Why do I even watch The O'Reilly Factor?
Questions for the class:
- Why were there only two options? Where's the "don't know" and "enough people" options?
- How does one define "enough" people on welfare?
- Furthermore, what is "welfare"? Does Medicare and Social Security count?
- Doesn't Rasmussen Reports has a history of bias?
But, maybe Bill-O misrepresented the poll. Let's give Rassmussen the benefit of the doubt, even if it doesn't deserve it. Maybe the questions help make Rassmussen seem like a legitimate polling operation, you know?
They didn't help.
Take a look at some of these:
5. Suppose a family has two color TVs, a VCR, and a DVD player. Is that family living in poverty?
6. If a family is adequately fed and is living in a house or apartment that is in good repair, is that family living in poverty?
7. What is the bigger problem with welfare programs in the United States—that too many people get welfare who should not be getting it or that too many people who should receive welfare do not?
8. Think for a moment about immigrants who follow the law and enter the United States legally. How long should legal immigrants have to wait before collecting welfare benefits in the United States?
9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement—some people support government programs to fight poverty because it’s easier than getting personally involved?Just another day at Rassmussen polling, cooking up biased numbers for Fox News hosts to use for political ends. I don't quite understand how Bill O'Reilly manages to sit there with a perfectly straight face while he uses these falsified numbers. But, regardless of conscience, he continues:
Hmmmm…if only there were a reason why entitlement spending has increased from 2002 to 2011 (that's the time frame that "recently" refers to)…
OH YEAH! We had a recession. Generally, in recessions, there are more people unemployed, therefore there are more people in need of social insurance services, such as unemployment benefits. If there was relatively no change in the economic climate and in welfare law, and Bill O'Reilly saw no changes (or an increase) in unemployment and a spending increase in payments, then he would have a slightly stronger case.
However, that's a big "if".