Shocking Chart Reveals True Beneficiaries of Obama's Spending

[Turbineguy]

One of the pernicious sub-themes of the Obama presidency is the view among many Republicans that Obama has used the power of the federal purse to essentially purchase the votes of millions of his supporters—whether through generous Medicare or Medicaid payments, food stamps and unemployment checks, or (horror of horrors) the infamous “Obamaphones.” This is what Mitt Romney was alluding to when he complained after the election that Obama had used “gifts” to win over key interest groups, “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community, and young people.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-02/shocking-chart-reveals-true-beneficiaries-of-obamas-spending#r=rss

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Americans must, once and for all, see the Republican party as the bald-faced LIARS that they are

and stop with giving anything they say any credence.

Only then will we finally get this country moving forward and have a true opposition party come into place that will work to effectively make this government work for We the People.

The Republican Party has only ONE goal in mind: Corporatism. Pure and simple. And they are a threat to our democracy and our people.

Once we understand and accept that truth, we can work to eradicate them from our government by either refusing vote {if you're a Republican} or voting them OUT {if you're at any place that's at minimum left of center}.

Until then, we'll be stuck with more idiots like Bachmann, Ryans, Gohmerts, and a party hellbent to enslave women, minorities, and workers for the good of rich white dudes and corporations.

[liberal N proud]

2. Red states eliminating Federal unemployment benefits

But good news for veterans.

[UTUSN]

3. R#4 & K for, either Mittens knows zilch about economics or lies about stuff

Apparently “business” reporters aren’t great at writing/interpreting their content. What’s so “shocking” about this information? Besides that the interpretations are false: Like that the president (any president) has some kind of personal control over this kind of spending, or even on whether the economy is improving or not. Not to mention that the writer doesn’t see what might be the main takeaway, that Mittens, for all his vaunted “business” success/experience, either knows zilch or just lies about stuff.

But, about the idea that a president controls economics, in ‘04 I had just met a (fellow) Vietnam vet, and I soon brought up politics, fishing for his voting for KERRY/against-Shrub. He said he never voted, but if he did he would vote Shrub. He had been homeless for years with zero income and his reason for liking Shrub was that (he said) Shrub had given him his 100% veterans’ disability compensation. This, that Shrub had a personal hand in it, was absurd to me, of course, but the 2nd or 3rd time we talked, I played along with the idea that a president personally gave him a check and asked him what year he had started getting his checks. He said 2000. I said that Shrub didn’t take over the pResidency until 2001, therefore it was CLINTON who “gave” him his check, not Shrub, but that so long as Shrub wasn't getting a vote his not-voting was fine with me.

Beyond this article's at least noticing veterans in the equation, which is always ignored except for the rah-rah baiting, what it doesn't mention is that veterans of the redneck VFW variety are least likely to have voted for OBAMA or any Dem, so it defeats the concept that there is a correlation between funding and voting.

[n2doc]

4. It is good we are supporting our vets

Because with the permanent war state, there will always be a steady stream of new ones.

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. Now, just chart that data along with the beneficence granted to Wall Street to get

a true picture of who this administration is working for...

[Scuba]

6. +1