion changes if those assumptions are dropped.”

In the paper, the two researchers state that changes in GDP growth are “mostly projected to be negligible.” After using two sets of growth figures, ten-year measurements, and annual averages, they concluded the TPP “appears to only marginally change competitiveness among participating countries. Most gains are therefore obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries.”

The fact that any gains — however negligible — will come at the cost of non-TPP countries should be a warning to all nations of the world, especially those who do not stand to benefit from the agreement. Concerning predictions of actual job losses or gains, the researchers write, “TPP would lead to employment losses in all countries, with a total of 771,000 lost jobs. The United States would be the hardest hit, with a loss of 448,000 jobs.”

Finally, the researchers draw harrowing conclusions about the end result of the TPP.

“Globally, the TPP favors competition on labor costs and remuneration of capital. Depending on the policy choices in non-TPP countries, this may accelerate the global race to the bottom, increasing downward pressure on labor incomes in a quest for ever more elusive trade gains.”

This latest analysis of TPP job claims is even more dismal than a February 2015 analysis by the Washington Post, which revealed the U.S. government’s numbers on expected job increases from the TPP are not factually correct. The Post’s Fact Checker examined several quotes from government officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Both Kerry and Vilsack claimed the international trade agreement would create 650,000 new jobs. However, these numbers do not take into account income gains and changing wages. According to the government’s own sources, imports and exports would increase by the same amount — resulting in a net number of zero new jobs.

The TPP has faced criticism for several years, not least because it has been negotiated in secret with overwhelming influence from multinational corporations. In late June 2015, President Obama signed into law the so-called “fast-track” bill, which set the stage for approval of the TPP. “Fast-track” limits Congress’ ability to alter the provisions of the trade deal, and only allows a vote of yes or no. The final terms of the deal were agreed upon in October 2015, and the full text of the agreement was released in November. The earliest Obama can sign the deal is February 4, 2016.

Following the release of the text of the TPP, journalist James Corbett released an excellent report examining the effects of the proposal. Corbett concludes that the most egregious portions relate to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanism, intellectual property, and food safety standards.

According to the report, ISDS will give corporations loopholes to escape accountability and empower international bodies, overriding the national sovereignty of signing nations. Under ISDS, foreign corporations would be allowed to appeal legal decisions to international tribunals, rather than face domestic courts. Critics fear this could lead to a loss of sovereignty and the enrichment of transnational corporations.

In late 2015, Anti-Media reported the TPP might not be voted on until after the 2016 presidential elections, or possibly into the next presidential term, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In an interview with the Washington Post, McConnell said he does not support the idea of voting on the TPP before the election. “It certainly shouldn’t come before the election. I don’t think so, and I have some serious problems with what I think it is,” he said. “But I think the president would be making a big mistake to try to have that voted on during the election. There’s significant pushback all over the place.”

“We will continue working with Congressional leaders to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership as soon as possible next year,” Brandi Hoffine, a White House spokeswoman, told the Post on Thursday. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, “Our view is that it is possible for Congress to carefully consider the details of this agreement and to review all the benefits associated with this agreement … without kicking the vote all the way to the lame-duck period.”

Recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation also released a report on the dangers of the TPP. EFF writes:

“Everything in the TPP that increases corporate rights and interests is binding, whereas every provision that is meant to protect the public interest is non-binding and is susceptible to get bulldozed by efforts to protect corporations.”

The EFF’s report offers “a list of communities who were excluded from the TPP deliberation process,” and examples of “the main ways that the TPP’s copyright and digital policy provisions will negatively impact them.”

These communities include Innovators and Business Owners; Libraries, Archives, and Museums; Students; Impacts on Online Privacy and Digital Security; Website Owners; Gamers; Artists; Journalists and Whistleblowers; Tinkerers and Repairers; Free Software; and Cosplayers and Fans of Anime, Cartoons, or Movies.

Before the deal was signed, fifteen different organizations issued an open letter asking TPP negotiators to provide public safeguards for copyrighted works. These groups include Australian Digital Alliance, Consumer NZ (New Zealand), Copia Institute (United States), Creative Commons (International), Electronic Frontier Foundation (United States, Australia), Hiperderecho (Peru), Futuristech Info (International), Global Exchange (International), iFixit (International), New Media Rights (United States), ONG Derecho Digitales (Chile), Open Media (Canada), Public Citizen (United States), and Public Knowledge (United States).

The authors of the letter state copyright restricts important, everyday use of creative works. The groups call on the negotiators to be open to new changes that require participating nations to develop balanced and flexible rules on copyrights. Also highlighted in the letter are four key concerns from the organizations, including retroactive copyright term extension, a ban on circumvention of technology protection measures, “heavy-handed criminal penalties and civil damages,” and trade secret rules that could criminalize investigative journalism and whistleblowers reporting on corporate wrongdoing.

As the EFF writes, “Despite its earlier promises that the TPP would bring ‘greater balance’ to copyright more than any other recent trade agreement, the most recent leak of the Intellectual Property chapter belies their claims. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has still failed to live up to its word that it would enshrine meaningful public rights to use copyrighted content in this agreement.”

The TPP is not only facing resistance from electronic privacy groups, but from grassroots activists and concerned professionals around the world. Both the Anglican and Catholic churches of New Zealand have demanded governments be more transparent about the negotiations. Radio NZ reports that bishops from the churches are concerned with the lack of openness. They are worried corporate interests are influencing the agreement while the people are excluded. The churches also called on the New Zealand government to make the draft text of the agreement public.

Doctors Without Borders released a statement following the conclusion of negotiations:

“Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expresses its dismay that TPP countries have agreed to United States government and multinational drug company demands that will raise the price of medicines for millions by unnecessarily extending monopolies and further delaying price-lowering generic competition. The big losers in the TPP are patients and treatment providers in developing countries. Although the text has improved over the initial demands, the TPP will still go down in history as the worst trade agreement for access to medicines in developing countries, which will be forced to change their laws to incorporate abusive intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies.”

In early February 2015, doctors and health professionals representing seven countries released a letter warning the TPP will lead to higher medical costs for all nations. The letter, published in the Lancet Medical Journal, states, “Rising medicine costs would disproportionately affect already vulnerable populations.” Those doctors called on the governments involved in the trade deal to publicly release the full text of the agreement. They also demanded an independent analysis of the effects on health and human rights for each nation involved in the deal.

By Derrick Broze

(Source:  theantimedia.com; January 22, 2016; http://tinyurl.com/zz5kpwv)

The post TPP trade deal will cost US 448,000 jobs, say researchers appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.