The headlines insinuation is that Obama is buying off areas that voted for him. When you say they should highlight these areas have received aid traditionally it turns into a statistic war. “They are receiving an average per capita of 26% percent more aid under Obama…” and other such irrelevant numbers.

I am suggesting the approach should lean to explaining the need for the funds with a focus on how these areas were UNDERFUNDED in the past. Isn’t that more in line with the argument? When the person you disagree with is skewing facts or making insinuations, my approach is to explain your position clearly, not waste time pointing out order of presentation.

It’s been imbalanced for a while so you shouldn’t point it out now? By your logic, if Obama were found to be waterboarding detainees, there should be no story. It started under Bush.

Obviously that is foolish. Perhaps you should argue the reality that Democrats run a larger percentage of social programs so of course they are going to receive more federal funds. If Republicans wanted to administrate more social programs, there would be more balance.

When you try to spin it instead of explain it we all lose. Educate people, yes it’s more work, but it’s much harder to argue against someones values than statistical spin.