So I saw this bullshit in the Pravda—I mean the New York Times. I will just intersperse my commentary liberally. First off there is the title “Friend with Benefits” by Charles M. Blow…only a liberal could think of using a pun on universally acknowledged psychologically, socially and emotionally destructive practice as a way to describe how much he loves government. Only a liberal can be so dumb as to not see how this just lends itself to comment about getting screwed.
Government is not the enemy.
Well he lost me here
We’ll he’s right sometimes other government are the enemy
Don’t believe that right-wing malarkey.
As opposed to liberal bullshit?
In fact, for millions of Americans down on their luck and at the end of their rope, they can quickly find that government is their last friend left.
Like your crack dealer, he may have been the one who got you into the end of the rope situation to begin with, but he’s always there to offer you another hit
Governmental assistance can prevent the certainty of a hungry night and a homeless tomorrow.
Yeah, let’s just ignore that the government is at the heart of the reason for the terrible economic downturn and why you were ever even allowed to buy a house you couldn’t afford that when it went into foreclosure your entire life savings were destroyed, yes let’s just ignore how much responsibility the government likely had in you being in that position in the first place.
It can mean the difference between the comfort of stability and the ravages of poverty.
Yes, yes it can. When government gets involved you have the ravages of poverty, when government is treated as the enemy and forced to mind its own business you have the comfort of stability
This function is now more important than ever, even as it is under more pressure than ever.
Yes, it has caused nothing but problems so far, so EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT clearly will fix the problems. What the hell is Blow on?
We learned this week that not only are there more poor people in America than had been previously reported, but that the only thing keeping millions more out of poverty are the very same social safety net programs that many Republicans despise.
Or you could look at it as the only thing keeping them on the government teat is the Obama administration’s refusal to do anything that would actually create jobs…reduce regulations, kill ObamaCare, not sue states in favor of illegal immigrant, not back unions, not bailout losing companies, approve a pipeline that would actually create 20,000 just to build the damn thing…let alone the reduced energy costs that would help all businesses…no let’s not look at how Obama and the Democrats are doing EVERYTHING in their power to stop economic recovery.
For decades, experts on both sides of the poverty debate have complained that the official government measure is flawed because it doesn’t account for measures like benefits from government programs, health care costs or taxes.
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I love the liberal habit of making massive jumps in the topic without any transition…it models their rather schizophrenic logic pattern.
So, to address those concerns, the Census Bureau this week released a Supplemental Poverty Measure, or S.P.M. The new measure changed the composition of the poor but found that it was a larger group — the official 2010 poverty rate was 15.2 percent, but the S.P.M. rate was 16 percent.
Because we just didn’t have enough people to treat as victims. I love how he admits that the Obama administration massaged the numbers to make them look worse, but he sees no problem with this. Also if the number is 0.8% off when poverty is at its highest—Thanks Barrack for that—that means during good economic times that difference is probably even smaller. I’m sorry but 0.8% error in social science statistics is pretty insignificant…but I wouldn’t expect liberals to actually know anything about the social science, or economics, or politics, or logic, or math, or common sense, or, well, anything.
Even more important, the report highlighted the role government programs play in mitigating it.
But conveniently ignored the role government programs play in causing it, it’s nice how liberals don’t ever look at the whole picture.
Many of these programs were expanded under the Obama administration with the much-maligned stimulus package.
Hmm..so we subsidized poverty and poverty grew…who would have guessed
Now many of those expansions are scheduled to expire
and a new crop of callous
Callous is a liberal term for “they can do math and know when they don’t have the money to pay for things”
Republicans threaten to not just trim the fat but to cut the meat.
Yes, because in this case the meat is on a carcass that has been lying out in the sun rotting for the last couple of weeks.
For instance, the report shows that if the earned income tax credit, a refundable tax credit for low-to-moderate-income workers designed to offset Social Security taxes and encourage work, was not included in the S.P.M., the poverty rate would jump from 16 percent to 18 percent. For children, it would jump from 18.2 percent to 22.4 percent.
So if we don’t count money they have people appear to be poor…well no shit…if you just ignored all the money I made I would look poor…hell if you ignored all the money Bill Gates made he would look poor…did you know that most of those in poverty (as defined by the census bureau) also have a refrigerator, more than one TV, a stove, a microwave, air conditioning, a DVD player, cable, a cell phone, a washer and dryer…indeed these people are without means and kept alive only by the government.
the stimulus bill increased the credit for people with three or more children
That would be people who can’t do the math that says birth control pills are cheaper than children…yeah I so want to subsidize these morons to continue imitating rabbits
and for married people so they would not have to face a “marriage penalty.”
Hey, here’s a wacky thought, why not just get rid of the marriage penalty in the tax code? Oh wait because that would mean we wouldn’t get to continue bleeding the middle class dry.
Those increases will expire next year. Furthermore, as The Christian Science Monitor’s Tax VOX blog points out, almost all of the Republican presidential candidates’ economic plans would “cut back or eliminate refundable tax credits.”
Yes, because they’re getting rid of all or almost all loopholes, which will mean the rich will get taxed more…but we can’t have that we have cronies like Warren Buffet and GE to bailouts.
As for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program for food stamps, the report says that without it, the overall poverty rate would move from 16 percent to 17 percent and for children it would move from 18.2 percent to 21.2 percent.
Hmmm…given what I’ve seen people with food stamps buy while they waddle around looking like Jabba the Hut, and that goes for their little oompa loompa spawn as well, I don’t think they would exactly be starving if ended the food stamps, they just wouldn’t be buying steak. You want to continue programs like WIC, fine that limits it the things you actually need.
The stimulus bill increased financing for food stamps, but those increases are being phased out. And, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, the Paul Ryan Republican budget presented earlier this year proposed slashing nutrition assistance by $127 billion over 10 years.
Translation in real terms: we’re cutting the fruit cups out of school lunch programs…you know, the ones we all threw away when we were in elementary school because they tasted like crap…I mean tasted like they were bought by a government buyer…oh there also seems to be some kind or program called “Senior Farmer’s Market Nutritin Program”…wtf…senior can go to the normal farmer’s market like the rest of us).
Obama’s stimulus package may not have provided the jolt to the economy that the country wanted and needed,
and while this may sound like the first honest thing he’s said, it’s not admitting what damage the stimulus did to the economy.
but it no doubt kept a jobs and poverty crisis from becoming a catastrophe.
Actually it created a catastrophe, much like if you actually knew anything about economics FDR extended the Great Depression rather than being the savior from it.
The administration’s inability to effectively convey that point is its own catastrophe.
Well it’s hard to convince someone you just shived that you’re doing them a favor, so I understand the Obama administration’s problem in selling their destructive policies.
A vast majority of people now believe that Obama’s economic policies have failed.
Yeah, that would be called those people who live in reality.
After Republicans hammered that point for so long, most people can only see what didn’t get better, not what didn’t get worse. (What didn’t get worse because of Obama’s programs…umm…union stranglehold on America, corruption and cronyism, the Chinese economy) A Gallup poll released on Wednesday found that 67 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy.
Thus showing that 33% of the country may quite possibly be mentally challenged or living in a cave.
This level of dissatisfaction makes people open to his cartoonish competitors’ Grinch-ish
Very mature ad-hominem attack…oh that’s right we’re going to steal Christmas from you…we mean evil terrible Republicans are going to steal everything from you …and you know what we’re going to tax your Christmas tree too…oh wait, no that wasn’t the GOP…who was the Grinch this week?
alternatives to economic policy
alternative to socialism, i.e. an economic plan that works
which invariably means the rich would get more and pay less
Because that’s why the Ryan plan would close all the loopholes, because we want the rich to pay less…huh?
and the poor would pay more get less
if by get less you mean they would have fewer handouts and actually have jobs which they would have to WORK for their livelihood, then yes…I am so glad that liberals don’t engage in class warfare.
At Wednesday’s debate, Michele Bachmann said that everyone should pay at least “the price of two Happy Meals a year” in taxes. And this is a candidate for president. Of The United States.
The bizarre place to put the period, plus the fact that President should be capitalized aside…she’s right everyone should pay taxes. If you’re going to enjoy the benefits you should contribute at least something to the general coffers…that’s not just fair, a word liberals love all too much, that’s just, a word that means nothing to a bleeding heart.
The Tax Policy Center has found that Herman Cain’s now-famous 9-9-9 would cause 84 percent of families to pay higher taxes. Even After Cain changed his tune and said “if you’re at or below the poverty level, your plan isn’t “9-9-9, it’s 9-0-9,” an expert with the Tax Policy Center told NPR that “we’d still expect to see close to 84 percent of families being made worse off by the Cain plan.”
Yes, and who was the first person to point out the compounding nature of 9% sales tax…that would be Michele Bachmann…but I have no problem with the 53% who don’t pay taxes now starting to pay taxes…further this doesn’t take into account that even with the overly high 9-9-9 (somewhere in the 5-7% seems more economically reasonable) that the economy would skyrocket with logical taxation and regulation which means that 100% of the people would probably be in a better position.
In Wednesday’s debate, Mitt Romney reiterated, with a straight face, that he prefers to let the foreclosure process happen instead of hold off “the normal market process,” or in plain English: help people to stay in their homes (as the Obama administration is attempting to do).
Homes which they can’t afford, homes which are artificially inflating the market, which is keeping people from buying homes at prices they can pay…yes we need to keep prices at a level where you need a handout to purchase them…heaven forbid we should eve r let the market make things affordable, what would people do if they didn’t need to rely on the government.
The lack of empathy for the poor and suffering on the part of the right is nothing short of breathtaking.
And your fucking lack of intelligence is astounding. So we should screw the next 3 generations so a small portion of whining idiots can have houses they shouldn’t have bought in the first place. We should make our children suffer so you can be comfortable today. It’s your absolute inability to think about anything but the immediate moment that shows that you, Mr. Blow, and your liberal brethren are the selfish bastard who have no empathy, who are incapable of thinking of anyone but yourselves, demanding that others live to serve you and your illogical desires without any regard for the people who do have to pay the bill and the children who will inherit unspeakable debt. A short period of pain and economic downturn would be far superior to the generation suffering you’re advocating. You’re not just lacking in empathy, you’re a goddamn sociopath.
And it comes as Gallup reported on Thursday that, “Americans’ access to basic needs is now at the lowest level recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking it in January 2008.” It explained that, “the Basic Access Index — which comprises 13 measures, including Americans’ ability to afford food, housing, and health care — declined to a record-low score of 81.2 in October. This means Americans’ access to basic needs, though still high in an absolute sense, is now worse than it was throughout the economic crisis and recession.”
Actually the low point was in 2009, but don’t let facts get in the way…the more important part to consider it this is not a scientific analysis of poverty it’s asking people “Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” I have the feeling that this American is confusing want with need. Not making what you need would probably mean you’re living in the poverty of the third world. It more likely means that people had to go to rice and cheap vegetables. Which I don’t care about—you’re not entitled to good food, you have to earn it!
And a Brookings Institution report released last Thursday said that “after declining in the 1990s, the population in extreme-poverty neighborhoods — where at least 40 percent of individuals live below the poverty line — rose by one-third from 2000 to 2005-9.”
You mean when Obama rolled back welfare reform and started paying for producing litters every year population went up in those areas. Shocking. I’m also shocked that’s there is gambling going on at Rick’s.
The Obama administration is far from perfect,
much like evil is far from good or stupid far from intelligent
and government is not beyond becoming bloated and being abused,
you have to love how he mentions bloating and abuse like it’s some theoretical thing for which there are no examples of right now, it must be very nice to live in his reality where pretty pink unicorns power the economy
but right is right and truth is truth: government can play a very positive role in protecting the less-well-off from the interests of the more-well-off, and this administration’s view of government is much more benevolent than those of the people who are seeking to unseat it.
Saying truth is truth right before making a patently false statement doesn’t make your lie anymore true, no matter how much you’d like it to. Government can do good for the poor by providing the laws and rules of capitalism and providing opportunity for self improvement, what this idiot is talking about never works.