Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

highplainsdem

(49,122 posts)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:16 PM Feb 2012

Krugman: Moochers Against Welfare

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html

And what these severe conservatives hate, above all, is reliance on government programs. Rick Santorum declares that President Obama is getting America hooked on “the narcotic of dependency.” Mr. Romney warns that government programs “foster passivity and sloth.” Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, requires that staffers read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” in which heroic capitalists struggle against the “moochers” trying to steal their totally deserved wealth, a struggle the heroes win by withdrawing their productive effort and giving interminable speeches.

Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?

-snip-

Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”

Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on. And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage. For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.

-snip-
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman: Moochers Against Welfare (Original Post) highplainsdem Feb 2012 OP
Posted to my FB page. Atman Feb 2012 #1
K&R....n/t unkachuck Feb 2012 #2
Just breathtaking denial. There's no rationalizing the stupid. Its just plain denial riderinthestorm Feb 2012 #3
Ayn Rand's heros struggle by "giving interminable speeches" NAO Feb 2012 #4
You have far more fortitude than I. nilram Feb 2012 #6
I guess that Newest Reality Feb 2012 #5
Vast Bulk goes to elderly, disabled and working families. ErikJ Feb 2012 #7
 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
3. Just breathtaking denial. There's no rationalizing the stupid. Its just plain denial
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:37 PM
Feb 2012

Even when it slaps them upside the face....

Scary shit. Scary OP. thanks for posting....

NAO

(3,425 posts)
4. Ayn Rand's heros struggle by "giving interminable speeches"
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:53 PM
Feb 2012

Gawd, I can't believe I read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover in high school. I remember those speeches that went on for ever.

nilram

(2,895 posts)
6. You have far more fortitude than I.
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 02:50 AM
Feb 2012

Around 9th grade, I saw it at a Woolworth's for cheap and had a vague idea it was an important book. I bought it, started reading and just couldn't finish. No plot, all the characters spoke the same way, plodding use of language, dull ideas. I read so many books, so many of which I don't remember, but I guess I remember this one because it was so disappointing.

Newest Reality

(12,712 posts)
5. I guess that
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 11:59 PM
Feb 2012

it is perfectly fine for big banks and major, multinational corporations can accept bucket loads of welfare sucked out of our taxes because they are not idle.

I thought that profits and gigantanormous CEO pay/benefits were the formal income model.

So, profit, plus "justified" welfare income, (adjusted for person hood and number of subsidies) is now the accepted definition, then.

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
7. Vast Bulk goes to elderly, disabled and working families.
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 03:16 PM
Feb 2012

"Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on. And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage.

For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.

The truth, of course, is that the vast bulk of entitlement spending goes to the elderly, the disabled, and working families, so any significant cuts would have to fall largely on people who believe that they don’t use any government program.

The message I take from all this is that pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong. Yes, voters sent some severe conservatives to Washington. But those voters would be both shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman: Moochers Agains...