need more? from the same article, "rather than admonish the Obama administration for resisting an opportunity to reduce deficits by streamlining possibly duplicative food-aid programs, some partisan sites are making false comparisons between workers and food-aid beneficiaries.
For example, the GOPUSA item is actually a recycling of an earlier item posted by CNSNews.com, another conservative site. The headline: “101M Get Food Aid from Federal Gov’t; Outnumber Full-Time Private Sector Workers”
The CNS item is a bit closer to being accurate, but misleads and exaggerates in multiple ways."
JT,you should really click on the link provided,read the entire article,then get back to me.
"I am for the immigration bill. Under Obama The Welfare Pimp we have more people on welfare than workers in the private sector."
To learn a bit about how partisans create false political propaganda, take a few moments to study what’s behind this headline: “More People Getting Government Food than Actually Working.”
That claim — appearing on the conservative GOPUSA site — is far from true.
The number of adults “actually working” was just under 136 million in April, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the number of adults — and children — getting any form of federal food assistance was put at 101 million by a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General.
In other words, the GOPUSA headline is off by 35 million people. It’s also a false apples-to-fruit-salad comparison and a fallacious dichotomy as well.
Can you,or would you eat a crane? Canadian geese on the other hand,I'm told, is quite tasty.
Speaking of which,those geese that were "euthanized" at Chatt.State,were they donated to the local food bank? If not,why?
Yeah Dawg,I'm glad to see these lunatics being exposed or exposing themselves! Maybe people won't be so quick to vote them into office next time.Who knows though?
What's wrong with this picture?
Jodie Laubenberg(Tx. anti-abortion legislator) has been arguing in favor of her proposed abortion restrictions under the logic that life begins at conception. “If you believe that (a fetus) is a human being, then that human being also has rights, and we must protect that baby’s rights,” Laubenberg said earlier this month. But she doesn’t necessarily take that stance when it comes to poorer women’s fetuses. In 2007, she proposed requiring pregnant women to wait three months before becoming eligible to receive prenatal and perinatal benefits under the Children’s Health Insurance Program. When Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia pointed out that change would kick more than 95,000 low-income women — and their unborn children — out of the government program, Laubenberg responded, “They’re not born yet.” When Anchia suggested her amendment wasn’t pro-life, Laubenberg yelled at him — but later withdrew her amendment.
can we spell "hipocrite"??
Were that all that keeps those folks up at night!
they're a scared bunch.I don't have to post links to the studies that have been done to show that they live in a little bubble.
Al,seems you've run 'em plumb off!
Baffled their collective ass,every one of them.
I tend to agree with Mahatma Gandhi,when he said,"I like your Christ,I do not like your Christians.Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."