Soooooo….is there only one side in this debate? Are all food stamp recipients poor because of their own bad decision-making? Of course not.

Is Bill O’Reilly right that private charities do a better job of feeding the hungry? What does “better job” mean? Do we mean more efficient, less waste, less fraud or do we just mean there is less hunger–PERIOD? How do you measure that?

Is Bill O’Reilly getting a bad rap on this segment? He speaks of those whose hunger is their own fault. How much of that is true? Does O’Reilly accept that there are people who are just poor having nothing to do with fault?

I think O’Reilly is wrong about the government throwing money at the parents without regard. The SNAP program isn’t all that generous to start with. Even if people are derelict to start with, should they starve? Do we need to drug test them for a SNAP card?

How about the priest? I felt he was very politically biased, just because of the buzz words he used. Is Mr. DeBois on the right track? Your thoughts, here at Christmas time.

9 Thoughts to “Bill O’Reilly, the Pope, Jesus and the Poor”

  1. Censored bybvbl

    Bill O”Reilly is as big a windbag as Chris Matthews. He’s not interested in what his guests have to say. Why not just perform a monologue of rants and save the poor guests the travel time.

    Many of the larger food pantries around here are joint operations – public and private. (I guess the latest Republican hate fest is aimed at the poor. When are the adults going to repopulate that party!)

  2. Not any time soon. I think I read this morning that Whitbeck is running for Mark Herring’s senate seat.

    Mr. May is going to run as an independent because his local party screwed him over.

    I can remember that happening here to my favorite Republican.

    It might work here in Gainesville where most of the 55+ communities are. Many people with gray hair don’t want to pay taxes and of course, our local politicians play to this sentiment.

    The “I got mines” attitude is alive and well. Do these people see themselves as educating the future? Probably not. They are retired so why spend money on roads.

  3. Back to Bill O’Reilly. He and Chris Matthews are ying and yang and both end up being Catholic windbags. Both also think they know more than the Pope.

  4. Ray Beverage

    O’Reilly was right once upon a time. The sluggish economy though has impacted the work of the nonprofits…donations are down, grants just are not out there like once was five to six years ago. The model of Faith-Based & Community-Based providers is contingent on the money being there.

  5. punchak

    I often wonder why Bill O. even have “guests” on his show.
    He talks over them, and when he dislikes what they say,
    he says the interview is over.

    LIstened to Rush on the car radio the other day. He was making
    all these remarks about how the nuclear family has been destroyed
    by the Democrats. And that from a guy who has been married FOUR times!
    Fortunately no kids!

  6. mikoglaces

    @punchak

    Bill has guests so he can either use them to support his position, like he used this priest, or to appear to allow an opposing view. What a windbag!

  7. George S. Harris

    I don’t understand why people who profess to dislike (hate May be too strong) the likes of Matthews, O’Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, et al continue to watch/listen to them. Is it to push your “Pissed Off” button do you can then rant about what a-holes they are or what? If enough people would stop paying attention to them, they might just go away. As for me, I have much better things to do that clog up my head with their crap.

  8. Wolverine

    But, really, are not all those pundits, left or right or anywhere in between, just bloggers but with microphones and cameras and bigger audiences? Perhaps we’uns are just smaller thems.

  9. Steve Randolphva

    The Foxy Folks are apparently fans of Jonathan Swift’s
    “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of the Poor
    People from Being a Burthen to the Publick”.

Comments are closed.