The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[unbillievable]

Welfare is included. So are SNAP benefits. It's not statistical manipulation to point out that a higher % of certain states' revenue comes from the federal government, no matter which form it may happen to take. I personally take the broad approach...subsidies are subsidies are subsidies, regardless of whether they come in the form of crop insurance or price floors for commodities or WIC benefits or Medicaid. Welfare is simply one category on that chart, and by no means the largest.

 

So you understood nothing I wrote. I'll try to simplify.

• California has a state budget of $1 thousand per person (high cost of living).
• Mississippi has a state budget of $1 hundred per person (low cost of living)
• The government gives them both $10 dollars.

 

That map would show that California only gets 1% while Mississippi gets 10% of their budget from federal funds; even though they get the exact same amount of money. Then Liberals complain that they don't get their fair share.

 

get it now?

Edited May 14, 2017 by unbillievable

[unbillievable]

By your response, you seem to believe that an Obama phone should cost the same as a country road...

 

...also, you are trying to dodge your original argument that blue states spend less on welfare than red states. Because.. that map.

Edited May 14, 2017 by unbillievable

[Nanker]

On balance, I think Trump had a pretty good week.

Last weekend the media was comparing him to and actually calling him "Hitler."

This weekend the media is comparing him to and actually calling him "Nixon."

 

That's demonstrable improvement.

[GoBills808]

 

So you understood nothing I wrote. I'll try to simplify.

• California has a state budget of $1 thousand per person (high cost of living).
• Mississippi has a state budget of $1 hundred per person (low cost of living)
• The government gives them both $10 dollars.

 

That map would show that California only gets 1% while Mississippi gets 10% of their budget from federal funds; even though they get the exact same amount of money. Then Liberals complain that they don't get their fair share.

 

get it now?

I don't think you understand the concept of government revenue, either in it's apportionement or distribution to the public. Or percentages, for that matter. And if you believe that California and Mississippi receive the same amount of federal subsidies we should probably just drop this conversation.

 

Your original answer focused on welfare, which seems more a personal invective as I never mentioned welfare in my original post. And it was in response to a poster alleging that 'liberals' are disproportionately dependent upon the government for assistance, not that they don't get 'their fair share'.

[Deranged Rhino]

On balance, I think Trump had a pretty good week.

Last weekend the media was comparing him to and actually calling him "Hitler."

This weekend the media is comparing him to and actually calling him "Nixon."

 

That's demonstrable improvement.

[unbillievable]

I don't think you understand the concept of government revenue, either in it's apportionement or distribution to the public. Or percentages, for that matter. And if you believe that California and Mississippi receive the same amount of federal subsidies we should probably just drop this conversation.

 

Your original answer focused on welfare, which seems more a personal invective as I never mentioned welfare in my original post. And it was in response to a poster alleging that 'liberals' are disproportionately dependent upon the government for assistance, not that they don't get 'their fair share'.

 

So you don't even understand your own map? That explains a lot. Liberals ARE disproportionately dependent on welfare, and you must have missed the whole CalExit debacle if you don't think Liberals are whining that they aren't getting their "fair share" of federal funds. (but I will apologize since you didn't personally whine about it, even if you did use the same manipulated data).

 

I guess i wasn't being simple enough with my math.

 

California has a budget of $1000 and gets 10$ in federal funds for 1% of their budget

Mississippi has a budget of $100 and gets 8$ in federal funds for 8% of their budget.

 

Now that I changed it so the states get different amounts of money, do you understand the concept?

 

If you have some other way to explain your viewpoint, please let us know. You're entire argument is basically; "if you don't know then I won't tell you!"

What does that map say to you?

Edited May 14, 2017 by unbillievable

[GoBills808]

 

So you don't even understand your own map? That explains a lot. Liberals ARE disproportionately dependent on welfare, and you must have missed the whole CalExit debacle if you don't think Liberals are whining that they aren't getting their "fair share" of federal funds. (but I will apologize since you didn't personally whine about it, even if you did use the same manipulated data).

 

I guess i wasn't being simple enough with my math.

 

California has a budget of $1000 and gets 10$ in federal funds for 1% of their budget

Mississippi has a budget of $100 and gets 8$ in federal funds for 8% of their budget.

 

Now that I changed it so the states get different amounts of money, do you understand the concept?

 

If you have some other way to explain your viewpoint, please let us know. You're entire argument is basically; "if you don't know then I won't tell you!"

What does that map say to you?

I think I understand you. My original point to you was that there are many forms of federal assistance and that they are all taken into account by the graphic I brought up (courtesy of the Tax Foundation, hardly a liberal data manipulator), welfare included but not exclusive to. Your point that 'liberals are disproportionately dependent on welfare', and I'm assuming you mean TANF block grants in particular as opposed to WIC, housing assistance, Medicaid, agricultural subsidies, Social Security, SNAP and a host of other programs that fall under the more broadly defined 'welfare' definition in general, may be accurate or not.

 

Your math there doesn't really mean a lot when you consider that revenue is directly related to population size and median income, other than to illustrate the point about which states receive more federal assistance per GDP.

[DC Tom]

Your math there doesn't really mean a lot when you consider that revenue is directly related to population size and median income,

 

Except it's not. SOME of it is. Some is, but only indirecty (federal highway funds, for example, which roughly correlates with population). Some of it is completely unrelated (NIH grants.)

 

That's rather the point of everyone's criticism of that visualization: it's lumping in very disparate types of federal funding, calculated in very different ways, to come up with an over-simplified "percent of GDP" representation.

[Benjamin Franklin]

On balance, I think Trump had a pretty good week.

Last weekend the media was comparing him to and actually calling him "Hitler."

This weekend the media is comparing him to and actually calling him "Nixon."

 

That's demonstrable improvement.

Early lead for PPP post of the week. Edited May 14, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin

[GoBills808]

 

Except it's not. SOME of it is. Some is, but only indirecty (federal highway funds, for example, which roughly correlates with population). Some of it is completely unrelated (NIH grants.)

 

That's rather the point of everyone's criticism of that visualization: it's lumping in very disparate types of federal funding, calculated in very different ways, to come up with an over-simplified "percent of GDP" representation.

Sorry, I was talking about his 'state budget' figure, which I took to be state revenue (property, income, GE where applicable, et cetera). Federal funding like NIH grants wouldn't apply.

 

To your point: yes, and I recognized earlier that there a bunch of different ways the federal government subsidizes its various states. But as I also said before, federal funding is federal funding is federal funding in my personal opinion, I'm inclined to lump 'handouts' like TANF and SNAP with TARP and ag subsidies...in my view they deserve equal scrutiny in the eyes of the taxpayer.

[grinreaper]

I think I understand you. My original point to you was that there are many forms of federal assistance and that they are all taken into account by the graphic I brought up (courtesy of the Tax Foundation, hardly a liberal data manipulator), welfare included but not exclusive to. Your point that 'liberals are disproportionately dependent on welfare', and I'm assuming you mean TANF block grants in particular as opposed to WIC, housing assistance, Medicaid, agricultural subsidies, Social Security, SNAP and a host of other programs that fall under the more broadly defined 'welfare' definition in general, may be accurate or not.

 

Your math there doesn't really mean a lot when you consider that revenue is directly related to population size and median income, other than to illustrate the point about which states receive more federal assistance per GDP.

Are you serious?

[DC Tom]

Are you serious?

 

I missed that before.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Are you serious?

I missed this as well. Nice catch.

[B-Man]

CNN: Trump Is a ‘Danger to American Democracy,’ Media Are Saviors

 

Since President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, the media have been in an uproar with conspiratorial claims that the Russia investigation was the cause. On CNN Sunday morning, serial plagiarist Fareed Zakaria kicked off his show by declaring that there was only one group that could defend America from Trump: The Media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Narrative Busted: ABC’s Karl Admits Comey Wasn’t Fired for Russia Investigation

 

During President Trump’s interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt, which aired on Thursday, the President admitted that one of the things that went through his head when deciding to fire FBI Director James was the Russia investigation. Many on the left took that to mean Comey was fired because of the investigation itself. “That admission shattered the early White House spin that the President's decision had nothing to do with the Russian investigation,” announced Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos during ABC’s This Week on Sunday, but that assertion was soon shot down by White House Correspondent Jon Karl.

In his full statement, Trump said:

Regardless of recommendation, I was going fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘you know -- this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’

 

Later on in the program when Stephanopoulos ceased his pontificating and allowed the panel to speak, ABC News reporter Jon Karl spoke up and contradicted the narrative. “On what he said in the interview about Russia. I don't think that President Trump was saying ‘I fired him because of the Russia investigation,’” he told Stephanopoulos.

“I think what he was really saying is: that on the idea that there would be massive blowback cause he was firing the guy in terms of the investigation, he was not worried about the blowback because he thinks the Russian investigation is nothing,” Karl added.

[bbb]

 

Like the "wage gap" myth, the "federal funding" myth is a favorite among liberals (that has already been debunked), but continues to pop up now and then. It's statistical manipulation by taking the broad approach and ignoring the obvious. Why use total "total federal funding" instead of "welfare" or "food stamps"? Also note that it clarifies the cost as a % of the state budget instead of per capita.(and federal infrastructure funding is based on population, not cost of living, which is astronomical in blue states). Why so much statistical manipulation?

 

Now look up the cost of WELFARE per capita for states. The top 10 are all Blue states with the exception of Alaska. Thus proving common sense; that the ones who like entitlements will vote for entitlements. It's not surprising that this information is so difficult to find, yet the federal funding map is spread like a virus.

 

So the people in blue states are getting a lot more welfare money (sometimes 4X more), but the federal government's share of it still feels low. Why? A unintended consequence of higher minimum wages in these blue states, is that it raises costs of living so high, that it disqualifies them from federal aid, while keeping them (relatively) poor; which forces these states to cover a higher % of their population's welfare payments.

 

Try finding out how much federal money goes to Meals on Wheels. I tried figuring that out when that was the outrage of the day.

 

[DC Tom]

CNN: Trump Is a ‘Danger to American Democracy,’ Media Are Saviors

 

Since President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, the media have been in an uproar with conspiratorial claims that the Russia investigation was the cause. On CNN Sunday morning, serial plagiarist Fareed Zakaria kicked off his show by declaring that there was only one group that could defend America from Trump: The Media.

 

Bang-up job so far, considering how they managed to get him elected to begin with.

[GoBills808]

Are you serious?

I was being, yes. In retrospect for clarity's sake I should have left SS benefits out, but I (and a few others, though admittedly the minority) do consider federal welfare expenditures beyond low-income assistance. That's why in the original post I placed it in the 'broadly defined' category, along with other decidedly non-low income programs like TARP and agricultural subsidies. I can also certainly understand that not many will agree with me here.

 

The overall arc was my contention that the term 'welfare' should extend beyond programs like Medicaid and TANF for low-income individuals and families, and (in my opinion) includes any form of federal assistance that distributes tax revenue collected from a certain group to subsidize another. We're simply used to using it in the pejorative as it applies to the underrepresented low-income population.

[Tiberius]

You would have to be a real idiot to think Trump did not fire Comey over the Russia thing. Especially since he admitted it.

 

The White House has already interfered with the House investigation of the same thing, by by, Nunes and the Senate investigation as well.

 

 

The Trump lovers blinders are thick!

[Koko78]

CNN: Trump Is a ‘Danger to American Democracy,’ Media Are Saviors

 

Since President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, the media have been in an uproar with conspiratorial claims that the Russia investigation was the cause. On CNN Sunday morning, serial plagiarist Fareed Zakaria kicked off his show by declaring that there was only one group that could defend America from Trump: The Media.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank God for CNN. How else would we have known that 'he who shall not be named' has TWO scoops of ice cream to the one scoop everyone else gets?!?

 

That's the kind of astute journalism that brings down administrations!

[grinreaper]

I was being, yes. In retrospect for clarity's sake I should have left SS benefits out, but I (and a few others, though admittedly the minority) do consider federal welfare expenditures beyond low-income assistance. That's why in the original post I placed it in the 'broadly defined' category, along with other decidedly non-low income programs like TARP and agricultural subsidies. I can also certainly understand that not many will agree with me here.

 

The overall arc was my contention that the term 'welfare' should extend beyond programs like Medicaid and TANF for low-income individuals and families, and (in my opinion) includes any form of federal assistance that distributes tax revenue collected from a certain group to subsidize another. We're simply used to using it in the pejorative as it applies to the underrepresented low-income population.

Are you old enough to be a wage earner? If so, have you ever looked at a pay stub? Since my mid thirties I have been an independent contractor who filed on a Schedule "C", which means I gave the federal government over 15% of my income for them to set aside in order to pay me social security benefits when I reach retirement age. When I receive that money it won't be welfare to me in any sense of the word. It will be the return to me of money that the government in effect confiscated from me in order to send it to other countries or fund WIC.

 

From the part that is in bold above it is apparent that you have never felt the pain of contributing much to our government and are acting on untested theories (by you) or are not much more than a party apparatchik.