All you radical liberals blubbering doesn't change the fact that the number of people on food stamps doubled under obama
Food stamps are at the State Level. Also, they didn't double, I;m not going to go into the math this time, but the math doesn't support the case for doubling, though I will allow that there has been a sizable increase. However, as it was quite clearly a result of a economic downturn that wasn't caused by Obama(and predated him by some time, the root of which lies as far back as the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations), the blame cannot fall on him.
Obama knew he'd have to do this to win reelection.
Well now that's just preposterous. You're actually saying that The President, somehow took matters that were out of his control(in control of the States themselves), into his own hands, and made sure more people would be on food stamps? Christ, next thing you know, you'll be harping on about HAARP, and Chemtrails, and other completely @#%^ing ludicrous bullsh*t.
Incidentally this is also why
8% 7.9% employment has become the new norm.
7.9% really isn't that
bad(. And, in comparison, during the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was at 25% at its highest, it hit 7.9% when Truman was in the White House, 9.0% under Ford, 10.8% under Reagan(and remained that way for almost 2 years with minimal fluctuation), etc. Also, the unemployment rate was steadily increasing since May 2005, which can definitely not be blamed on Obama, and has been steadily declining since October 2009. Your argument is moot at this point but I'll continue, mostly for my own amusement.
This was done on purpose to swell the ranks of the people that vote democrat. It's a simple fact that leeches primarily vote Democrat.
Your statement is completely impossible within the realm of what's actually within the power of the Head Of State. Also, by your logic, the Unemployment rate should still be in the double digits, as the unemployed tend to become "leeches", who you say mostly vote Democrat.
The reason the gop isn't winning national elections is quite simple to understand and far more difficult to solve. The Democrats have created so many dependant citizens the numbers just aren't in our favor.
Actually, they are, the GOP just keeps fielding people who aren't viable as real leaders. What happened anyway? I mean, George H. W. Bush was/is a good man, and was a good leader, even if he doesn't get much credit for some very, very good moves on his part. Reagan, though I disagree with his economic ideas, was a strong, likeable man with great conviction and worthy of great respect(IMO), Nixon, while crooked, was willing to do what needed to be done to get sh*t done. Eisenhower was intelligent, rational, analytical, and very much loved by the people due to his part in WW2. If the GOP wants to win, they need to put forward someone who wont be sidetracked by things that are not, in any rational world, difficult issues. I mean, you talk about small government, but you want the government to be involved in everything that it shouldn't be involved in. Gay marriage? It's irrational to keep the fight against it going when it has absolutely zero effect on the things people claim to be against it for, re: their own religion, as if religious bias has any place in a modern government. Abortion? Same thing. Etc. Etc. Etc. Field someone who'll tackle the issues that actually matter, not just to the American public, but to the entire @#%^ing planet(because, lets be honest, we all depend on you guys not going under anytime soon) in the long run, which is to say, the next 10? 20? 100 years? The religious right are by no means a majority, stop pandering to them, and you'll stand a chance.
In a couple years when the economy has collapsed because of obamacare the gop will clean up in the mid terms just like we did 2 years ago.
The economy is improving, albeit very slowly, and not necessarily at the same rate in all areas of it. Just sayin'. Look at the numbers, numbers don't lie.