Even critics of the safety net…
This article in the New York Times (Even critics of the Safety Net) presents a gentle desription of some voter feelings about the political and economic ‘issues’ of this economy and election. I have a lot of different feelings about the description of people interviewed. The current media surrounding the election campaigning does not allow for voter foibles and confusions, and appears to demand stark responses so far. I do wish the author could have pressed for more thinking on the part of the people interviewed to illustrate how such ambivalence plays out in real life.
Update: I will have a post taking a look at the author’s writing, which is actually a piece of propaganda if you follow the statements of ‘fact’ and lack of easily added context for the figures and stated problems. Hence the author chose (or the editors, perhaps) instead to promote the confusions without educating readers or those interviewed.
One thing I carried away from this article was the notion that the writer wants us to think SS is “nice, but we can do without it.” Also, it’s being directed away from “the truly poor” who are the ones we should be”helping.”You’ll notice not a single person interviewed said s/he earned hr/his retirement benefits. In 32 years of talking to people in SSA offices all over the country, I never heard anyone say that the check was “money I can do without.”But, plenty of people said that they couldn’t afford to retire when I told them how much they could receive. Not want to depend on the govt? I wonder how Halliburton feels about that?!
This is very nasty stuff. I’ll be very interested to see your article. NancyO
Ugh this thing is full of dog whistles like this little chirp:
“The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement.”
Translation for non-tea party types: “Look over there! Some people are getting help who aren’t starving (yet)!”
The NYT cannot go out of business fast enough.
There is certainly a misconception of who is middle class and who is not. Perhaps this portion of the article explains it best:
“Chisago boomed and prospered for decades as working families packed new subdivisions along Interstate 35, which runs up the western edge of the county like a flagpole with its base set firmly in Minneapolis. But recent years have been leaner. Per capita income in Chisago excluding government aid fell 6 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis between 2000 and 2007. Over the next two years, it fell an additional 7 percent. Nationally, per capita income excluding government benefits fell by 3 percent over the same 10 years”
Poverty increased by 3% between 2000 and 2010.
I read the article initially as “people who need help won’t ask for it (and then vote for the its elimination)”, which gave me severe head-shake-itis. But Ta-Nehisi Coates had an interesting discussion-in-comments which ended up with this observation:
The idea of self-independence and the idea that there is something shameful in receiving public assistance […] is probably connected to the fact that a strong plurality of Americans self-identify as “conservative’. I’m curious though…the irony seems to be that its the conspicuous government support that is shameful…would Mr. Falk feel as bad receiving tax credits for his small business, or tax credits on his mortgage?
—
This goes back to our conversation last week about the myth of the “middle class.” The sorts of things you’ve mentioned are coded as investments in creating the “Ownership Society.
—
… which gave me a slightly different perspective on it.
The most infuriating story is the guy who is convinced that he’ll have to do without the government assistance that his disabled daughter now receives and it’s only right that they sacrifice. Because this country is so poor, right? We have a lot of deceived people out there.