MSNBC edits video to falsely portrait GOP congressman's speech

[ttwtt78640]

On the surface i would agree with that, but how the hell are they supposed to rehab when we threaten their survival and drastically limit their alternative to get a job and do the right thing? It all leads down to the fundamental problem of letting profits dictate employment which makes job supply limited. yes, it is more socialist, but we could find things for unemployed people to do to improve things. I am not talking about pointless things either. Could you imagine the extra productivity we could get if we organized and gave jobs to the unemployed and gave them them food, shelter, clothing, and medicine (which is more than many get on minimum wage).

You have traveled far afield of the 2.5% SNAP funding reduction situatuon. I agree that other social policies could help, but this is debate is limitted to how to accomplish a 2.5% reduction in SNAP spending in order to get the federal agricultural funding established for an entire decade. I view this as the perfect opportunity for our congress critters to finally take SNAP out of the "farm bill" and pass the actual agricultural portions of that bill, that all seem to agree on, and then seperately discuss SNAP, and even welfare reform or alternate gov't work programs at another time. The practice of congress using the bundling of many unrelated programs all under one bill is simply insane.

 

[tererun]

You have traveled far afield of the 2.5% SNAP funding reduction situatuon. I agree that other social policies could help, but this is debate is limitted to how to accomplish a 2.5% reduction in SNAP spending in order to get the federal agricultural funding established for an entire decade. I view this as the perfect opportunity for our congress critters to finally take SNAP out of the "farm bill" and pass the actual agricultural portions of that bill, that all seem to agree on, and then seperately discuss SNAP, and even welfare reform or alternate gov't work programs at another time. The practice of congress using the bundling of many unrelated programs all under one bill is simply insane.

Well, if you do not want to discuss that aspect it is fine. I would have to point out that SNAp actually is a sort of farm funding thing. SNAP only covers food which means that those who supply it have their incomes directly effected by the funding. If you cut SNAp you will cut demand for farm products. I do agree that often the bundling of unrelated programs in other bills is annoying and stupid, but in this case it actually fits in with farm funding.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They want to cut the benefits by 25%. Do you think 25% of FS recipients are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers?

Please cite a source for this 25% assertion. I can find no such thing.

How much are SNAP benefits going down?
It depends on the household’s income, the amount of rent, the number of people in
the household and the amount of out-of-pocket medical and child care expenses.
SNAP benefits will go down by $1- $4 per month in most cases, but some may be
less while others may be more.

Above quote taken from: http://www.ct.gov/dss/lib/dss/pdfs/snap/sua_qas.pdf

The average household using food stamps has a monthly income of $731 and receives $287 in SNAP benefits, the budget office said. Three-fourths of the households include a child, a disabled person or someone older than 60.

Above quote taken from: Food stamp funds may be reduced - Los Angeles Times

 

[Geoist]

Well, specifics matter. But I suspect, as I've said, there's no real or significant rapist murderer welfare recipient pool.

I dont think so either. I think the congressman is playing to emotions on pretty much a nonissue.

 

[pbrauer]

Not shocked, but he purpose here is still to be shocking and not informative. This is the result of for profit news. It becomes entertainment and not news.

All news today, except for public stations, is for profit and is highly advertised. The claim that the segment I posted is not informative is BS. The point though, is that the MRC took that MSNBC segment totally out of context. So much so, that it fooled almost everyone including the OP. Sure MSNBC could have framed it better, but watching the whole segment you know they are not misinterpreting what Rep. Sessions said.

 

[sangha]

Please cite a source for this 25% assertion. I can find no such thing.



Above quote taken from: http://www.ct.gov/dss/lib/dss/pdfs/snap/sua_qas.pdf



Above quote taken from: Food stamp funds may be reduced - Los Angeles Times

The video that pbrauer posted said that they want to cut $20b from the program, which currently totals $80b

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...gop-congressmans-speech-4.html#post1061963039

 

[ttwtt78640]

The video that pbrauer posted said that they want to cut $20b from the program, which currently totals $80b

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...gop-congressmans-speech-4.html#post1061963039

A $20 billion cut over 10 years is what is being discussed, which is $2 billion per year or a 2.5% annual cut not a 25% annual cut. That is the trickery of mixing current annual expenses and decade long spending reduction "wishes". First of all, it is foolish to assume that the need for SNAP, at its current record high level, is even predictable over such a long period of time. These same demorats are both insisting that an economic recovery is well underway and yet more welfare spending is sure to be needed for the next decade.

 

[Boo Radley]

All news today, except for public stations, is for profit and is highly advertised. The claim that the segment I posted is not informative is BS. The point though, is that the MRC took that MSNBC segment totally out of context. So much so, that it fooled almost everyone including the OP. Sure MSNBC could have framed it better, but watching the whole segment you know they are not misinterpreting what Rep. Sessions said.

All are highly sensationalistic. There is not much effort. To report, but to entertain. I saw nothing in what you posted that sounded like news. It was an editorial, with some hype. As long as we all understand this, we shouldn't get too worked up. Partisan news checkers often pretend they don't know this.

 

[apdst]

Wait till the word gaming wackos from the radial left play with it.

You nailed that one! :rofl

The original was even worse. MSNBC did him a favor.

Basically like all Republicans, the guy just hates poor kids.

 

[rocket88]

Hey look - Mr. "I never post commentary from the MRC" posted commentary from the MRC. The title itself is commentary, but we're not supposed to pay attention to that. Now, I wonder if that's a newscast or a commentary show....because that's an important distinction when the right does it and we play by the same rules of course...

 

[pbrauer]

All are highly sensationalistic. There is not much effort. To report, but to entertain. I saw nothing in what you posted that sounded like news. It was an editorial, with some hype. As long as we all understand this, we shouldn't get too worked up. Partisan news checkers often pretend they don't know this.

I realize it was opinion, but my point is the MRC took most of the context away so it made MSNBC look like they were doing something under handed when that wasn't at all the case.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Can you to where I said that?

You said the politician's rhetoric was dishonest. I pointed out that this news piece (the subject of the OP) was also dishonest. If you are a champion of the truth and integrity, you should be pissed off that a news outlet would attempt such a twist.

But instead, you want to attack the politician. It wouldn't have anything to do with the "R" in front of his name, would it?

 

[Boo Radley]

I realize it was opinion, but my point is the MRC took most of the context away so it made MSNBC look like they were doing something under handed when that wasn't at all the case.

If they treat it like news, it is underhanded. But there is no more shock in what MRC did than any of the deception we see today.

 

[Boo Radley]

You said the politician's rhetoric was dishonest. I pointed out that this news piece (the subject of the OP) was also dishonest. If you are a champion of the truth and integrity, you should be pissed off that a news outlet would attempt such a twist.

But instead, you want to attack the politician. It wouldn't have anything to do with the "R" in front of his name, would it?

I accepted a long time ago that news for profit wasn't news. I've started this clearly many times. If any wanted news, they would go to Fox or MSNBC as neither report news for more than a few minutes a day.

 

[sangha]

A $20 billion cut over 10 years is what is being discussed, which is $2 billion per year or a 2.5% annual cut not a 25% annual cut. That is the trickery of mixing current annual expenses and decade long spending reduction "wishes". First of all, it is foolish to assume that the need for SNAP, at its current record high level, is even predictable over such a long period of time. These same demorats are both insisting that an economic recovery is well underway and yet more welfare spending is sure to be needed for the next decade.

My bad.

Thanks for clearing that up for me

 

[pbrauer]

If they treat it like news, it is underhanded. But there is no more shock in what MRC did than any of the deception we see today.

They didn't treat it as news, in fact the host, Thomas Roberts, asked Goldie his guest her opinion. MSNBC rarely does what you would call news. They are "The Place for Politics."

 

[Boo Radley]

They didn't treat it as news, in fact the host, Thomas Roberts, asked Goldie his guest her opinion. MSNBC rarely does what you would call news. They are "The Place for Politics."

As such, largely useless. Politics should about the issue, going beyond the rhetoric and not adding to it.

 

[pbrauer]

I accepted a long time ago that news for profit wasn't news. I've stated this clearly many times. If any wanted news, they wouldn't go to Fox or MSNBC as neither report news for more than a few minutes a day.

According to your definition, none of the commercial stations do news as they all have advertising.

I've edited two of your words

 

[pbrauer]

As such, largely useless. Politics should about the issue, going beyond the rhetoric and not adding to it.

Sorry, but rarely is politics objective its mostly subjective with various interpetations. often many of us need someone to interpret what a politician is saying from various viewpoints, that what so-called talking heads do. I enjoy watching MSNBC, others enjoy watching Fox or CNN.

 

[Boo Radley]

According to your definition, none of the commercial stations do news as they all have advertising.

I've edited two of your words

Very little. Very little news at all. But they are not equally bad. Fox and MSNBC are the worse. CNN just gets stupid too much. But very little news on news networks.

 

[Boo Radley]

Sorry, but rarely is politics objective its mostly subjective with various interpetations. often many of us need someone to interpret what a politician is saying from various viewpoints, that what so-called talking heads do. I enjoy watching MSNBC, others enjoy watching Fox or CNN.

We could use more accuracy. I don't mind perspective. Bill Moyer does that well. But what we see today is seldom, if ever, that thoughtful.

 

[pbrauer]

Very little. Very little news at all. But they are not equally bad. Fox and MSNBC are the worse. CNN just gets stupid too much. But very little news on news networks.

You keep mentioning MSNBC, CNN and Fox. But you seem to forget that ABC, CBS and NBC news programs are profit centers as well. You can't get away from profit driven news unless you are talking about PBS, NPR or C-SPAN.

 

[Boo Radley]

You keep mentioning MSNBC, CNN and Fox. But you seem to forget that ABC, CBS and NBC news programs are profit centers as well. You can't get away from profit driven news unless you are talking about PBS, NPR or C-SPAN.

Yes, they are. And they have suffered as well by the profit model. But they give more real news than those three.

And PBS is actually quite good.

 

[pbrauer]

Yes, they are. And they have suffered as well by the profit model. But they give more real news than those three.

And PBS is actually quite good.

Arguably, the big three don't give more real news than the cable networks. They each have a half hour evening program which after all of the commercials are played they maybe have only 20 minutes to present the news and much of it is already several hours old. And their 2-hour morning shows are mostly infotainment.

 

[Boo Radley]

Arguably, the big three don't give more real news than the cable networks. They each have a half hour evening program which after all of the commercials are played they maybe have only 20 minutes to present the news and much of it is already several hours old. And their 2-hour morning shows are mostly infotainment.

That's likely more than the big three give. Really.