15 Nov

If Every Food Stamp Recipient Voted For Obama, It Would Account For 75% Of His Total

Ron Meyer @ CNS News:

If all 47 million food stamp recipients voted for President Obama, it would account for 75.4 percent of Obama’s 62.3 million votes.

Harry Hopkins, FDR’s close adviser who ran the non-defunct Works Progress Administration (WPA), once described Roosevelt’s strategy as “tax & tax, spend & spend, elect & elect.” He believed that if Roosevelt put everyone on the federal payroll, either through aid or federal jobs, that Roosevelt would never lose. FDR won four presidential elections in a row before his death removed him from office.

Did Obama use his idol’s model to win this election?

Food stamps rolls have grown by nearly 50 percent-by more than 15 million recipients-under the Obama administration. During that same time, the unemployment rate has stayed the same. Either those outside of the workforce have been decimated by the Obama economy or this administration is making a conscious effort to get more Americans reliant on government. Or both.

Welfare programs now cost taxpayers a record-high $750 billion. While government “charity” has grown, so has poverty-and so has the Democrats’ poll numbers.

The candidates and their PACs spent $6 billion for the election. Should we add the $750 billion in federal welfare to Democratic campaign spending total?

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

19 Responses to If Every Food Stamp Recipient Voted For Obama, It Would Account For 75% Of His Total

  1. Greg says: 1

    It might be a conscious effort to assist those who can’t afford enough food to feed themselves and their families.

    I suppose there might be a remote possibility that such people would tend to vote for a party that sees a need to help them, rather than for a party that considers them freeloaders, and would prefer that they either make it on their own or go hungry.

    A single parent working full-time at minimum wage is probably in that situation.

    ReplyReply
  2. retire05 says: 2

    @Greg:

    Anyone who does nothing to help themselves, instead relying on the largess of others for their most basic needs, is a freeloader, Greggie.

    Oh, and perhaps that single mother who is working a minimum job should have had an abortion. After all, isn’t that the reason you progressives want abortion legal? So that women are not “punished” with a baby they can’t afford?

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    If every penny of the money that is budgeted as welfare were to be divided up and given to EVERY HOUSEHOLD in POVERTY they would each get a bit over $60,000 this year and more next year.
    The fact that the poor under Obama suffer is proof he only cares about unionized workers, governemt and private.
    In handing out welfare cash unionized gov’t employees suck off so much that the poor are getting poorer under Obama!

    ReplyReply
  4. Benny says: 4

    Guess which state has the most food stamp recipients… Give up? Texas.

    Guess which states have the highest percentage of their population on food stamps… Give up? Mississippi and Tennessee.

    Guess which candidate won these states… Give up?

    ROMNEY

    It wasn’t even close.

    source: The Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/economics

    Until you folks can bring yourselves to reject your partisan delusions and deal with reality, you’re going to keep on losing elections.

    ReplyReply
  5. FAITH7 says: 5

    Benny@#4 I beg to differ…nice spin though…

    The Moocher Index : States with the Most Welfare recipients, and the least:

    http://wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net/800873/blog/wp-content/uploads/Moocher-Index1.jpg

    OR here
    http://www.politisite.com/2011/06/13/the-moocher-index-states-with-the-most-welfare-recipients-and-the-least/

    ReplyReply
  6. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 6

    Yeah, but 5o% of those people are Republican and voted for Romney.

    ReplyReply
  7. Mully says: 7

    Here’s a dubious honor. Not a lot of Romney voters here..

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/golden-state-turns-to-lead-now-leads-poverty-rankings/

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 8

    @Benny:

    Since your link didn’t work, and went to a general page, I searched for your chart:

    While you are only correct about Texas due to the number of people on food stamps (Texas being the second largest state in population) you mislead the readers and were less than honest in your statements.

    Largest percentage of population on food stamps:

    #10 – South Carolina @ 18.1%
    #9 – Maine @ 18.2% (not a red state)
    #8 – West Virginia @ 18.7%
    #7 – Kentucky @ 18.7%
    #6 – Louisiana @ 19.1%
    #5 – Michigan @ 19.4% (definately not a red state)
    #4 – New Mexico @ 19.4%
    #3 – Tennessee @ 19.6%
    #2 – Oregon @ 19.9% (not a red state)
    #1 – Mississippi @ 20.7%

    But the winner?

    Washington, D.C. @ 21.9%

    In your Feb. 2011 figures, Texas came in well below those states at 15.6%, and considering the number of people who have fled to Texas from failed blue states looking for work, that number is not surprising.

    Why is it that every time liberals like you post something, it is always false information?

    ReplyReply
  9. Richard Wheeler says: 9

    Retire05 Why are you so quick to yell liar at posters. Unbecoming.

    Benny’s statement Texas is the state with the most food stamp recipients You agree that’s true then call him a liar??

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 10

    @Richard Wheeler:

    His statement is true only based on the number of people receiving food stamps. Now, considering that Texas is the second most populated state in the nation, do you think that doesn’t have something to do with that? Do you not expect Texas to have more individuals on food stamps than Vermont? It is like saying that rich people pay less in taxes when they actually pay a higher rate. It is intellectually dishonest and a trait of the left. The greatest percentage of people on food stamps reside in D.C. Why is that? Don’t they all work for the federal government?

    My accusation of his being a liar stands.

    ReplyReply
  11. Hard Right says: 11

    @Richard Wheeler:

    It’s disengenuous rich. You know that tho. As usual you to come and defend someone on your side being dishonest. You have a very bad habit of that. You might actually be respected if you did that less.

    ReplyReply
  12. Nan G says: 12

    In California the poor did vote for Dems from state congresspeople on up to Obama.
    We estimated we would live 1/4 cheaper by moving away from CA and into Utah.
    But if we rented rather than owned it would by 1/10th the cost to move to Utah.
    Our homeowner dues, taxes and special assessments bring our ”rent” to almost $400 a month.
    In Utah a same size rental is $264 per month!
    Our ”twin” unit is a rental here and gets over $1600 a month rent.
    We’re planning on buying a bigger place.
    Still it will be cheaper to live without all the bloodsuckers.
    And we are not alone in leaving.
    A portion of CA’s problem is the flight of the rich and the middle class out of that state.
    Proportionally, CA gets left with a larger and larger per cent of poor compared with those not on the dole.
    One thing that is starting to be a danger in CA is the sanitation (lack of it) around all of the tent dwellers at the edges of all the freeways and paved riverbeds.
    The disease vectors that wiped out whole populations in Europe’s Dark Ages are still facts of life.
    It is a matter of time that HIV and resistant TB are not CA’s worst public health issues.
    We will see mosquito-borne diseases as well as filth-related diseases from huge piles of the least safe garbage you could ever imagine in a ”civilized” area.
    A couple times a year (not often enough) a hazmat group with a bulldozer scrapes a lot of it away.
    Keep your eyes open for dysentery, malaria, diarrea, West Nile and many other dirty-lifestyle diseases in CA.

    ReplyReply
  13. Tom says: 13

    @retire05:

    His statement is true only based on the number of people receiving food stamps

    which dovetails perfectly with the post’s metric: number of food stamp recipients: “If all 47 million food stamp recipients voted for President Obama, it would account for 75.4 percent of Obama’s 62.3 million votes”. He’s responding to the post, so if you have a problem with the logic, blame the post, not him.

    By the way, it doesn’t matter which way you look at it – number of people or % – either way red states lead the way. And with an Electoral Congress it’s impossible food stamp recipients, a large percentage of which reside in red states, could have accounted for 75% of Obama’s win total in any true sense, as this ridiculous, dishonest post suggests. Benny’s point is completely valid and your attack on him is craven and dishonest (not a shocker). Of course the Right can choose to perpetuate the self-imposed ignorance of this Right wing meme that only people getting “free stuff” voted for Obama and Democrats at their own peril.

    ReplyReply
  14. Nan G says: 14

    Tom, there are distinctions between popular vote and Electoral College total, to be sure.
    But Obama’s popular vote was what was being discussed.
    I read soon after the election that a mere 50,000 votes made the difference between Obama winning the Electoral College majority vs Romney winning it.
    I personally know many people getting unemployment, food stamps (EBT) and other welfare assistance.
    Only about 1/2 of them voted Obama.
    There are a lot of people who blamed Obama for creating this business-unfriendly atmosphere that put them on the dole.
    But, hey, he ”won.”
    So, more business-unfriendliness is to come.
    More on the dole will become used to dependence.
    Obama’s rise in welfare, had it not been frittered away on unionized gov’t employees, would have given every one of 17 million poor households in America $60,000.
    But he really doesn’t care about ”the poor.”
    He cares about unionized employees.

    ReplyReply
  15. Tom says: 15

    @Nan G:

    Tom, there are distinctions between popular vote and Electoral College total, to be sure.
    But Obama’s popular vote was what was being discussed.

    I understand that, Nan. Bringing up the electoral college was clearly an editorial aside on my part. The main point of my post was to second Rich’s defense of the logic of Benny’s point that hypothetical popular votes for Obama in Red States don’t impact elections, as this post is dishonestly implying, and as Retire illogically disputed.

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 16

    @Tom:

    So now you consider Oregon, Michigan and Maine red states? You see, those states have a higher percentage of food stamp recipients than Texas. You liberals always want to twist the numbers to your advantage.

    Ironically, the largest number of food stamp recipents in Texas reside in those counties that went for Obama. Whoda thunk it?

    ReplyReply
  17. Tom says: 17

    @retire05:

    You see, those states have a higher percentage

    Stop right there. Where in the original post does percentage of recipients by state come into this? It doesn’t. You’ve arbitrarily reframed the argument and injected self-serving data to dispute a comment that directly addressed the original post in an honest fashion. It’s an old trick, but seldom attempted in such an obvious, clumsy manner. Feel free to continue defending your indefensible position. Twist in the wind all day long for all I care, it won’t change a thing.

    ReplyReply
  18. Richard Wheeler says: 18

    Nan You could take 50,ooo votes that went Obama and put them ANYWHERE you want for Romney and Romney still loses. If you’re gonna deal with the election please learn what you’re talking about.

    H.R. Call the statement disingenuous if you like. You’re a smart gal and know it was NOT a lie. It was the truth. Shame on you.

    Hi Bees How you doing today?

    ReplyReply
  19. Richard Wheeler says: 19

    Two things were certain if Dems. held Presidency. Repubs. would yell foul and they’d blame Romney. Only took a matter of days.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>