June Foodstamp Recipients Hit All Time High As Three Times As Many Americans Enter Poverty As Find Jobs
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/04/2012 09:31 -0400
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
Following a brief period in which it seemed that US foodstamp recipients may have peaked, with those living in poverty maxing out at 46.514 million in December 2011, and then declining modestly for the next few months, June saw a new surge in those Americans living in poverty and thus eligible for foodstamps, with 173,600 new entrants into the system, bringing the total to a new all time high of 46.670 million and once again rising fast. Furthermore, with subsequent emergency events affecting the heartland due to the drought, the administration has made sure even more Americans will be eligible going forward. As a result expect the July and August numbers to promptly surpass 47 million on their way to the psychological resistance level of 50 million. Indicatively, the 173,600 increase in Foodstamps recipients in June was three times greater than Americans finding jobs (64,000, most of which part-time) according to the BLS. Finally, a new record was also breached for American households on foodstamps, which now hit 22.4 million, an increase of 106,298 households. The average benefit per household decline once more, this time to $276.5. Not an all time low, but just above it.
Persons on Foodstamps
Households on foodstamps
Source: SNAP
Average:
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)
» Login or register to post comments 1812 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
Where The “Segregated” PFG Money Is
The Zero Hedge Daily Round Up #117 - 31/08/2012
Futures Turn Negative, EUR Back To Pre-Summit Levels Following Global Easefest
RBS ‘Glitch’ Goes Airborne As Biggest Russian Bank Halts All Credit, Debit Card Operations
Frontrunning: July 4
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you hate minorities? Woah, wait…Sorry, somehow I channeled Chris Matthews.[/quote]
LOL…what a rabid lefty he is![/quote]
When he accused Gingrich of using racist code words for highlighting the food stamp facts during Obama’s first term…Now maybe that’s what jumps into Matthews’ head, minorities in welfare lines, but the fact of the matter is that PEOPLE need jobs. And to get those, we need new policies. To try and scare off discussion about these ‘hate facts’ is criminal. The above is a damned tragedy, and it takes a slimy human being to want to put it off limits. If he gave two craps about minorities–and oh yeah, those jobless whites overlooked by Matthews in his witch hunt for racism–more than his Man-Crush for Obama, he’d bring this topic up himself. Over and over again. The is the United States of America, and we can do a hell of lot better than the above suggests.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you hate minorities? Woah, wait…Sorry, somehow I channeled Chris Matthews.[/quote]
LOL…what a rabid lefty he is![/quote]
When he accused Gingrich of using racist code words for highlighting the food stamp facts during Obama’s first term…Now maybe that’s what jumps into Matthews’ head, minorities in welfare lines, but the fact of the matter is that PEOPLE need jobs. And to get those, we need new policies. To try and scare off discussion about these ‘hate facts’ is criminal. The above is a damned tragedy, and it takes a slimy human being to want to put it off limits. If he gave two craps about minorities–and oh yeah, those jobless whites overlooked by Matthews in his witch hunt for racism–more than his Man-Crush for Obama, he’d bring this topic up himself. Over and over again. The is the United States of America, and we can do a hell of lot better than the above suggests.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you hate minorities? Woah, wait…Sorry, somehow I channeled Chris Matthews.[/quote]
LOL…what a rabid lefty he is![/quote]
When he accused Gingrich of using racist code words for highlighting the food stamp facts during Obama’s first term…Now maybe that’s what jumps into Matthews’ head, minorities in welfare lines, but the fact of the matter is that PEOPLE need jobs. And to get those, we need new policies. To try and scare off discussion about these ‘hate facts’ is criminal. The above is a damned tragedy, and it takes a slimy human being to want to put it off limits. If he gave two craps about minorities–and oh yeah, those jobless whites overlooked by Matthews in his witch hunt for racism–more than his Man-Crush for Obama, he’d bring this topic up himself. Over and over again. The is the United States of America, and we can do a hell of lot better than the above suggests.[/quote]
Good post.
[/quote]
Yeah, the guy just riles me up now. There are way too many people hurting under Obama’s policies. When just 31% believe they’re doing better coming to the end of his term, it’s time to end the games.
I don’t understand why anyone other than those on the public dole would think that Obama deserves a second term, regardless of party. If you work and pay taxes why do you want Obama to be the President?
He has an economic record of disaster:
-The average income per family has fallen by $4,000
-Unemployment has been over 8% for 43 straight months (a record since the Great Depression.
-Debt has reached 16 trillion a hike of a full 4 trillion under Obama.
-Almost 45 million people on food stamps, which is another record.
If this guy were in charge of your finances would you give him the boot and hire Romney or give him another four years to drive you further down?
I mean…how much can he blame on his predecessor? Isn’t that why we hired him in the first place to bring us out of the mess we were in? Instead he made things worse.
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.
Which is not to say that this should or will change any minds. But it’s always good to remember that someone who knows more than you do disagrees with you. And that if you take an extreme position–that Obama has been an utter failure, to take an example, or that he has been a triumphant success, to take another–you will be wrong.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t understand why anyone other than those on the public dole would think that Obama deserves a second term, regardless of party. If you work and pay taxes why do you want Obama to be the President?
He has an economic record of disaster:
-The average income per family has fallen by $4,000
-Unemployment has been over 8% for 43 straight months (a record since the Great Depression.
-Debt has reached 16 trillion a hike of a full 4 trillion under Obama.
-Almost 45 million people on food stamps, which is another record.
If this guy were in charge of your finances would you give him the boot and hire Romney or give him another four years to drive you further down?
I mean…how much can he blame on his predecessor? Isn’t that why we hired him in the first place to bring us out of the mess we were in? Instead he made things worse.
Tell me how can anyone justify a vote for Obama?
I truly don’t get it.
[/quote]
me either. I do not believe these polls that show him at whatever % approval rating. I just have to wonder who the hell are they polling?
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.
Which is not to say that this should or will change any minds. But it’s always good to remember that someone who knows more than you do disagrees with you. And that if you take an extreme position–that Obama has been an utter failure, to take an example, or that he has been a triumphant success, to take another–you will be wrong.[/quote]
I was disgusted by the first section of that and refused to continue reading.
No I don’t know everything, but I’ll be damned if this whole keynesian spend spend spend by the government when we are between 10-16t in debt is a good idea.
It is time to try a new approach, because this bullshit is what got us in the mess we are in, and you can go as far back as FDR, and Reagan if you so please.
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.[/quote]
Bullshit. I have subscribed to and read The Economist for longer than you have been on this earth. Most prestigious according to whom? Firmly center of right? You are either being silly or simple. Here is a description of their positions taken from their wiki. Easy to find if you had any interest in the truth.
When the newsmagazine was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed “economic liberalism”. The Economist generally supports, free trade, globalisation,[21] and free immigration while also supporting social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. It has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more “reasonable”.[22] The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[23] According to former editor Bill Emmott, “the Economist’s philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.”[24] Individual contributors take diverse views. The Economist favours the support, via central banks, of banks and other important corporations. This principle can (in a much more limited form) be traced back to Walter Bagehot, the third editor of The Economist, who argued that the Bank of England should support major banks that got into difficulties.
The paper has also supported some socially liberal causes such as recognition of gay marriages,[25] legalisation of drugs,[26] and progressive taxation, criticising the U.S. tax model in a recent issue,[27] and seems to support some government regulation on health issues, such as smoking in public,[28] as well as bans on spanking children.[29] The Economist consistently favours guest worker programs, parental choice of school, and amnesties[30] and once published an “obituary” of God.[31] The Economist also has a long record of supporting gun control.
To review, globalism, legalization of drugs and prostitution, social liberalism, Keynesian economics, carbon tax, “always been liberal, never conservative”, gay marriage, progressive taxation, “obituary” of God and gun control.
Firmly center of right? You libtards are so funny.
SMH23, how does it feel to know that someone smarter than you disagrees with you?
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.[/quote]
Bullshit. I have subscribed to and read The Economist for longer than you have been on this earth. Most prestigious according to whom? Firmly center of right? You are either being silly or simple. Here is a description of their positions taken from their wiki. Easy to find if you had any interest in the truth.
When the newsmagazine was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed “economic liberalism”. The Economist generally supports, free trade, globalisation,[21] and free immigration while also supporting social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. It has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more “reasonable”.[22] The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[23] According to former editor Bill Emmott, “the Economist’s philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.”[24] Individual contributors take diverse views. The Economist favours the support, via central banks, of banks and other important corporations. This principle can (in a much more limited form) be traced back to Walter Bagehot, the third editor of The Economist, who argued that the Bank of England should support major banks that got into difficulties.
The paper has also supported some socially liberal causes such as recognition of gay marriages,[25] legalisation of drugs,[26] and progressive taxation, criticising the U.S. tax model in a recent issue,[27] and seems to support some government regulation on health issues, such as smoking in public,[28] as well as bans on spanking children.[29] The Economist consistently favours guest worker programs, parental choice of school, and amnesties[30] and once published an “obituary” of God.[31] The Economist also has a long record of supporting gun control.
To review, globalism, legalization of drugs and prostitution, social liberalism, Keynesian economics, carbon tax, “always been liberal, never conservative”, gay marriage, progressive taxation, “obituary” of God and gun control.
Firmly center of right? You libtards are so funny.
SMH23, how does it feel to know that someone smarter than you disagrees with you?[/quote]
First, I said “knows more,” as in these people get advanced degrees in economics from the most prestigious college at Oxford, and most of the rest of us do not. If I had said “is smarter,” I would have looked like an asshole. But you covered that base for me.
More to the point, I find it hard to believe that you know the magazine so well and yet resort to lifting a couple of specious–and many extremely irrelevant–points off of wikipedia in order to make your point. I specifically (and very deliberately) said that the magazine sits center right on economic issues, so your talk about gay marriage and drug legalization makes you look like a flailing jackass. Which you are.
Someone who actually knows the publication would say that it is socially liberal and economically conservative–not mouthbreathing, ‘Obama was born in Kenya’ conservative, but moderately so–with an extraordinarily consistent quasi-libertarian emphasis on liberalization (i.e., democratization), deregulation, and privatization (e.g., it vehemently opposes Dodd-Frank). There are very few columns that do not end with some variation of: “less red tape will help business flourish.” It is positively receptive to Mitt Romney, and hesitant in its approach to Obama.
It is progressive in that it condemns the proliferation of the nanny state, which has nothing to do with my point at all but was brought up by you in order to detract from your otherwise useless argument.
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.
Which is not to say that this should or will change any minds. But it’s always good to remember that someone who knows more than you do disagrees with you. And that if you take an extreme position–that Obama has been an utter failure, to take an example, or that he has been a triumphant success, to take another–you will be wrong.[/quote]
I was disgusted by the first section of that and refused to continue reading.
No I don’t know everything, but I’ll be damned if this whole keynesian spend spend spend by the government when we are between 10-16t in debt is a good idea.
It is time to try a new approach, because this bullshit is what got us in the mess we are in, and you can go as far back as FDR, and Reagan if you so please. [/quote]
Debt is bad. But there aren’t many reputable economists in the country today who would argue that the economy would have been better off had the financial and industrial structures on which it relies been allowed to crumble.
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.
Which is not to say that this should or will change any minds. But it’s always good to remember that someone who knows more than you do disagrees with you. And that if you take an extreme position–that Obama has been an utter failure, to take an example, or that he has been a triumphant success, to take another–you will be wrong.[/quote]
I was disgusted by the first section of that and refused to continue reading.
No I don’t know everything, but I’ll be damned if this whole keynesian spend spend spend by the government when we are between 10-16t in debt is a good idea.
It is time to try a new approach, because this bullshit is what got us in the mess we are in, and you can go as far back as FDR, and Reagan if you so please. [/quote]
Debt is bad. But there aren’t many reputable economists in the country today who would argue that the economy would have been better off had the financial and industrial structures on which it relies been allowed to crumble.[/quote]
That is because douchebags like Krugman are winning awards.
And all the people who disagree with him are either dead now, or have been pushed down and ignored while he writes for the LA Democrat, oops I mean LA Times.
TARP should have gone to the people if they were going to spend it, not their crony’s. At least the shovel ready stimulus, the parts he wasn’t using to bribe for health care votes, did something.
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.[/quote]
Bullshit. I have subscribed to and read The Economist for longer than you have been on this earth. Most prestigious according to whom? Firmly center of right? You are either being silly or simple. Here is a description of their positions taken from their wiki. Easy to find if you had any interest in the truth.
When the newsmagazine was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed “economic liberalism”. The Economist generally supports, free trade, globalisation,[21] and free immigration while also supporting social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. It has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more “reasonable”.[22] The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[23] According to former editor Bill Emmott, “the Economist’s philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.”[24] Individual contributors take diverse views. The Economist favours the support, via central banks, of banks and other important corporations. This principle can (in a much more limited form) be traced back to Walter Bagehot, the third editor of The Economist, who argued that the Bank of England should support major banks that got into difficulties.
The paper has also supported some socially liberal causes such as recognition of gay marriages,[25] legalisation of drugs,[26] and progressive taxation, criticising the U.S. tax model in a recent issue,[27] and seems to support some government regulation on health issues, such as smoking in public,[28] as well as bans on spanking children.[29] The Economist consistently favours guest worker programs, parental choice of school, and amnesties[30] and once published an “obituary” of God.[31] The Economist also has a long record of supporting gun control.
To review, globalism, legalization of drugs and prostitution, social liberalism, Keynesian economics, carbon tax, “always been liberal, never conservative”, gay marriage, progressive taxation, “obituary” of God and gun control.
Firmly center of right? You libtards are so funny.
SMH23, how does it feel to know that someone smarter than you disagrees with you?[/quote]
First, I said “knows more,” as in these people get advanced degrees in economics from the most prestigious college at Oxford, and most of the rest of us do not. If I had said “is smarter,” I would have looked like an asshole. But you covered that base for me.
More to the point, I find it hard to believe that you know the magazine so well and yet resort to lifting a couple of specious–and many extremely irrelevant–points off of wikipedia in order to make your point. I specifically (and very deliberately) said that the magazine sits center right on economic issues, so your talk about gay marriage and drug legalization makes you look like a flailing jackass. Which you are.
Someone who actually knows the publication would say that it is socially liberal and economically conservative–not mouthbreathing, ‘Obama was born in Kenya’ conservative, but moderately so–with an extraordinarily consistent quasi-libertarian emphasis on liberalization (i.e., democratization), deregulation, and privatization (e.g., it vehemently opposes Dodd-Frank). There are very few columns that do not end with some variation of: “less red tape will help business flourish.” It is positively receptive to Mitt Romney, and hesitant in its approach to Obama.
It is progressive in that it condemns the proliferation of the nanny state, which has nothing to do with my point at all but was brought up by you in order to detract from your otherwise useless argument.[/quote]
You should have made a run at this after a good nights sleep. Maybe it would have made sense.
I spent the first seven years after college traveling 43 weeks a year. I lived in airports and devoured every new issue of The Economist. I was also a libtard at this time and voted for Dukakis and Clinton.
I settled, married and started raising a family. I maintained a print subscription to The Economist. I also grew up politically and emotionally and starting using phrases like “I think” instead of “I feel.” My critical thinking skills began to sharpen as well.
Today, I get up early every day, look over my digital subscription of The Economist and my many other news sources on my Nook and computer and began a long day of hard work and critical thinking as over twenty five people and their families, not counting my own, depend on my right action so that they can make a living and provide for their loved ones.
You feel 'Bam has done a good job and found an article to fortify your position. You built up its source be be something perhaps more than it is to back your point.
You’ve got time. Maybe one out of your liberal infested University (UT perhaps?) you will enter the real world, maybe start a family and start to see the world through a different lens.
This might be of interest if we are talking about “Obama land.” The Economist is the most prestigious periodical published in the English language right now, and it is firmly center of right when it comes to business and the economy. Firmly.[/quote]
Bullshit. I have subscribed to and read The Economist for longer than you have been on this earth. Most prestigious according to whom? Firmly center of right? You are either being silly or simple. Here is a description of their positions taken from their wiki. Easy to find if you had any interest in the truth.
When the newsmagazine was founded, the term “economism” denoted what would today be termed “economic liberalism”. The Economist generally supports, free trade, globalisation,[21] and free immigration while also supporting social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. It has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more “reasonable”.[22] The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[23] According to former editor Bill Emmott, “the Economist’s philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.”[24] Individual contributors take diverse views. The Economist favours the support, via central banks, of banks and other important corporations. This principle can (in a much more limited form) be traced back to Walter Bagehot, the third editor of The Economist, who argued that the Bank of England should support major banks that got into difficulties.
The paper has also supported some socially liberal causes such as recognition of gay marriages,[25] legalisation of drugs,[26] and progressive taxation, criticising the U.S. tax model in a recent issue,[27] and seems to support some government regulation on health issues, such as smoking in public,[28] as well as bans on spanking children.[29] The Economist consistently favours guest worker programs, parental choice of school, and amnesties[30] and once published an “obituary” of God.[31] The Economist also has a long record of supporting gun control.
To review, globalism, legalization of drugs and prostitution, social liberalism, Keynesian economics, carbon tax, “always been liberal, never conservative”, gay marriage, progressive taxation, “obituary” of God and gun control.
Firmly center of right? You libtards are so funny.
SMH23, how does it feel to know that someone smarter than you disagrees with you?[/quote]
First, I said “knows more,” as in these people get advanced degrees in economics from the most prestigious college at Oxford, and most of the rest of us do not. If I had said “is smarter,” I would have looked like an asshole. But you covered that base for me.
More to the point, I find it hard to believe that you know the magazine so well and yet resort to lifting a couple of specious–and many extremely irrelevant–points off of wikipedia in order to make your point. I specifically (and very deliberately) said that the magazine sits center right on economic issues, so your talk about gay marriage and drug legalization makes you look like a flailing jackass. Which you are.
Someone who actually knows the publication would say that it is socially liberal and economically conservative–not mouthbreathing, ‘Obama was born in Kenya’ conservative, but moderately so–with an extraordinarily consistent quasi-libertarian emphasis on liberalization (i.e., democratization), deregulation, and privatization (e.g., it vehemently opposes Dodd-Frank). There are very few columns that do not end with some variation of: “less red tape will help business flourish.” It is positively receptive to Mitt Romney, and hesitant in its approach to Obama.
It is progressive in that it condemns the proliferation of the nanny state, which has nothing to do with my point at all but was brought up by you in order to detract from your otherwise useless argument.[/quote]
You should have made a run at this after a good nights sleep. Maybe it would have made sense.
I spent the first seven years after college traveling 43 weeks a year. I lived in airports and devoured every new issue of The Economist. I was also a libtard at this time and voted for Dukakis and Clinton.
I settled, married and started raising a family. I maintained a print subscription to The Economist. I also grew up politically and emotionally and starting using phrases like “I think” instead of “I feel.” My critical thinking skills began to sharpen as well.
Today, I get up early every day, look over my digital subscription of The Economist and my many other news sources on my Nook and computer and began a long day of hard work and critical thinking as over twenty five people and their families, not counting my own, depend on my right action so that they can make a living and provide for their loved ones.
You feel 'Bam has done a good job and found an article to fortify your position. You built up its source be be something perhaps more than it is to back your point.
You’ve got time. Maybe one out of your liberal infested University (UT perhaps?) you will enter the real world, maybe start a family and start to see the world through a different lens.[/quote]
This is a fine story, but it didn’t address a single one of my points. The fact that you work has literally nothing to do with this, and is unremarkable for the further reason that it is something that most of us on this board do.
Any intelligent person who reads the magazine (and most are) will tell you, if asked about its political bent, a version of what I wrote above. I notice that you didn’t address it substantively, at all, so I’ll just leave it at that. I didn’t “build up” the Economist’s credibility–if you know of a more highly regarded periodical, especially among the elite, please tell us. But I’ll tell you that I work in journalism and within the industry, the Economist has far and away supplanted Newsweek as the magazine of the smartest and richest. Hands down.
On a further note, I didn’t go to UT, I’m no longer in either college or graduate school, and I work full time. That you and a few others around here feel the need throw in a few digs about age every once in a while is funny, because I don’t consider your relative proximity to decrepit senility to be an advantage of any kind.
You feel 'Bam has done a good job and found an article to fortify your position. You built up its source be be something perhaps more than it is to back your point.
You’ve got time. Maybe one out of your liberal infested University (UT perhaps?) you will enter the real world, maybe start a family and start to see the world through a different lens.[/quote]
And for the record, I never said anything like “I feel 'Bam has done a good job.”
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t understand why anyone other than those on the public dole would think that Obama deserves a second term, regardless of party. If you work and pay taxes why do you want Obama to be the President?
He has an economic record of disaster:
-The average income per family has fallen by $4,000
-Unemployment has been over 8% for 43 straight months (a record since the Great Depression.
-Debt has reached 16 trillion a hike of a full 4 trillion under Obama.
-Almost 45 million people on food stamps, which is another record.
If this guy were in charge of your finances would you give him the boot and hire Romney or give him another four years to drive you further down?
I mean…how much can he blame on his predecessor? Isn’t that why we hired him in the first place to bring us out of the mess we were in? Instead he made things worse.
Tell me how can anyone justify a vote for Obama?
I truly don’t get it.
[/quote]
me either. I do not believe these polls that show him at whatever % approval rating. I just have to wonder who the hell are they polling?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, I do believe the polls. As I said the other day there are 7 reasons why Obama will be hard to beat:
He has increased the number of people on some form of public assistance. Now most of those people are appreciative and have decided that not working and getting paid is much more to their liking than actually working and getting paid. He has thus created more constituents.
He has been the most divisive President in the history of the country. That means that if you were a democrat you would most likely defend him even though you know in your heart the man has not performed up to par.
He has befriended the many illegal aliens. And by doing this he has gained the trust of the large hispanic vote. This same group voted for Ronald Reagan, but they are now lost to the democrats.
His sleaze machine jumped on Romney from the beginning and painted him as an evil rich guy. He’s a tax cheat, a liar and one ad even portrayed him as a murderer! And Romney was constrained by how much he could spend until after the nomination process. Thus enabling Obama to inaccurately portray him as someone who is out of touch with the needs of the typical American.
That same sleaze machine created a ficticious republican “war on women”. I must say while many on the right were saying that it would never work, it worked and was brilliant! And because of that Obama leads Romney with women. Where this will end in November is anyone’s guess. But it is doubtful that Romney will win this group
The single largest group that has been harmed by Obama, Black Americans, are the most loyal to Obama and for obvious reasons. They will vote for Obama by about 95%! Never mind that black unemployment is 16% they will stick with Obama.
Finally, the main stream liberal media which comprises about 8 out of every 10 outlets has given Obama a free pass on his horrible record. One need only think back to the way they attacked George Bush for high gas prices (remember the comments about his oil pals getting rich?). Gas prices were at that time $1.82 per gallon. That same gallon of gasoline now costs $3.85 and we can hear crickets chirping when it comes to the press speaking out. That’s not entirely fair, they’re not completely quiet. We do hear an occasional comment or two about how gas prices are out of the Presidents control. I guess they won’t be within the Presidents control until we have a republican President again.
And as I have predicted the press will do everything in their power to reelect Obama. And if the election stays as close as it is they will pull out all stops in tarnishing Romney. I call this the Mormon card. And it will be played at some point prior to the election. And if it is not the Mormon card it will be something else. Please mark my words the press will NOT allow Romney to win this election without playing multiple dirty tricks.
These are the main reasons why Obama is polling as well as he is. And these are the reasons that it will be very difficult to unseat this President.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I’ll tell you that I work in journalism and within the industry, [/quote]
Any insight into why the modern media and 24 news cycle sucks balls, and basically panders to one side or the other?
Also, who or what is concidered quality independant news these days? (I’m thinking along the lines of blogs and other type non-mega-corporate owned and baised media outlets.)