Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I certainly understand that the editorial board at IBD is biased in their tone, but I have never seen or heard that the numbers or facts in the paper to be incorrect. Outside of their editorials the paper is mostly a numbers based publication. If they had a habit of getting numbers wrong they would go out of business pretty fast.
The WSJ has a variety of people appear on their editorial pages and the views that appear are across the board. The link provided in my post #7, actually is an AP article. Regardless, I don't know many people who don't think the WSJ is a trusted publication.
On the other hand, I do think Pelosi saying:
http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0253
is wrong. |
ace...your IBD link is an editorial....and the WSJ numbers are similar to mine:
Quote:
|
About two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies, while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.
|
which reinforces my reading that the percent of total funding (as opposed to the 2002 bill) for food stands/nutrition/emergency food is up significantly and the percent of the total for crop subsidies is down significantly.
IMO, Pelosi had it right...if crop subsidies is down to $40b.
But I still prefer primary sources when I dont know what I am talking about.
