Poor People Having Air Conditioning Offends Fox News

Fox News Channel
Fox News Channel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Poor People Having Air Conditioning Offends Fox News

 

I’m originally from Oklahoma and we often have weeks of above 100 degree temperature. In fact, one year Oklahoma City had fifty one days in a row of above 100 degree temperature.

 

So, I find air conditioning to be a necessity for many people not to mention those like me with serious allergies. And, of course, air conditioners are now mass produced to the extent that new ones are less than one hundred dollars and used ones much less. So, even poor people can often acquire one. It does not make me angry that poor people have them.

 

Should poor people have to actively suffer so that Fox News commentators can feel better about themselves? I hope not.

 

Being poor is hideous. Every expense is a problem that may not be solvable. Every day is another day of not having things other people take for granted; having things like food. Apparently the reality of food insecurity in this country is not taken seriously by Fox News.

 

  • In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of
    households (approximately one in seven), were food
    insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United
    States 1
    (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.) 
  • In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households
    (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S.
    households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7
    million households (4.1 percent) in 2007.
    In households with very low food security, the food
    intake of some household
    members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns
    were disrupted
    because of the household’s food insecurity
    (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.,

    Nord  2009
    , p. iii.) .

 

I’ll let them have air conditioning. It doesn’t diminish me.

 

James Pilant

 

Hasselbeck Says People On Welfare Shouldn’t Have Air Conditioners

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/11/hasselbeck-says-air-conditioning-entitlement-video/

 

When the right-wing talks about welfare and ‘entitlements,’ their not-so Christian attitude becomes abundantly clear. They have all sorts of stories about how welfare recipients experience all of the finer things in life and clearly they are abusing the system. Welfare recipients are not supposed to have nice clothes; they should wear rags instead so that Republicans are satisfied that they are indeed poor. Recipients are not allowed to have a decent looking car, who cares if it was bought before they fell on hard times. People on welfare should never, ever buy junk food. Oh that cake was for your kid’s birthday? Too bad, celebrate with mud pies. A welfare recipient has a phone? Well they shouldn’t! Poor people shouldn’t have phones! Well now Elisabeth Hasselbeck and her fellow co-workers over at Fox News have new items to add to the list of things poor people should not own or use: televisions and air conditioning.

 

Hasselbeck Says Welfare Recipients Don’t Deserve Air Conditioning

 

Yes, you read that right. Hasselbeck thinks that if a person is on government assistance they are not entitled to a television in their home — or an air conditioner.

 

via Hasselbeck Says People On Welfare Shouldn’t Have Air Conditioners.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Poverty and Policy.

 

http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/how-many-poor-people-in-america-heritage-foundation-says-damn-few/

 

Seems that the Heritage Foundation has dusted off some old rhetoric and shaped some new data to fit it. Thus it proclaims, much as it did
in 2007, that “many of the 30 million Americans defined as ‘poor’ and
in need of government assistance” are actually doing very nicely, thank
you.

 

First, a word of clarification. The reference to 30 million is just sloppy blogging. The Foundation’s actual report says “over 30 million.” Technically accurate, but minimizing. The latest Census Bureau income and poverty report tell us that there were nearly 43.6 million people in poverty in 2009.

 

As I (and many others) have written before, this figure is based on a rather primitive and woefully outdated measure, i.e., the inflation-adjusted cost of what used to be the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s cheapest meal plan.

 

The Census Bureau is developing an alternative measure based on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences.

 

But the Heritage Foundation doesn’t care for that — indeed, has
delivered its latest blast in part to argue (again) that the new measure
is a sneaky scheme by the Obama administration to advance a “spread the
wealth” agenda.

 

Its main goal, however, is to give aid and comfort to Republicans in Congress who want to slash spending on public benefits.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s