Fox no longer a news organization

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The problem is, not enough centerists. Just look at the posts here on this board.
The problem is, political labeling by the MSM has been accepted as the gospel by the low info voters. Just because conservatives hold fast to a set of principles - the same way liberals hold to theirs - doesn't make them extremists. Obama is a prime example; his definition of compromise is for the GOP to agree to his terms - they give ground and he agrees. The same labeling applies to the MSM tarring GW Bush as a "radical right-winger"; he was anything but, being a spendaholic, big government, open borders advocate. However, compared to Obama he probably could be called "radical" right. "Moderate" sounds good in the sense of everybody wanting to "get along", but there are some principles that shouldn't be compromised like spending way more money than we take in, and providing living welfare wages to those that won't work.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I agree that we shouldn't be spending way more than we take in, but the R side only wants to make cuts [in taxes & programs], whereas it seems we should also be considering the 'taking in' side of the equation.
And the misconception about welfare is just abysmally ignorant: it doesn't pay "living wages" to anyone, ever, but even worse is the insistent declaration that it goes to people who "won't work". Aside from anecdotal stories, how do you support such a belief?
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And the misconception about welfare is just abysmally ignorant: it doesn't pay "living wages" to anyone, ever, but even worse is the insistent declaration that it goes to people who "won't work". Aside from anecdotal stories, how do you support such a belief?
It's actually pretty easy - here ya go (bold emphasis mine):
'Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” which offers extra subsidies to low-income workers who take work. “In 13 states [welfare] pays more than $15 per hour.'

In Cato’s new 2013 study, welfare paid more than $10 an hour in 33 states; 17 paid less than $8 an hour. Comparing the two data sets and accounting for inflation, 18 states saw a decline in the total value of welfare benefits; 32 states and the District of Columbia saw increases.

Tanner and Hughes award the national welfare championship to Hawaii, which offers $60,590 in annual welfare benefits, once you account for the fact that welfare benefits are tax-free to the recipient, compared to work-related wages. That’s the equivalent of $29.13 an hour. Rounding out the top five were D.C. ($50,820 per year and $24.43 an hour), Massachusetts ($50,540 and $24.30), Connecticut ($44,370 and $21.33), and New York ($43,700 and $21.01).

On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

There seems to be a certain irony regarding abysmally ignorant misconceptions:rolleyes:
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
This isn't a new phenomenon, either. Back in the early 80s I interviewed a lot of people for restaurant jobs, and that's when I became keenly aware that welfare paid more than working did. I had a lot of people reluctant to leave welfare behind for a real job, because they'd be taking a pay cut. And these weren't necessarily minimum wage jobs, either. In Nashville especially, competition for good restaurant workers was tough, so you have to pay well above minimum wage to attract and keep good people. And this was in KY and TN where welfare benefits was (and still is) on the low end of the scale.

And it's not just a dollar for dollar pay cut in comparing the two, once you figure in the costs of having a job. Even in those state which pay less than minimum wage, welfare still paid more in the end. The article mentions welfare benefits being tax-free, but there are other things like the costs of getting to work that you don't have to pay if you're on welfare. Not just gas, but more oil changes and other maintenance if you have a car. There's the cost of buying and/or maintaining uniforms or other work attire. The added cost of eating out more often, lots of other ancillary costs that you do't incur when not working. All this plus Medicare and Social Security taxes can easily add up to $80 a week or more, which means that even if the job pays more than $2 an hour more than welfare, welfare is till more net money. And if children and child care were involved, forget it. Plus, with the job you have to actually do some work for it and with welfare you don't. In Nashville we had a starting wage of $3 more than minimum wage and we still had trouble getting people to abandon welfare for the job.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So many facts that don't support the popular theories. Don't forget the millions, probably billions with a B, that are given to criminal aliens who should receive absolutely zero under any circumstances whatsoever.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Make no mistake, the biggest cost driver to government is entitlements. Some are deserved and should be paid. There is way to much "free" stuff that is given out by the Feds and at the state level. Now we are adding all the costs of illegals in. Total insanity.
So what is Obama's response today? He wants to send a billion dollars to South America. Maybe they won't come here if we pay them to stay there?
Almost forgot speaking of free stuff, Obama wants two years of college to be free. Not to be outdone, Biden said today it should be four. They just can't help themselves.
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Never fear. Someone will be along shortly to educate us as to how we aren't overspending on entitlements and how they don't provide any sort of life or living to the recipients. It's just meanness to think such things.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Right on cue, Obama has come forward to do away with the "sequester cuts" which were really not that significant to begin with. BTW, most all of this has been reported on Fox News - just so we don't get too far off the subject of the thread.:p
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Never fear. Someone will be along shortly to educate us as to how we aren't overspending on entitlements and how they don't provide any sort of life or living to the recipients. It's just meanness to think such things.
Now your catching on. There is hope for you after all. :p
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
It's actually pretty easy - here ya go (bold emphasis mine):


There seems to be a certain irony regarding abysmally ignorant misconceptions:rolleyes:

Cato's 'study' assumes recipients get all the available welfare, which is just ludicrous. There are 7 programs:

Temporary Assistance To Needy Families [notice the first word? This is the only one that provides 'cash', but not much, not for long, and since '96, only if the recipient is working, looking for work, or in school. And it's still temporary.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: food stamps. Most people collecting them are working, many full time.

Medicaid: good luck finding a doc who will accept it - most won't.

Housing: waiting lists are years long.

Utilities: Worked real well in Detroit, I notice.

Women, Infants, & Children: solely for pregnant, and nursing mothers, eligible foods strictly limited.

Emergency Food Assistance: strictly limited in scope, cannot be used regularly.

And BTW, Turtle's experience may well be valid, but that's 20 years ago - things have changed, and the states [which are in charge of determining eligibility & benefits] don't like giving it away these days. The chances of getting all the benefits Cato includes are about the same as winning the lottery. And what about those who are simply unemployable? For whatever reason, [like a criminal record], should they be homeless and hungry?

Y'all think that reducing benefits [which are meager to begin with, after having been cut several times in the last decade] will make people find a job to replace them?
Maybe, but the greater likelihood is that they won't, because those jobs are gone with the wind. That's the first thing that I don't get: what do you see happening if the serious income inequality problem isn't addressed, and stopped? We understand that inequality is an inherent part of capitalism, but it's just gone too far. Profits increase [in part] because productivity increases, but the gains aren't passed on or shared, so management gets richer and labor falls further behind. How much longer can people absorb that, before the whole country becomes Ferguson?
This is the other thing I don't get: why doesn't this

matter, in your view?

Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Medicaid: good luck finding a doc who will accept it - most won't.
The national average is 69 percent of doctors do, in fact, accept Medicaid. It varies by state, with New Jersey being the low end at 40.4% and Wyoming on the other end at 99%. Kentucky is 79.4%, MI is 81.1%, WI 93%, and Ohio is at 72%. New Jersey is the only state that's below 50%, and CA at 57.1% and FL at 59.1% are the only other states below 60%.

And BTW, Turtle's experience may well be valid, but that's 20 years ago - things have changed, and the states [which are in charge of determining eligibility & benefits] don't like giving it away these days. The chances of getting all the benefits Cato includes are about the same as winning the lottery.
Yeah, things have changed - they're worse. Instead of just a scant handful of different programs that people could be on, now there are now dozens different programs, which means more people are on them, especially after Obamacare expanded the roles of those who are eligible. No, not everybody is on all of them, but more people are on more than one of them. Did you know there are more people in the US receiving welfare, in one form or another, than there are people in Russia?

Some families are on fewer programs, others are on significantly more programs. There are some programs (like TANF in some cases) where you need to work at least 30 hours a week, but if you work more than about 32 hours, or if the job pays even minimally more than minimum wage, you lose the benefit. So a program designed to get people off welfare and back to work actually forces them to seek out and accept minimum wage jobs. It has put downward pressure on starting wages. An alarming number of people have simply gotten themselves diagnosed as mentally disabled to get Social Security benefits, and thus be automatically qualified for a plethora of other welfare programs, without having to worry about working too many hours or not enough, because they don't have to work at all.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I think the hundreds of millions and most likely billions being given to criminal aliens should be reduced all the way to zero. I think the multi-generational recipients should probably be put on a very short leash and cut off in a reasonable time so they give up the family business of professional welfare recipients. Yes, there are such people, and more than a few as my dad had several such families as patients, seeing the 3rd generation when he was practicing medicine.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Turtle is correct in that the problem is getting worse, not better. The people on entitlements are growing at a rapid rate. Give people their regular benefits, two years of that free college along with a childcare subsidy for, and after that, zip, nothing. Have to put a limit on it unless they are ill or carry a disability. Commit those three in a row crimes, good bye benefits. When they didn't extended unemployment benefits what happened last year? Yep, most went out and got a job. Amazing how that happens.
How do you pay for it? From the money you save by cutting off the welfare life timers. If you are a little short, cut the money going to illegals and foreign countries that hate us. No need to raise taxes.
Have to show compassion without being foolish. We see what that foolishness has gotten us so far.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The war on drugs, poverty, education, illegal aliens, terrorism.

Every problem the government throws money at gets worse with every dollar thrown.

Look at drugs. It used to be a fringe thing, now it's a real problem. The War on Drugs and the laws against them aren't even based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs, but rather, it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs.

The first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants because they were the only ones using it in any real numbers. The first anti-cocaine laws, in the South in the early 1900s, were directed at black men for the same reason. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. Then the 60s happened and Nixon freaked out, thanks in large part to a generation gap and being out of touch. He introduced the War on Drugs in 1971 and greatly increased the size and presence of drug enforcement agencies. Carter pulled things back a bit, but Reagan doubled down and expanded the fight against drugs. Nancy's "Just Say No" campaign had the exact opposite effect, which shouldn't be surprising. In 1970 there were a little under 8,000 people in the entire nation behind bars for nonviolent drug offenses. In 1980 it ballooned to a startling 50,000 people. In 1983 Los Angeles Police Chief Darrel "casual drug users should be taken out and shot" Gates founded the D.A.R.E. program, and by 1997 that 50,000 people ballooned once again and became more than 400,000 people.

Between 1975 and 2012 American spent more than $1 trillion fighting the drug war. Obama's 2013 budget contains $25.6 billion in federal spending to fight drugs, and when you combine that with state and local spending, it becomes $51 billion.

So, have all these millions and millions spent over the last 15 or so years had an impact on the War on Drugs? Why, yes, yes it has!

The US now has the world's largest incarceration rate, with 48% of the nation's 2.2 million prisoners, more than 1 million of them, serving time for non-violent drug offenses, up from that paltry 400,000.

It used to be that Americans were at the top of the list in education, academics, intelligence and innovation. But the disparity between the education of rich and middle class kids compared to poor kids kept Lyndon Johnson awake at night, despite the fact that throughout the entire history of history poor kids have always been less educated than those more well off. But he was determined to fix that, dammit. Thus came the double-barreled fight for the War on Poverty and the War on Education. Instead of raising the standard of living and quality of education of poor people, it has lowered the standard of living for the middle class and lowered the quality of education for an entire nation. Instead of at the top of the lists, we're now in the middle or near the bottom of most of them. We now have record numbers of stupid, uneducated people, living in record numbers of poverty.

Since the 70s we've spending gazillions of dollars to secure the borders and eliminate illegal aliens, despite the fact that illegals weren't even a problem in the 60s until Senator Ted Kennedy (and Cellar and Hart) passed legislation that abolished the National Origin Formula for immigration numbers, because he (and they) felt it was too discriminatory. Since the 70s, the more we've spent on illegal immigration the worse the problem has become.

The War on Terrorism has in less than 15 years gone from fighting a really small handful of Islamic extremists (a few hundred at best estimations) to the more than 30,000 official members of ISIS plus the hundred thousand or more of a new generation of Muslims that want to kills us.

I won't even mention the militarization of the civilian police force to fight drugs, un-mowed back yards, and past-due tax collections. Nor will I mention the gun control laws to fight crime that have resulted in more crime and more guns.

The people in charge of all these things are the same people now in charge of your healthcare, to ensure that people get the healthcare they deserve and at an affordable price. Uhm, OK.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This is all very interesting, but, what does any of it have to do with Fox News?

34994_newsman.gif
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
This is all very interesting, but, what does any of it have to do with Fox News?

34994_newsman.gif
Since Fox News isn't a news organization, which has already been fully established ... nothing. :D

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

These are just a handful of the Canons of Journalism Ethics that Fox News simply ignores as being unimportant.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This silly, socialistic article is - to borrow a term from Moot - is Turd Journalism. The whole thing is based on fantasy instead of fact and the principles of it's insignificant author can be summarized in this quote:
"What IS considered corporate welfare?

  • Subsidies – On the other hand, the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures."
His viewpoint is that the $15 Billion in corporate profits that has been confiscated from corporations belongs to the govt in the first place, and that govt should receive goods and services in return for giving a corporation it's own money back. THIS IS COMMUNISM, and it has NEVER worked. The article is pure liberal fantasy written by someone who knows nothing about business or economics. People who run small businesses - especially independent contractors who drive their own truck and have to make a profit to make a living should understand this simple concept: you can't expand your business if the govt takes a significant portion of your profit and gives it to somebody else who produces nothing.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
This silly, socialistic article is - to borrow a term from Moot - is Turd Journalism.
Appropriate, but it really doesn't even rise to that level. It's not even journalism - it's just an opinion piece on a Blog. One of the problems with the Internet is there are more opinions pieces to be found than there are journalism pieces. So when someone goes and gets an opinion piece off the Internet to back their opinion, all they're really saying is, "Hey, look! I found someone who agrees with me, therefore I'm right!" Which is a major logical fallacy (appeal to numbers, appeal to popularity). Both sides do it. Fox News even sources conservative Blogs as news sources (that's for Rags) and then reports it as news.

I love the bit about "numbers don't lie."

Since the enactment of Obamacare, there have been three separate polls that have independently confirmed that children under the age of 7 are universally against child health care. When asked the question, "Do you want to go to the doctor?" the responses ranged from "NO!!!!" to "inconsolable crying" to "hysterical crying" to "momieeeee," but no children were in favor of going to the doctor.
 
Top