(Image) AP: Obama ignores almost 50% of America as President
Note the third item down in a screencap of an AP menu at right. It came up in the sidebar of this story.
But it doesn’t say “blue” on the map. It says “swing” states.
Here’s the link to the AP pop-up if it works. I’ve also made a screencap below.
Mitt Romney was pilloried for his 47% remark.
Why doesn’t the AP point out that an administration tasked with governing all of America has only bothered with about half of it in three years?
So much for Obama bringing America together and all that BS.
Yep! Remember most stimulus $ (that didn’t got to China or Slendra or Mexico, or whatever) went to those same blue states.
Actually, the money went to liberal state unions and their pensions.
This is a surprise? Of course he didn’t visit red states. He HATES them in general and white people in particular. When he said he meant to make fundamental changes in the U.S., he was dead serious. Every one of those changes was deliberately intended to hurt white non-Hispanic Americans.
Red states = “bitter clingers”
Silly Dan, you know the answer. “They’re just Democratic Party operatives with bylines now”. Thanks Glen.
Did I miss something or did you? The chart claims that this is just 7 months worth in 2009, where does it claim to cover the last 3 1/2 years?
The federal government hates the red states so much that it sends them more in federal spending than it collects in taxes! We need to stop them from making red states dependent on Washington. Let’s declare our independence from inside the Beltway bureaucrats by refusing these excess funds!
For the ignorant or innumerate, who otherwise might not know, you need to acknowledge that only 60% of total federal spending is supported by taxes. Comparing total spending with taxes, without the 6/10 factor, is a meaningless (thus typically leftist) thing to do. The meaningful question this year is, “Do the red states send more or less than 60 cents to DC for every federal dollar they get back?”
Actually, the truly meaningful question this year is, “How can we cut federal spending to 60% of 2012 levels?”
The real question is not “Do the red states send more or less than 60 cents to DC for every federal dollar they get back?”, but “When you rank states on the net dollars they either send to, or receive from, DC, how do the red states rank?” And whether we do it on a dollar for dollar basis, or 60 cents per dollar, the answer is the same. The red states do substantially better than the blue states on a per capita basis. The 60 cent factor only changes the absolute dollars in the ranking, not the standings. Someone who believes that he is either well informed or numerate should easily grasp this concept.
That’s because a lot of the profits of red-state productivity are collected by blue-state investors, and the taxes derived from that productivity are paid from the blue states.
The location of the cash register is not necessarily where the money is made … so the perception that red-staters are hypocritical freeloaders is false.
And we can redress most of that imbalance by running Yankee retirees back to the frozen hells they come from.
And so they wouldn’t contribute to the economy of your state? Isn’t that a well-considered response!
Bottom line: The average republican person pays more in taxes than the average democrat. So by your logic, we need to tax democrats at a higher rate.
When you get creative with your data that includes states that are 60/40 blue or red, you end up with this same stupid statistic that is quoted all over the internet.
And your assertion about the level of taxes paid by Democrats and Republicans is based on what? I’d be interested in seeing the facts that back this assertion up.
Its not an administration, its an ever lasting campaign.
Regardless if it is 3.5 years or the last 7 months, the department secretaries and AG should not be campaigning.
One of the more interesting is Energy Secretary Chu, who never visited Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas or Oklahoma…even after the BP oil spill shut down production throughout the US Gulf.
If it wasn’t for the money laundering of tax dollars there wouldn’t be a democratic party. This is an out in the open, in your face, crime.
[...] Image AP: Obama ignores almost 50% of America as President – Riehl World News. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Traveling With Precious Metals – International Man [...]
[...] AP: Obama ignores almost 50% of America as President(Riehl Worldview ) [...]
It’s official: Barack Obama is not my President. When do the payroll deductions and insane regulations stop?
Whether you think he’s your President or not, he was elected by a majority of the voters of this country. Not like Bush in 2000, when he got 47.9% of the popular vote.
The first 7 months? He’s been president for 3.5 years and suddenly you post a map of his travel for his first 7 months? What’s next, an analysis of job losses through July 2009? And with respect to the stimulus, let’s not forget that some red states actually rejected their stimulus money out of spite. Question for George B: the payroll tax breaks were implemented and extended by Obama, not stopped. You got that backward. And who equates governing with visiting anyway? This seems to be one of those conservative echo-chamber sites where everyone agrees with everything posted and finds stats to justify their own predetermined points of view.
“And with respect to the stimulus, let’s not forget that some red states actually rejected their stimulus money out of spite.”
That isn’t just a lie…that is a stupid lie.
Some states rejected stimulus money out of a desire to remain free of the strings that went with it.
SOME rejected it because they know it was corrupt, and was shifting debt to unborn Americans in the name of debunked Keynesian perversions that only a few idiots actually believe work.
This is a surprise to anybody? Anybody?