Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux
Talk radio likes to cherry pick the data to stir up their listeners.
|
This specific portion of the bill was mentioned in a blog and I found it doing a search.
The source link is from the
ArmyTimes and not talk radio. It is absolutely true that there are issues that "talk radio" in general covers that get people riled up. In this example as with many others that I hear on the radio, I went to check up on this a bit myself.
On average I believe that at least half of those hot button issues on TR are to be concerned with and overwhelmingly true.
There have been some biggies that have been false. There have been some biggies that have been true. There are also details that through my wordly travels know for fact are not true.
So that's where I'm at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux
I am not suggesting that the fact you presented is wrong, but simply that it is not representative of the overwhelming majority of provisions of the bill.
|
Thank you for expressing your point in such soft friendly language.
There are many here that do not. You hold a lot of credibility already even though we're polar opposites on the political spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux
its worth reading all five pages of the summary to understand the bill a little better than how it is presented on talk radio.
|
Yes, it's great. Everything is listed out and all the grammar is perfect, the spelling is perfect and the format is perfect. It's very credible as source.
The entire article is very convincing.
But.
Let's take a look at page two. It's beautiful as the others.
If you take a look down the page you will find this:
"$17 billion in one-time payments to seniors, disabled veterans and
others will provide an immediately usable payment of $300 to seniors on Social Security, low-income recipients of Supplemental Security Income, disabled veterans and veterans on pensions, Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, and others who may not qualify for the Making Work Pay."
If the red-bolded word "others" means the Filipino veterans from WWII that have already been paid, what might the other descriptions translate to in the details of the bill?
Take a look further down on page two:
"$5.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and
promote economic activity."
Would the bolded-red phrase be a huge stimulus gift of red roses to all the staff at the Pentagon? We can guess no but it's vague.
Just like the word "others". Is that money listed on the
actual bill attached to peoples' names or groups' names? I'm guessing yes.
Why aren't they included in this fabulous looking article about the bill?
Talk radio often times digs in and tells us. No, not in the perfect format that is shown to us in US News but they often times get us to dig further.
Some things are bogus and some things are not.