Republicans Cut Food Assistance For Low-Income Families While Protecting Azaleas

[OnePimpTiger]

madman, I just read your response in one of my threads and it applies perfectly here:

Is this really a topic worthy of any discussion?

because of:

your source

Seriously? You're going to say a major scandal making headlines everywhere is not worthy of discussion because I linked an article from Pajamas Media, then you're going to tell me an actual non-story is worthy of discussion based on a Huffington Post article? Seriously? Seriously??

Based on that, I'm going to have to add another one of your quotes, paraphrasing a little:

you will have to excuse the liberals on this site...they follow the Party and their platform of busting anything Republicans do because HuffPost told them to!

[MadMan1978]

Darren you read correctly..I will take the huffington post over 95% of the sources you cite...and nice job reworking my comments...just what i would expect now stay on topic

thank you

[duane1969]

WIC and foodstamps are not the same thing. WIC is (Women Infant Care) and is only given to low-income women who are pregnant or have had a baby within the last year (or two years, I forget).

You can be eligible for foodstamps and not eligible for WIC, but if you are eligible for foodstamps you automatically qualify for WIC if you get pregnant.

With that said, they get their funding from the same place. All of these social programs like WIC, HUD and foodstamps are funded thru the same sources.

Gotta love Huffington Post. Nowhere in that article or any article it links to does it provide a link to actual, unbiased information on this issue. It's kind of hard to evaluate the situation fairly if you're only getting the uberliberal HuffPost side of things.

It sounds bad, no doubt. But I wonder how many federal budgets contain an increase in funds for a trivial program while cutting a more worthy program. I would be willing to wager every single one. I guarantee the Democrats increased funding for the National Arboretum at some point as well. It's easy to pick two singular items out of thousands of items in a budget that will allow you to spin it any way you want. And when you read sites that only give you the spin, it's hard to find true information.

+1

I see FoxNews bashed all of the time for being biased and yet Huffington Post is by far the most biased news source in the media and nobody seems to mind that at all. I even know Democrats who admit that HP is too biased to be taken seriously.

The simple fact is that all politicians waste money. The Huff will attack conservatives for pork spending and then glorify liberals for the same careless spending. I am not going to waste my time listing liberal wasteful spending, if you want to find some you won't have to look far or hard.

[OnePimpTiger]

Darren you read correctly..I will take the huffington post over 95% of the sources you cite...and nice job reworking my comments...just what i would expect now stay on topic

thank you

At least you admit your bias. The only "reworking" I did was pointing them back at you...I applied the same principles you applied to me. I will happily end this discussion when you do...you must lead by example. Throwing in one last cheap shot, then telling me to stay on topic is hardly fair play.

[MadMan1978]

I can do nothing but laugh once again....

[sanfran22]

I can do nothing but laugh once again....

Because your laughable????

[OnePimpTiger]

I can do nothing but laugh once again....

Makes sense...obviously can't debate an issue.

[tutall]

I would prefer to government cutting all funding for any food/item based funding. If they took 20 percent of the budget that goes into government aid and put them into charity organizations they would be more efficiently ran and 1000 times more productive... The united way can feed something like a family of 4 for a month on 7 bucks or something like that. A politician cant stop at a gas station and get a pop and a bag of doritos for that price.

[OnePimpTiger]

I would prefer to government cutting all funding for any food/item based funding. If they took 20 percent of the budget that goes into government aid and put them into charity organizations they would be more efficiently ran and 1000 times more productive... The united way can feed something like a family of 4 for a month on 7 bucks or something like that. A politician cant stop at a gas station and get a pop and a bag of doritos for that price.

Hear hear!

[MadMan1978]

I would prefer to government cutting all funding for any food/item based funding. If they took 20 percent of the budget that goes into government aid and put them into charity organizations they would be more efficiently ran and 1000 times more productive... The united way can feed something like a family of 4 for a month on 7 bucks or something like that. A politician cant stop at a gas station and get a pop and a bag of doritos for that price.

feed a family of 4 for for 7 dollars a month ??? ...If you have information on how I can feed a family of 4 for 7 please do share...

Please provide some real data to back up that statement...United way from all accounts has a large administrative cost..Let alone other issues over the past number of years.