The morning after, now what?

[fund razor]

Wait... is she turning into Ben Franklin?

[old377guy]

Wait... is she turning into Ben Franklin?

Duh, it's sure not Aretha Franklin

[fund razor]

Duh, it's sure not Aretha Franklin

Of course not. Aretha had respect.

[Ratickle]

R - E - S - P - E - C - T

[Bobcat]

This is funny as hell....I bet this guy will get taken out by a drone though.

[Ratickle]

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.


And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.


And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!


Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.


So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.


We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.


Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded.

The reason?
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.


The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

[Ratickle]

$16 trillion GDP at 2.5% growth comes out to $400 billion in growth per year, or about $33 billion in growth every month. Bernanke is pumping $85 billion/month into the economy to get $33 billion growth. Without QE, our economy would be contracting at a rate of 5% or more for the last few years - a depression. QE isn't preventing a depression, it's just covering it up, with lots and lots of paper.

[Bobcat]

Обама является 52 летний идиот

[rschap1]

Huh?????????

[Bobcat]

Owebama is an 52 year old idiot in Cyrillic

[Buoy]

Owebama is an 52 year old idiot in Cyrillic

He's a 52 yr old idiot everywhere.

[Bobcat]

On Leno , Jay asked him about the Russians hosting the Olympics...and the anti gay laws Russia has in place....Owebama said..."Let them be Judged on the balance beam, and in the swimming pools."


Uh....Bammy..it's the Winter Olympics

[Bobcat]

[Ratickle]

[Bobcat]

[Bobcat]

Terrifying.


The Plight of the Obama Supporter
By Chad Stafko

So you voted for Barack Obama back in 2008, and perhaps you helped to re-elect him in 2012. How's that working out for you?

Chances are, not well. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that those who most supported Obama have fared the worst under his policies. This, in turn, raises the question as to why these people would vote for someone who has economically been such as failure. The answers to that question are troubling indeed.

Rewind to the 2012 elections. The table below shows the ten counties or county equivalents which garnered the largest proportion of Obama votes alongside the current unemployment rates in those counties. Every one of those counties has a higher unemployment rate than the overall U.S. rate of 7.4%. In fact, the average unemployment rate of these counties is 13.7%, more than 6% higher than the national rate.

COUNTY


Percent Obama Vote


Unemployment Rate %

Shannon, SD


93


14.5

Bronx, NY


91


11.8

Petersburg, VA


90


10.8

Prince George's, MD


90


7.6

Jefferson, MS


89


19.9

Claiborne, MS


88


17.6

Baltimore City, MD


87


11.2

Macon, AL


87


9.6

Menominee, WI


86


17.7

Starr, TX


86


16.2

Perhaps more fascinating is that seven of these counties or equivalents were also among the top ten voting for Obama in 2008.

What do these results tell us? They show that the state of the economy is of no relevance to these people's vote. Look: give these voters a pass in 2008, as they could have fallen for the messianic portrayal of Obama as fixing all that is wrong in the world. But to again overwhelmingly support him in 2012 indicates that these folks simply don't care about the nation's economic success -- or their own.

That's sad, but there are other demographic groups that apparently feel the same way.

If we look at Obama voters by race, we see similar overwhelming support and corresponding massive economic suffering. Some 93% of African-Americans cast their ballot for Obama in 2012 following a 95% clip in the 2008 election. Yet the economic plight of African-Americans has been dismal and well-chronicled during Obama's reign, including the most recent unemployment statistics that show African-Americans with a 12.6% rate versus the 7.4% national mark.

However, the one group that has arguably suffered the most under the Obama presidency is the young adult group -- those ages 18-29.

The 18- to 29-year-old crowd voted for Obama over Romney 60% to 37% in 2012. Yet their economic state is abyssal.

Those between the ages of 20 and 24 have an unemployment rate of 12.6%.
As of the end of 2012, some 22 million young adults were back at home living with their parents.
Total student debt for young adults has risen to over $1 trillion, as graduates have found it difficult to obtain a full-time job pertinent to their education.
The average Class of '13 graduate owes $35,200 in total debt.

Then we have the voters we might term as economically challenged back in 2012 -- defined by families making less than $50,000 per year. Sixty percent of these voters cast their ballots for Obama, the same percentage as in 2008. Yet over the five-plus years of the Obama presidency, we've seen the income gap widen every year, with that gap currently at an all-time high.

While during Obama's presidency we've seen the income gap widen, we've also seen 15 million more Americans added to the food stamp program and another 10 million considered to be in poverty.

Putting all this together, why, then, would all these groups overwhelmingly support a president who has such an atrocious economic record when he ran again in 2012? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Logic tells us that if you aren't concerned about the economy, then it may well be that you aren't dependent on the economy to sustain your livelihood. In other words, you're not connected to the economy.

If that's the case, then the other option is that you are dependent on the government. Therefore, it's natural that you would cast your ballot for the candidate who promises the larger government. That was, both in 2008 and in 2012, none other than Barack Obama.

That idea, that we have so many Americans not attached to the vitality of economic growth, is frightening. It stands to reason that as the population which doesn't depend on the economy for its livelihood grows, its members will in turn become a bigger part of the voting bloc and thereby likely vote to continue expanding the size and scope of the government.

It's that trend, if it continues, which could eventually cause our nation and our way of life to implode.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com.

Share on email Email

Read more: Articles: The Plight of the Obama Supporter
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Bobcat]

This hasn't been vetted, but it is interesting.

[fund razor]

"Could have been me, thirty years ago."

[Bobcat]

I've never been bored enough to shoot someone...

[Bobcat]