Critics have claimed that Fox News host Laura Ingraham wants people to starve, based on a clip of her and and Jon Taffer of "Bar Rescue" talking about unemployment benefits.
You literally cut this clip to say the opposite of what he actually says. Congrats.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 13, 2021
The tweet in question comes from Andrew Lawrence, the Deputy Director of Rapid Response for Media Matters for America.
Lawrence's clip does not include Ingraham's comments clarifying that she actually supports benefits for people who need it.
You cut the part where she said, “I don't mean physical hunger, because people who are in need need help, but people who can work but refused to work.” You’re one of the many reasons that MMFA has a tiny & inconsequential audience. pic.twitter.com/ES2a3LEXhh
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) August 13, 2021
Lawrence is referring to comments from Taffer who said that "I have friends in the military who train military dogs, and they only feed a military dog at night, because a hungry dog is an obedient dog. If we're not causing people to be hungry to work, then we are providing them with all the meals they need sitting at home."
Taffer has since apologized.
My comment was an unfortunate attempt to express a desire for our lives to return to normal. I recognize this has been a challenging year for everyone, and I am eager for the hospitality industry to come back stronger than ever. 2 of 2
— Jon Taffer (@jontaffer) August 13, 2021
The segment is also getting attention due to a tweet from Justin Baragona of The Daily Beast.
Laura Ingraham: "What if we just cut off the unemployment? Hunger is a pretty powerful thing."
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) August 13, 2021
Bar Rescue guy: "They only feed a military dog at night, because a hungry dog is an obedient dog. Well, if we are not causing people to be hungry to work..." pic.twitter.com/Pw5C6n6l02
Others are also pointing out that Baragona's tweet does not include Ingraham's clarification in his text.
Far be it from me to go to bat for Laura Ingraham but the literal next sentence she says is "I don't mean physical hunger, because people who are in need need help." https://t.co/lRKGIzBCaC
— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) August 14, 2021
"Well, what if we just cut off the unemployment, hunger is a pretty powerful thing. I don't mean physical hunger, because people who truly are in need need help, I'm talking about people who can work but refuse to work, but the government is literally putting anvils in many ways on people's shoulders through the mandate, regulations, and now through free money which obviously -- the piper eventually has to be paid," Ingraham had said.
The segment also discussed how, as Taffer put it, "opportunity is enormous today, but nobody is seizing it." Ingraham and Taffer were discussing federal unemployment benefits as a disincentive for people to return to work, which has also been the subject of columns for Townhall, including from Scott Morefield and Laura Hollis.
Taffer shared examples of businesses having to change, with his dog's veterinarian having to push back his appointment, to truck drivers, to a need for more self-check outs. "This isn't specific to any industry, Laura, it is across all industries. It's across different income levels as well," he said.
As Spencer reported last month, Democratic states with higher unemployment benefits have had higher unemployment.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the segment read:
TAFFER: If you get $800 a week of unemployment benefits and you live with a partner getting $800 a week unemployment, $1600 a week, $83,000 a year for that household in unemployment benefits. The median income in America is only 63,000. We are incentivizing people to stay home. What if we gave that additional unemployment benefits to employers to incentivize people to go to work?
INGRAHAM: Well, what if we just cut off the unemployment, hunger is a pretty powerful thing. I don't mean physical hunger, because people who truly are in need need help, I'm talking about people who can work but refuse to work, but the government is literally putting anvils in many ways on people's shoulders through the mandate, regulations, and now through free money which obviously -- the piper eventually has to be paid. John, I want to ask you though about this idea of work-life balance. Because nobody wants to miss their kids growing up, and you stay in the office your whole life and you never see your family. So that's really important. However, have we taken that a step too far when you think of, well, a lot of the millennials talking about I need time for "self-care," I don't know why I'm harping on that tonight, but the whole self-care movement is a little -- my mother is not with us, but she worked from the time she was 12 during the Depression and if she heard the self-care thing, I think her head would explode.
TAFFER: You know, I think that's right. I have friends in the military who train military dogs, and they only feed a military dog at night, because a hungry dog is an obedient dog. If we're not causing people to be hungry to work, then we are providing them with all the meals they need sitting at home. I'm completely with you, Laura, these benefits make no sense to us. And on top of the impact of not getting employees and not being able to run our businesses, in my industry we have meat prices up 10 percent, chicken prices are up, 15 percent.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member