dagblog - Comments for "Poor, White, and Republican "

Lunch with the FT: Charles

artappraiser — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:36:42 +0000

In reply to Poor, White, and Republican

Lunch with the FT: Charles Murray
The social scientist talks to Ed Luce about black-truffle pasta, blue-collar America, and why the Republican party’s candidates for the White House fill him with despair

By Edward Luce, Financial Times, March 9:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/628d8524-690b-11e1-956a-00144feabdc0.html...

Conservatives' Politics of

artappraiser — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:09:02 +0000

In reply to Poor, White, and Republican

Conservatives' Politics of Fear a Biological Response

Researchers looking at how we fixate on threats uncover more evidence of a biological component to the red-blue divide.

By Emily Badger, Miller McCune (Pacific Standard) Magazine, Jan. 23, 2012

[....]

“If we had only had this study, and if you asked me how strongly I thought biology was implicated in politics, I would not be willing to give any strong conclusion,” Dodd said. But there is all of that other research, done by some of these academics and others. “They are kind of pointing toward a common story of how there’s much more of a negative bias in conservatives and a positive one in liberals. That being said, our point of view this entire time has not been biological determinism; it’s not that biology is the only important thing. But it seems to make sense it’s clearly a piece of the puzzle.”

This is not a controversial idea in plenty of other contexts [....]

Ever since that fellow wrote

Richard Day — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:43:06 +0000

In reply to Poor, White, and Republican

Ever since that fellow wrote the book about Kansas.

I do not understand it.

I met so many misdemeanants and felons up here who made their living in the drug culture--I did not partake and never have.

You would think that those folks stuck in jail would be the last to vote repub.

And yet, that was not my experience with the people.

They all took advantage of whatever government subsidies might be available--like food stamps for kids and special food stamps for newborns or unemployment insurance or whatever.

But the fellow who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma was a saint to these people.

And they all voted--when they were able--for repubs.

Repubs sent more folks to prison over the last twenty or thirty years than had been sent to prison over the entire fifty years prior.

I do not understand the social mechanism involved except when one considers racism and ethnocentrism.

These lowest of the low never went to church. They never loved the AA sect.

Like these militia folks, they hate everybody.

They hate this country.

I would attempt to bring them all to the bright side of things and they would look at me like I was mentally retarded.

They knew enough not to use the 'n' word or 'sp' word in my presence.

Try as I might, i could not get to the nub of their philosophy!

Anarchy is an easy word.

But anarchy has nothing to do with the repub party.

Anyway you have me thinking.

And why not. It says

artappraiser — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:31:05 +0000

In reply to Finally, Cornell University?s

And why not. It says insurance right there in their names. Premiums are paid and funds are held in trust. And, it is how the programs were originally sold to the public.

I agree. I remember when it was common for some in the blogosphere to ridicule Tea Partiers saying the government should "keep their hands off my Medicare," I didn't think people saying it were that nuts. Those programs were sold as separate insurance that you paid for individually in advance, and that deduction off the paycheck for decades wasn't easy for a lot of people to take. It's rational to think it isn't their fault if the government didn't handle the pre-payments correctly; also, getting upset about changing rules over time is quite rational when you're pre-paying for something.

Those programs are where the word "entitlements" is used correctly, as opposed to the distorted uses of the word.

Still, when you get to the disability coverage functions of SS, that's where things get murkier. As is with workingman's comp and unemployment insurance, which are insurance programs with premiums paid by employers, too. But the funding is murkier, as are the rules.

Finally, Cornell University?s

EmmaZahn — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:07:15 +0000

In reply to Moochers Against Welfare By

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.”

Maybe some people (including me) think of these as insurance policies that just happen to be administered by the Federal government and not a private insurer. And why not. It says insurance right there in their names. Premiums are paid and funds are held in trust. And, it is how the programs were originally sold to the public.

I can understand why Republicans desperate to undo everything New Deal try to paint them as socialistic 'wealth transfers' (like every economic transaction isn't a transfer of wealth) but why, oh, why do so many Liberals and Progressives think of them that way, too.

Moochers Against Welfare By

artappraiser — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:41:03 +0000

In reply to Poor, White, and Republican

Moochers Against Welfare

By Paul Krugman, New York Times, Feb. 16/17, 2012

[....] 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.

[....] Contrary to what Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney suggest, Mr. Obama has not radically expanded the safety net. Rather, the dire state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible for benefits, especially unemployment benefits. Basically, the safety net is the same, but more people are falling into it.

But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations [....]

You made me curious so I took

artappraiser — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:04:00 +0000

In reply to I thought he was Dexter or

You made me curious so I took a guess and looked up the 2010 movie Winter's Bone that Packer mentions:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399683/

The photo is in the stills available there:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1831636224/tt1399683

It's Jonathan Hawkes, in a tale about an Ozarks meth dealer on the run from the law who has also put his house up for bail collateral, with poor daughter gone looking for him

"Not feeling entitled to good

Oxy Mora — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:00:16 +0000

In reply to I have been poor and white. I

"Not feeling entitled to good fortune is the beginning of having a conscience." What an insight.

I have been poor and white. I

moat — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:51:40 +0000

In reply to Poor, White, and Republican

I have been poor and white. I am still white. While it is not a problem now, the future is unknown about the poverty thing. It is perfectly possible that it could return at any time.

Needing help feels like a failure when one's efforts aren't enough to make a living. If one has felt the arbitrary quality of that kind of losing, it tempers the pride one might take in "victory." Not feeling entitled to good fortune is the beginning of having a conscience.

The first thought that struck me reading Packer's piece is that the desperation he is talking about is also the ground of common understanding between people from very varied backgrounds. What binds some people together in tight circles of shared identity prompts others to abandon those circles.

So it will ever be.

Artsy, interesting cast of

Oxy Mora — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:51:06 +0000

In reply to Interesting to read the

Artsy, interesting cast of characters, I think I've met most of them. Really interesting comments on European views of our characters, love to hear you expand on that.