Let us assume for arguments sake that all of the figures are correct. Who said they were in favor of corporate welfare? What? Was that a voice in your head saying something M?
Since you can enter your own numbers, it's entirely possible you can come up with the right combination of them to provide what's shown.
And...
I'm not even going to waste my time on CommonDreams.org because that website's bias is screamingly obvious from the name.
Uh huh. Genetic fallacy much? I spent some time checking the numbers. Did you? Or were you lazy and just automatically trusted an in bubble source? The right wing blogsphere never lies:)
Still, there is this...
Still, my opinion on SNAP is a 180 from the majority of my fellow conservatives. You can see with this that it's a minute percentage of your tax dollars. I'll tell you now the Republican party is going to continue to fail as long as they're beating the "poor people shouldn't eat" drum, which is exactly what opposition to SNAP sounds like to the average person. All of this bitching about what poor people buy and how the EBT cards don't carry the same stigma as paper food stamps 'cause people aren't ashamed like they should be ('cause fuck them for wanting to eat, right?) is frankly pretty damned ridiculous. It's not a winning strategy; it makes us look like a party of assholes and we really need to STFU about it.
Did you miss this part?: "**Seriously, when the fuck will people realize that linking to opinion sites known for spewing bullshit isn't going to prove anything other than you're an idiot who wouldn't recognize an unbiased source if it reached out and slapped you? But hey, FauxNews amirite? "
Or this?: "I think it's worth noting that there is nothing on the White House site that gives a figure for corporate subsidies. I'm not even going to waste my time on CommonDreams.org because that website's bias is screamingly obvious from the name. It's worth it to note that even other liberal sites don't agree on the $4,000 figure; numbers range from $1740 in direct and corporate tax subsidies on Bill Moyers's website to $6000 claimed by "Truth-Out" (which seems to cite the same CommonDreams.org bit the image above does; it also parrots the $36/yr SNAP claim, and references Democratic Underground for this**)."
Yeah, not genetic fallacy if the genetics are tainted.... Pretty much like your own word means a little less than nothing due to how many cases of dishonesty have proven you to be an unreliable source...
I spent some time checking the numbers
And I assume since you didn't actually state that your numbers differentiate from hers that she is correct? Funny how you posted your pithy facebook grab to begin with and DIDN'T spend some time checking the numbers FIRST....
Maybe you could ask one of your voices about how to be a better liar, cause you really suck at it.
So again - no SocSec in that equation and who said they favor corporate welfare? You do realize that $4000 includes the green industry subsidies you have a raging hard-on for.
They're mixing categories, anyway, double-counting some things. Don't you right-wing fools know that SNAP is actually corporate welfare for Archer Daniels Midland and other 1%er fatcats dressed up as a Good Cause? It's politically even safer than the worse-than-useless ethanol subsidies? And that's from irrefutable sources! It also happens to be more-or-less true, Markadelphia, so you can take your Genetic Fallacy and stick it wherever you usually take deposits of genetic material.
re-posted because Preview is your friend and you don't want to screw up links.
9 comments:
And, well, it was clear from the get-go that this meme is full of shit
Let us assume for arguments sake that all of the figures are correct. Who said they were in favor of corporate welfare? What? Was that a voice in your head saying something M?
Oh and let's all pay attention - what did NOT get accounted for there? Over $3000 into SocSec to pay current beneficiaries.
Gosh, is there a reason that got overlooked?
GD, great link you provided.
Since you can enter your own numbers, it's entirely possible you can come up with the right combination of them to provide what's shown.
And...
I'm not even going to waste my time on CommonDreams.org because that website's bias is screamingly obvious from the name.
Uh huh. Genetic fallacy much? I spent some time checking the numbers. Did you? Or were you lazy and just automatically trusted an in bubble source? The right wing blogsphere never lies:)
Still, there is this...
Still, my opinion on SNAP is a 180 from the majority of my fellow conservatives. You can see with this that it's a minute percentage of your tax dollars. I'll tell you now the Republican party is going to continue to fail as long as they're beating the "poor people shouldn't eat" drum, which is exactly what opposition to SNAP sounds like to the average person. All of this bitching about what poor people buy and how the EBT cards don't carry the same stigma as paper food stamps 'cause people aren't ashamed like they should be ('cause fuck them for wanting to eat, right?) is frankly pretty damned ridiculous. It's not a winning strategy; it makes us look like a party of assholes and we really need to STFU about it.
That would be the smart thing to do.
Uh huh. Genetic fallacy much?
Did you miss this part?: "**Seriously, when the fuck will people realize that linking to opinion sites known for spewing bullshit isn't going to prove anything other than you're an idiot who wouldn't recognize an unbiased source if it reached out and slapped you? But hey, FauxNews amirite? "
Or this?: "I think it's worth noting that there is nothing on the White House site that gives a figure for corporate subsidies. I'm not even going to waste my time on CommonDreams.org because that website's bias is screamingly obvious from the name. It's worth it to note that even other liberal sites don't agree on the $4,000 figure; numbers range from $1740 in direct and corporate tax subsidies on Bill Moyers's website to $6000 claimed by "Truth-Out" (which seems to cite the same CommonDreams.org bit the image above does; it also parrots the $36/yr SNAP claim, and references Democratic Underground for this**)."
Yeah, not genetic fallacy if the genetics are tainted.... Pretty much like your own word means a little less than nothing due to how many cases of dishonesty have proven you to be an unreliable source...
I spent some time checking the numbers
And I assume since you didn't actually state that your numbers differentiate from hers that she is correct? Funny how you posted your pithy facebook grab to begin with and DIDN'T spend some time checking the numbers FIRST....
I spent some time checking the numbers.
Maybe you could ask one of your voices about how to be a better liar, cause you really suck at it.
So again - no SocSec in that equation and who said they favor corporate welfare? You do realize that $4000 includes the green industry subsidies you have a raging hard-on for.
So, she has basically invalidated her own argument as hers is an opinion site.
You guys harp on me all the time for sticking to the facts and the numbers, refuting evidence without emotion. Well, here's the evidence
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23
All well sourced so please feel free to refute the actual numbers.
Yeah, not genetic fallacy if the genetics are tainted
So, that means we can ignore Brietbart, Malking, townhall, redstate and Kevin, based on this assertion?
That's an average of $870 for each one of America's 115 million families.
Of course not all 115 million of those households actually pay income tax. You can't subsidize something without putting money in.
which could be anywhere from $10 billion to $41 billion
Yeah, that really nails THAT down!
$80 billion a year is $696 for every U.S. family.
State and local taxes, again averaged across people that don't even pay taxes that can be used to subsidize.
According to the Huffington Post
Wow, now THAT is authoritative!
government granted patent monopolies raise the price of prescription drugs
So you are against patents now? You are against the FDA's rigorous testing - which is very damned expensive for drug development?
Do you even actually read the links you claim support you? Or is this your reading comprehension problem again?
They're mixing categories, anyway, double-counting some things. Don't you right-wing fools know that SNAP is actually corporate welfare for Archer Daniels Midland and other 1%er fatcats dressed up as a Good Cause? It's politically even safer than the worse-than-useless ethanol subsidies? And that's from irrefutable sources! It also happens to be more-or-less true, Markadelphia, so you can take your Genetic Fallacy and stick it wherever you usually take deposits of genetic material.
re-posted because Preview is your friend and you don't want to screw up links.
Post a Comment