Political Truth.
Whether you like it or not.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

The Daily Drift

Hey, wingnuts, yeah we're talking to you ...!  
The Truth Be Told is read in 201 countries around the world.
Be a Liberal support US orchards and eat an apple... !

Today is - Johnny Appleseed Day
Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally

Some of our readers today have been in:
The Americas
Hamilton, Bermuda
Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Pocao de Pedras, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo e Vitoria da Conquista, Brazil
Montreal and Quebec, Canada
Bogota y Neiva, Colombia
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Mexicali, Mexico City, Monterrey y Tijuana, Mexico
Boaco, Nicaragua
Catano y Ponce, Puerto Rico
The Bottom, Sint Eustatius-Saba
Barquisimeto, Venezuela
Brussels, Belgium
Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Ruse, Sofia и Varna, Bulgaria
Karlin, Prague a Stare Mesto, Czech Republic
London, England
Bordeaux, Calais, Cerny, Marseille, Nice, Paris, Roubaix, Rouen, Saint-Agnant, Salon-De-Provence, Strasbourg et Velizy-Villacoublay, France
Frankfurt Am Main, Hamburg, Nuremberg und Unterpfaffenhofen, Germany
Meria, Georgia
Athens, Greece
Rathcoole, Ireland
Agliana, Arcugnano, Florence, Palermo, Torino e Torre del Greco, Italy
Koknese, Riga, Ventspils, Latvia
Chisinau, Moldova
Haarlem en Houten, Netherlands
Biala Podlaska, Myslowice i Warsaw, Poland
Lagoa e Porto, Portugal
Bucharest și Timisoara, Romania
Bol'shoy Kamen и Ryazan, Russia
Bratislava a Prešov, Slovakia
Madrid, Valencia y Vigo, Spain
Kista, Sweden
Beijing, China
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar, Bokaro, Calicut, Chetput, Jodhpur, Mumbai ਅਤੇ Muzaffarpur, India
Pacarkeling, Indonesia
Tehran, Iran
Tokyo, Japan
Amman, Jordan
Al Fahahil, Kuwait
Kajang, Kota Bharu, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Lumpur, Kuching, Papar, Seremban dan Victoria, Malaysia
Colombo, Sri Lanka
Doha, Qatar
Sanaa, Yemen
Cotonou, Benin
Nairobi, Kenya
Abuja, Lagos, Nigeria
Johannesburg, South Africa
The Pacific
Homebush and Sydney, Australia
Noumea, New Caledonia
Makati, Philippines

Venezuela a threat to US national security

Obama declares Venezuela a threat to US national security

Iran Foreign Minister Gives GOP Senators A Dose Of Reality Medicine

by karoli
Iran Foreign Minister Gives GOP Senators A Dose Of Reality Medicine 
Whatever our response as a country is to Senate Republicans' shameless attempt to undermine the President's negotiations with Iran, I think we can all agree that foreign minister Javad Zarif's response is a terrific one.
Here it is, via Metaquest:
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.
He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.
Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."
Republican idjuts like Tom Cotton may think it's cool to play cowboy with international relations, but we're fortunate to have some adults in the room still.

Obama White House Rips Senate Republicans For Their Treasonous Letter To Iran

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program. …
The White House ripped Senate Republicans for their attempt to undermine negotiations with Iran, and stopped just short of accusing the 47 Republicans who signed a letter to Iranian government of treason.
Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the Senate Republican letter to Iran where they promised to undermine any agreement that President Obama makes on their nuclear program.
Earnest said:
I would describe this letter as a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.
The fact is that we have heard Republicans for quite some time, including the principal author of this letter, make clear that their goal is to undermine these negotiations. Again, that is not a position that I am ascribing to Sen. Cotton, that is a position that he has strongly advocated. He described it as a feature of his strategy, not a bug.
I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter…It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.
The letter that the Republicans sent suggested that any agreement made with President Obama would be meaningless, “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” Earnest accused the Republicans of being on a march towards the military option in dealing with Iran. It is clear that the letter from the Republican senators was an attempt to destroy the diplomatic process.
The Press Secretary stopped short of calling out the Senate Republicans for treasonous behavior, but his description of the Republican behavior of trying to undermine the goals and national security of the United States left little doubt about how the White House feels about this issue.
Senate Republicans are attempting to undermine the United States government by establishing communications with hardliners in Iran who promote and fund terrorism. Republicans have taken their campaign to undermine and delegitimize the President Of The United States global.
The White House is ripping the Republicans in the bluntest way possible.
Senate Republicans have shown their true colors, and those colors are not red, white and blue.

Iran Letter Backlash Grows As Bernie Sanders Accuses Senate Republicans Of Sabotage

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) hit Senate Republicans right between the eyes by accusing them of an act sabotage in an attempt to start a new war in Iran.
In a statement, Sen. Sanders said:
It appears that for most of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq were not enough. They now apparently want a war in Iran as well. President Obama is working with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China to try to negotiate a peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. These negotiations must be allowed to continue and, hopefully, will succeed. It is an outrage that my Republican colleagues are trying to sabotage that effort.
Sen. Sanders’s statement came after White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest accused Senate Republicans of trying to undermine President Obama, “I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter…It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.”
The Republicans have so grossly miscalculated the public reaction to their letter that even Iran’s Foreign Minister called it propaganda. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
The Senate Republican letter revealed how far they are willing to go in order to sabotage their own government. Republicans may have crossed the line into treasonous territory with their letter, but Sen. Sanders was correct. The letter was a definite act of sabotage.
Senate Republicans demonstrated that they were unwilling to support this president in foreign or domestic affairs. Republicans went far beyond having a difference of opinion with the president. They are now actively trying to jeopardize the foreign policy of their own country.
This sort of behavior is unprecedented in American history. Republicans are sabotaging their own country because they despise the president and are lusting for a new war in the Middle East. Republicans have once again brought shame to their country and embarrassed every American on the world stage. The Senate Republican saboteurs deserve to be punished.

Law Professor: GOP’s Letter To Iran Explaining How Constitution Works Gets Constitution Wrong

by Jameson Parker 
Yesterday, a group of 47 Republican senators became an international embarrassment when they published a letter to Iran telling its leaders to ignore Obama. Today, they become a national one.
The group of Republicans had hoped that by sending a letter to Iran highlighting the way America’s “constitutional system” works, it would become clear to the Iranians that while the president has been working tirelessly with them on an historic nuclear deal, the Republican controlled Congress was planning on derailing any negotiations they could.
In a page oozing with condescension, they wrote in part:
While the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate… Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
However, despite the confident tone, it seems the lawmakers don’t really have a firm grasp on what their role in the treaty-process is exactly. According to a detailed analysis of the letter’s contents by a Harvard law professor named Jack Goldsmith, who teachers and writes about presidential power and international law, the members of Congress got huge portions of this wrong:
The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.”  But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis).  Or, as this outstanding  2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117):  “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.”  Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane.  Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States.
In other words, it’s a two-sided process that involves the president just as much as it involves Congress. The group probably wanted to de-emphasize the sharing of power with the Obama administration because: One, they hate Obama and petty insults are not beneath them. And two, they want to feel more important than they actually are.
As Goldsmith points out, the error in their letter is certainly technical, however that doesn’t mean it is any less embarrassing. The people who, one would think, have the best grasp on constitutional law, seem to have a few blindspots regarding their own limitations in it.
Making matters even more cringeworthy for the Republicans who had hoped this letter would be their shining moment of “screw you” politics to Obama: One of the letter’s chief architects, Sen. Tom Cotton actually graduated from Harvard Law. Apparently, he didn’t get his money’s worth – or at least slept through Goldsmith’s classes.

Always Wrong ...

Merle Haggard - It's Almost 'Criminal' What They Do To President Obama

by Leslie Salzillo
A Merle Haggard quote has been circulating social media over the last two days, almost as if it appeared in response to the incredible disrespect shown to President Obama by Republicans in Congress and foreign leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. The quote is from a 2010 Rolling Stone interview. Patrick Doyle spoke with music legend Merle Haggard, who was attending the 33rd Kennedy Center Honors. Haggard was invited to the White House to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award. Doyle asked Merle Haggard about President Obama, and the traditional 'stone-country' singer-songwriter said he enjoyed meeting Obama and found the President to be quite different from what he had seen in the media. Then Haggard interestingly added:
Merle Haggard: "It's really almost criminal what they do with our President. There seems to be no shame or anything. They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he's doing certain things that he's not. It's just a big old political game that I don't want to be part of. There are people spending their lives putting him down. I'm sure some of it's true and some of it's not. I was very surprised to find the man very humble and he had a nice handshake. His wife was very cordial to the guests and especially me. They made a special effort to make me feel welcome. It was not at all the way the media described him to be."
Doyle asked, 'What's the biggest lie out there about Obama?'
Merle Haggard: "He's not conceited. He's very humble about being the President of the United States, especially in comparison to some presidents we've had who come across like they don't need anybody's help. I think he knows he's in over his head. Anybody with any sense who takes that job and thinks they can handle it must be an idiot."
When Doyle asked if Haggard talked to the President much, the interview took a much lighter tone:
Merle Haggard: "I told him, "You and I have something in common: our wives are both taller than we are." And he said "No! She's got on 3-inch heels! And she is not that tall!" He was like me. He grabbed that real quick."
Merle Haggard's compassion and straightforwardness in this interview seem to be what many of us needed after the GOP once again shamed themselves, and this nation, by seditiously spiting the President of the United States. Reading Haggard's words again, was like a glorious breath of fresh air - an affirmation and validation of the thoughts many of us have been feeling. Merle Haggard was 73 at the time the Rolling Stone interview. That night he stood alongside other living legends like Sir Paul McCartney and Oprah Winfrey. And this was not his first invitation to the White House. Merle Haggard has also been the guest of both President Nixon and President Reagan.
It's easy to see why Merle Haggard is loved by millions. He's the 'real deal'. Having been involved in the music industry in Nashville, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Haggard years ago - a truly charming man. It's as if that rough exterior, from once leading a very rough life, just sort of melts away when you shake his hand. You can feel his warmth. And looking into his eyes, you can almost see through to his beautiful heart.
Visit/Like Merle Haggard's Facebook Page here. At 77, he is still touring, and last year Merle teamed up with pals Willie Nelson and Kris Kristofferson to make an album.
Thank you, Merle Haggard. You are loved.

Fox News Would Probably Say President Obama was Being UnAmerican Here

by Sarah Burris
Republicans LOVE to trash talk the President and claim that he hates America. Most famously, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said:
“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said to the crowd, sounding a well-worn dog-whistle. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up through love of this country.”
But, Senator Claire McCaskill hit back hard on Twitter while watching President Obama’s speech on the 50th Anniversary of the March in Selma:
I dare anyone to listen to the speech the President gave today and then say he doesn't love America.
I’m truly shocked that Fox News didn’t have the guts to follow through with their accusations that the President is unpatriotic. Here’s a quick excerpt we put together of President Obama’s references to his faith in America:

Every time Fox News says something like this, we talk about it. We highlight the absurdity. We shout about racism. We demand apologies and respect. Instead of respect, we get more of the same.
A leader’s patriotism should never be called into question. I don’t care if you’re George W. Bush or Barack Obama, if you’re serving as the President of the United States of America you’ve dedicated your life to America. Period. If you’re sitting in that office, chances are you’re getting shot at and you and your family are being threatened. Can we all agree that if you’re putting your life in harm’s way for your country, whether you’re a soldier, elected leader, or a first responder, that you’re not doing it for a free steak at The Sizzler?
Let’s be realistic, if the criteria for ranking patriotism is based on a scale created by the Republican Party and Fox News my guess is they wouldn’t even meet their own expectations.

Tennessee’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Republican hit ex-wife with his car — twice

Tennessee state Sen. Joey Hensley (R) [Chattanooga Times Free Press]
“I have three witnesses that saw the event,” Gina Hensley said. “Their statements are on file at the sheriff’s department.” Gina Hensley obtained an order of protection against the senator following the Feb. 18 incident.

‘The most racist politician in America’

Damn, Iowa

Republican 2016 contenders invade Iowa to talk up ethanol -- and woo rich donors

Bill O'Reilly's JFK reporting was impossible

Bill O'Reilly's JFK reporting was impossible -- I know because I was there

Walker doing illegal things again

Wisconsin's Walker signs anti-union 'right to work' bill into law

One Simple Way to Save American Democracy: Get Serious About Taxing the Mega-Rich

The Founding Fathers were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into an oligarchy.
At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
This week, Forbes Magazine released its list of the 20 richest people on the planet—and tied for number six were Charles and David Koch. Right now, it is easy to call out the billionaire brothers as a threat to our democracy (after all, they have promised to spend nearly a BILLION dollars in the 2016 election), but there are 18 other people on that list.

It's Bizarre: Libertarians Are Clueless About the 'Free Market' That They Worship

The challenge now: redeeming effective and democratic government.
The stubborn appeal of the libertarian idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that the free market is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. In an Adam Smith world, the interplay of supply and demand yields a price that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that government interferes with this sublime discipline, the more bureaucrats deflect the market from its true path.

Hey Wingnuts ...

SC Supreme Court: magistrates must be able to tell time and read

An order from the South Carolina Supreme Court dictates that those seeking to serve as magistrate judges must pass a rudimentary test of critical thinking skills.
As with many laws and rules, the most interesting thing about this is what isn't stated: that there must be a problem with SC's magistrates lacking extremely basic literacy, critical thinking skills, and the ability to reason -- to pass the test, you need to have a "sixth grade reading level, knowledge of basic mathematics, how to tell time, days of the week and months of the year, and a basic knowledge of the U. S. monetary units and the U. S. Customary System of weights and measures."
I hasten to add that these are minimum requirements, or as the court puts it, the requirements to become a "successful examinee." Successful applicants, it goes on to say, "will not only demonstrate a suitable level of learning ability, but also a mastery of fundamental basic skills." So this should not be interpreted as a suggestion that, say, just being able to make change for a dollar would cut it if you wanted to be a magistrate judge in South Carolina. You would probably need to be able to make change for bills of several different denominations, at a minimum.
Now, if we can get them to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time maybe we'll really be getting somewhere.

McDonald's sues to block Seattle's minimum wage

They're basing their case on the 14th Amendment, which addressed slavery by guaranteeing all persons equal protection under the law, and since corporations are people, well...
But what about the equal protection rights of the people who work in these businesses? Our historical research has found that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were very interested in employer-employee relations, and in particular, whether workers could earn "fair, living wages." That phrase doesn't come from some union organizer or activist in Seattle: it comes from Senator Jacob Howard, a staunch Republican who was the Fourteenth Amendment's Senate floor manager back in 1866, and whose statements on the concerns motivating the Fourteenth Amendment are a little more important than the legal opinions of Grimace and Captain Crook. And during the Congressional hearings documented in the official report of the committee that proposed the amendment, Senator Howard asked over and over whether employers would pay "fair, living wages." Of course, a living wage wasn't the only concern behind the Fourteenth Amendment. But, unlike protection of the franchised business model, it was definitely part of the overall goals.
Given how important the idea of "fair, living wages" was to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, it's shameful for the McNugget Buddies to claim that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause should protect them, rather than real human workers with families to feed. But it's not surprising. Ever since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, corporate lawyers have tried to leverage it into a racket to strike down laws like Seattle's. In 1938, a frustrated Supreme Court justice complained that "of the cases in [the] Court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of 1 percent invoked it in protection of the negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." Just this past year, we've seen the Equal Protection Clause invoked on behalf of coal companies and multinational agribusiness conglomerates. And now, the Fry Kids.

Nine Myths Wingnuts Love To Believe About Welfare

The Internet at its best is a treasure trove of information, better than a thousand libraries. At its worst, it is a means of spreading falsehoods unlike anything the world has ever seen. This is especially true in social media, which the right wing has discovered to be the perfect platform to spread misinformation on political subjects.
Of course, one of the right’s favorite targets is the American social safety net. Americans who receive welfare benefits or food stamps are regular targets of right wing memes and attacks on Facebook or other social media. Not only are most of these memes way off base, virtually every one of them plays on the public’s complete ignorance of how the programs we know as “welfare” function. What do you know about welfare? Most likely you know more than your right wing uncle. But, in case you are in need of some facts and figures, here is some information about some of the right’s favorite welfare myths that will certainly drive that uncle crazy at the next family dinner.
Myth: “People on welfare are lazy and sit at home collecting it while the rest of us work to support them.”
Fact: The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistanceeven though they work full-time.
During the recession, the Obama administration allowed states to request a temporary waiver of the work requirement, due to the scarcity of jobs. That move gave the right an opening to claim that President Obama was removing the work requirement for welfare. First, conservatives claim that those on welfare don’t want to work, then they claim that the president is “gutting welfare reform” by allowing states to request a waiver of the work requirement.
Myth: “People who go on welfare stay on it forever.”
Fact: According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent,  receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)
Myth: “There’s a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards. … She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000″ – Ronald Reagan
Fact: Ah, the “welfare queen.” Ronny loved to tell his stories, and his welfare queen story is one of the most popular. The only problem is the woman he talked about didn’t exist. There is some evidence that elements of this story may have been based on facts, but the descriptions of abuse by an actual woman were wildly exaggerated by Reagan.
Myth: “Welfare recipients keep having more kids so they can get more benefits.”
Fact: According to a 2010 report, which is the most recent data available, released by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the average family receiving TANF benefits has 1.8 children, which is about the same as the national average. Half of the families receiving TANF benefits only have one child. In fact, the average size of families receiving welfare benefits has declined from 4.0 in 1969 to 2.4 in 2010. Also, some states, such as Delaware and Georgia, make it clear to those who sign up for TANF benefits that their benefits will not increase if they have additional children. Taken from the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services website:
You will get information on family planning.  Your check will not increase if you have a baby 10 months or more after you sign up for this program. [Emphasis added]
Government Accountability Office report (page 45), shows the amount of TANF benefits paid in each state for one to three children. Even in states where having additional children will result in a benefit increase, that increase is, in most cases, $100 a month or less.
Myth: “Where Is The U.S. Headed If More Than 100 Million People Get Welfare?” – Headline of August 2012 column by CNN’s Jack Cafferty
Fact: One hundred million Americans on welfare? Cafferty apparently gets his information from a biased source, the Center For Immigration Studies, which is connected to identified racist John Tanton. According to the 2010 federal HHS report, 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children received TANF benefits that year, a far cry from 100 million.

Myth: “I see these guys all the time, hanging out and drinking, and doing drugs, collecting welfare instead of working.”
Fact: The able-bodied single male with no dependent children who collects welfare in the United States is extremely rare, since the primary goal of most welfare programs is to provide temporary support for children and families. Single males can receive certain benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if they are disabled. The rare, able-bodied male who does qualify for benefits is still subject to the program’s work requirements.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are drug users.”
Fact: In recent years, several states have tried requiring drug tests of welfare recipients. The number of applicants who tested positive for drugs was not enough to make the programs cost effective in every state where it was tried. Even Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, one of the early proponents of the idea has given up on it after his plan was ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts.
When Florida tried drug tests for welfare in 2011, only about two percent of all applicants tested positive for drug use. According to the New York Times, federal statistics show that the rate of drug use among welfare recipients is about the same as it is for the public at large.
Myth: “Most welfare recipients are minorities and illegal immigrants.”
Fact: TANF benefits were paid out to roughly the same percentage of white and black recipients in 2010, according to the HHS report. In fact, the percentage of black families receiving welfare benefits has declined by almost 7 percent since 2000. It’s popular among conservatives to claim that illegal immigrants are getting welfare. But that is not the case. Those who are in the United States illegally are ineligible for benefits other than emergency Medicaid.
Myth: “People collect welfare instead of work, and they get rich. They all have iPhones, drive new cars, have widescreen tv’s, etc. I work and I can’t afford any of that!”
Fact:  Since welfare payments vary by state and by the size of the family, it’s hard to provide all the pertinent numbers here, but here are some ranges:
  • A family of four can expect up to $500 a month in food stamp benefits. A single person can expect an average of $200 a month.
  • The average monthly allowance under TANF/AFDC is $900 for a family of four. For a single person the average is about $300.
It would be interesting to see what kind of “new car” anyone could buy on that income, or even an iPhone, for that matter. Also remember, despite what Newt Gingrich may have claimed during the 2012 election campaign, you can’t use food stamps for anything except food, so when you’re figuring how much money someone might have for an iPhone or a car, take that money out of the equation.
One final fact about welfare: Would anybody like to guess who makes up the single largest group on welfare in the United States? It’s children. One out of every four children in the United States receives welfare benefits.
“Everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on, who they can feel better than at any time they please.” — Kris Kristofferson
That seems to be the story when it comes to welfare and the attitudes of conservatives. “There but for the grace of God go I” isn’t a consideration. Ask any conservative what problems they have with welfare, and they are likely to start their reply with “I know somebody who…” and then launch into a narrative about someone they know who they don’t believe deserves benefits. But, in a nation of 300 million, it is impossible to know enough “somebody’s who” to reach a valid conclusion. Not that that matters to conservatives, who largely base their ideas on contempt for their fellow man.
Since the year 2000, over three million jobs have been lost to China. Most of those jobs were lost during the Bush administration. If we even had a fraction of those good paying jobs back, maybe so many people wouldn’t need to rely on welfare. But you can’t confuse conservatives with facts, when they would prefer to just blame the welfare recipients…and Obama.