« New Hampshire in Fragments | Main | Jamie Lynn and Huckabee, Cont. »

The "Myth" of Welfare Queens

21 Dec 2007 03:02 pm

In one of his slew of Republicans-are-racist posts earlier in the year, Paul Krugman wrote, sarcastically:

When [Reagan] went on about the welfare queen driving her Cadillac, and kept repeating the story years after it had been debunked, some people thought he was engaging in race-baiting. But it was all just an innocent mistake.

Of course, there couldn't be a third option - like, say, that Reagan was indulging in his typical fondness for using vivid Reader's Digest-style anecdotes to illustrate his arguments, and that the "welfare queen" story drew on real-life incidents to get at the underlying reality of an easily-abused welfare system, even if the Gipper's details were fuzzy. No, it's racism or nothing.

I thought of the Krugman line while reading (via Rod Dreher) the story of protests in New Orleans over a plan to demolish several public housing complexes. Here's a snippet:

Sharon Jasper, a former St. Bernard complex resident presented by activists Tuesday as a victim of changing public housing policies, took a moment before the start of the City Hall protest to complain about her subsidized private apartment, which she called a "slum." A HANO voucher covers her rent on a unit in an old Faubourg St. John home, but she said she faced several hundred dollars in deposit charges and now faces a steep utility bill.

"I'm tired of the slum landlords, and I'm tired of the slum houses," she said.

Pointing across the street to an encampment of homeless people at Duncan Plaza, Jasper said, "I might do better out here with one of these tents."

Jasper, who later allowed a photographer to tour the subsidized apartment, also complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door and a few other details of a residence that otherwise appeared to have been recently renovated.

If you click through to the story, you'll find a photo of Ms. Jasper's digs, paid for out of the public purse, which in addition to having been recently renovated appear to house an absolutely enormous flat screen television. There was, admittedly, no Cadillac in evidence, so calling her a "welfare queen" is a tad unfair. "Welfare duchess," though, seems like a reasonable term of art ...

Comments (161)

"Of course, there couldn't be a third option - like, say, that Reagan was indulging in his typical fondness for using vivid Reader's Digest-style anecdotes to illustrate his arguments, and that the "welfare queen" story drew on real-life incidents to get at the underlying reality of an easily-abused welfare system, even if the Gipper's details were fuzzy. No, it's racism or nothing."

Adding in the "Cadillac" makes it a not-even-cleverly-disguised appeal to racists, Ross. You're fairly young and you seem to have had a very genteel and sheltered upbringing, so perhaps you're just not familiar with all those old racial slurs about Negroes and their caddies. But the frigging Gipper had no such excuse, and he knew exactly what he was doing. It took a brain tumor to make Lee Atwater feel guilt about such tactics, but at least he came clean at the end.

After reading the rest of Krugman's column, which includes the stunning "strapping young buck" comment by Saint Reagan, I have to wonder just what it would take to get a true believer to admit that the guy was - at the very least - an Archie Bunker type, and at the very worst a cynical manipulator of racial animus.

Would saying that he'd "rubbed a pickaninny's head for good luck" have done it? Probably not. After seeing the reactions of cons to the Macaca Allen affair I know how far they'll go to absolve their heroes of this particular taint.

Obviously, it's all about framing in a picture like that. Nevertheless, that thing is so big and so close to the couch that I wonder if it's a fake (like those models you see at furniture stores).

Sadly, Klug, the picture probably is not faked. My brother the cop says that if there's one thing common to all "low income" homes, besides of course neglected children and/or animals, it is a gigantic flat screen television.

Casey writes: "My brother the cop says that if there's one thing common to all "low income" homes, besides of course neglected children and/or animals, it is a gigantic flat screen television."

And all cops are substance-abusing thieves who beat their wives and extort free sex from hookers. This is why they become cops in the first place.

Troll it up, ML&J!!

No, it's racism or nothing.

While you seem to take the position that it's never racism. I'm looking forward to the "Jim Crow: Just a Big Misunderstanding" post.

Casey replies: "Troll it up, ML&J!!"

Sure thing, Casey. Just curious - after your brother gunned down Amadou Diallo, did he let you sniff his gun?

Casey-
My brother the cop says the exact opposite. That kinda negates your anecdote, no?

ML&J: I wish! Unfortunately, though, Mumia broke out of prison and shot my brother in the face.

Casey again: "ML&J: I wish! Unfortunately, though, Mumia broke out of prison and shot my brother in the face."

Your brother had it coming - he was trying to steal Mumia's flat screen TV.

MLJ,

So what if Reagan, or anyone else for that matter, made veiled reference to the fact that welfare users are disproportionately black? You can bet your last dollar that if blacks were transferring billions of dollars to welfare users who are disproportionately white, the usual suspects would be screaming about how racist the system is. Decent taxpayers have every right to be upset that their tax dollars go to ungrateful wretches like Sharon Jasper. And if there is a racial edge to it, maybe it's because of stuff like this:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/17714.html

jim jones puts down the Kool-Aid long enough to type: "So what if Reagan, or anyone else for that matter, made veiled reference to the fact that welfare users are disproportionately black? You can bet your last dollar that if blacks were transferring billions of dollars to welfare users who are disproportionately white, the usual suspects would be screaming about how racist the system is. Decent taxpayers have every right to be upset that their tax dollars go to ungrateful wretches like Sharon Jasper."

If you think the system doesn't work, chuckles, attack the system as a whole - why bother bringing race into it at all, unless you're trying to appeal to assholes? Who cares about "disproportionately"? That's just code for saying, "Sure, most welfare recipients are white, but I get a chubby from beating up on them thar darkies."

But since you're a racist who is incapable of being honest about your true nature, you couch your racism in what you think are more acceptable terms, just like Saint Reagan did. Which makes you a coward as well as a bigot.

I didn't "couch" anything. I flat out said there is nothing wrong with pointing out that that blacks are on average much more likely to be on welfare. Your "ha, I called you a racist, I win!" gig won't work on me. One group of people going on welfare at very high rates might be a key reason the system doesn't work, Einstein. It's a fact of life in America that many persistent problems have racial dimensions (e.g., the fact that America has much higher crime rates than Europe is due primarily to the sky-high violent crime rates among blacks). People like you just make clucking noises and spout your BS because you get off on feeling morally superior.

jim jones again: "People like you just make clucking noises and spout your BS because you get off on feeling morally superior. "

Racists like you just make yahoo noises and spout your BS because your only venue for feeling superior lies in your racism. You know you're an inferior loser down deep, but hey! At least you're not one of THEM!

The fact is that more people like you are on welfare or unemployment than people like Sharon Jasper. You can crow about "disproportionately" all you want, but I'd bet you and most of your family have been on some form of government dole or another at one time or another. And for the record, I never have been.

"but I'd bet you and most of your family have been on some form of government dole or another at one time or another. And for the record, I never have been."

Well, that settles it then, I guess. MLJ is welfare-free, everyone! And he's somehow divined that I'm on the dole. Oh, and for the record, I'm actually a self-made billionaire at age 22.

You can't counter anything I've said except to cry "racism" over and over again. The fact that you can't counter the arguments of someone you believe to be on welfare is telling. Off you go, and be sure to pat yourself on the back for your noble work today.

Are you googling in the hopes of trying to find some information that will contradict what I've said? If so, here's a hint- you won't be able to.

I'm off to go watch the game. Perhaps, I'll stop by tomorrow afternoon and continue this beatdown.

Remember Moe- No justice, no peace!

jim jones again: "You can't counter anything I've said except to cry "racism" over and over again. "

I have no need to counter anything you said, actually. I just have to point out how unimportant it is, and your motives for saying it. The racial breakdown of people on welfare doesn't bother me at all, as long as we do everything we can to ensure that people who need the help get it.

What's the practical application of your "disproportionality" nonsense, anyway? Do you want to round up all the blacks and send them to camps or do you want to "send them back to Africa"? You seem like the sort.

and your motives for saying it.

Jim Keane, I am so glad you can see into our hearts and tell us our motives.

Southerner voters actually loved the welfare state before LBJ. They weren't in a hurry to all go to someone who wanted to slash it, like Reagan. However, LBJ's legislation made it legal for Southern blacks to receive welfare and public assistance like any white of the same income, which beforehand was illegal down South. It was only then that the big-government Dixiecrats started complaining about welfare and joined the Republican Party.

"I have no need to counter anything you said, actually. I just have to point out how unimportant it is, and your motives for saying it. The racial breakdown of people on welfare doesn't bother me at all, as long as we do everything we can to ensure that people who need the help get it."

Good news, MLJ, I'm back from the game! And yes, you do have that need. Because as the article we are talking about illustrates, there are people who are gaming the system, not simply getting the help you need. You seem to be fascinated with the word "disproportionate." Put on your lefty thinking cap while I give you a hypo, and try to keep up with me. Let's say 99% of welfare recipients were white, and 99% of the funding for welfare came from blacks, and white people b*tched about how racist black people were, do you think black people would have the right to ask themselves "hey, maybe it's something wrong with white culture (or gasp, genetics!) that accounts for their disproportionate use of welfare, and that we shouldn't feel responsible for making up for their mistakes?" As even you can see, that is an extreme example. But normal people would find something strange about those facts, and would further inquire into the matter. In other words, the disproportionality would be a flag to them. By the same token, the fact that approximately half of the murders in this country are committed by a group comprising 13% of the population suggests there is something wrong with that segment of the population. Ditto the welfare numbers.

Nice strawman with the "send them back to Africa" line. You apparently gathered that from the simple facts I mentioned. If the truth offends you and leads you to draw hysterical conclusions, that's your problem. All I'm asking is that people like you cease their holier-than-thou routine when someone (Reagan, in your words) alludes to something that is obviously true. I'm guessing you don't have a problem with the stereotype of serial killers as white guys?

By the way, my point about you sticking up for welfare users just so you can feel good about defending black people is nicely illustrated by your own words. You say you support welfare because it's just giving people the help they need (you noble, selfless soul you!). Yet you look down on me and my family because, in your own mind, you imagine that we receive welfare (and because you know I'm white). You get off on the idea of being a magnanimous person through the welfare system, but the truth is you look down on welfare recipients (at least if they are white).

By the same token, the fact that approximately half of the murders in this country are committed by a group comprising 13% of the population suggests there is something wrong with that segment of the population.

Yeah. It's called a quarter millennium of slavery, assmunch.

LOL, that's all you got? Care to explain the sky high violent crime rate for blacks in England today? Or why South Africa's crime rate has skyrocketed as apartheid has been dismantled? Johannesburg is the rape capital of the world, and is in the running for murder capital of the world. Why Zimbabwe is collapsing as we speak? If slavery is to blame, why was the black murder rate so much lower during Jim Crow? (for your benefit, Jim Crow was AFTER slavery.) If you're going to post a response, remember to count to ten before you do so, and remind yourself that you're not terribly bright.

jim jones replies: "By the way, my point about you sticking up for welfare users just so you can feel good about defending black people is nicely illustrated by your own words. You say you support welfare because it's just giving people the help they need (you noble, selfless soul you!). Yet you look down on me and my family because, in your own mind, you imagine that we receive welfare (and because you know I'm white). You get off on the idea of being a magnanimous person through the welfare system, but the truth is you look down on welfare recipients (at least if they are white)."

No, I'm glad they get the help that they need. But of course I know you're white. I'm also sure you and yours have been given the benefits of the social safety net that the dreaded liberals have put in place.

There's a humongous welfare system in place for wealthy people - it's how Dumbya Bush made his fortune - and that I object to - but I have never and will never object to "my tax dollars" going to help people who need it. You struck out here, chuckles.

Good dodge, chuckles. You didn't address the fact that you ooze contempt for (white) poor welfare recipients (which you implied I am) while simultaneously championing welfare. What do you think of the woman in this article who is living on the dole better than many taxpayers with a job, and stil bitches about her lot and uses demeaning terms for whites?

I think most people would agree that there is corporate welfare in our society. That's unfortunate, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the current welfare system is being abused by lazy, undeserving people.

Is anyone surprised at how quickly this thread turned ugly?

Her apartmet certainly looks nice, (nicer than my home at least) but I don't think the article gives enough information about her to really judge the situation.

My problem with the "welfare queen" image is that people use it to imply that there aren't genuine problems of severe poverty in this country, and that isn't so. Just because the system can be abused does not mean the system is fundamentally wrong. It means we should be finding better ways to police it more effectively.

I don't think that anyone here has contempt for white welfare recipients. Who Moe and I have contempt for, is the people who are happy that the government helps _them_ out when they need it, but are unwilling to have the government help out other people who need it, especially when those people happen to be of a different race.

Personally, I'm glad that the government helps out people who need it, of whom Ms. Jasper appears to be one. I'm sure Moe would feel the same way. No contempt for white welfare recipients here, only for hypocrites.

Umm, maybe the tv was a gift?

Just pointing out one of many possible explanations that don't require welfare fraud.

Oh and Casey? In my low-income household my kids are loved and cared for, my cat is fat and sassy; and we manage with an 11-year-old 27-inch tv. Your brother lies.

Wow, you people are really naked about your racism. Be proud, say it loud, take the next step! get you white-power tattoos on your foreheads. Very stylish. That way civilized people won't have to wait for you to open your mouths before knowing to shun you.

Here's the double-bind. If Sharon Jasper keeps her apartment clean and attractive and decorates it with flowers she's a crooked welfare queen, cynically scamming the Hell out of the sweaty, put-upon, hard workin', tax payin', David Duke votin' white Louisianans. Conversely if she'd let it degenerate into a filthy mess, she'd be a typical slum-dwelling black: a sub-human savage who doesn't even deserve to live indoors.

W. Kiernan, very true. There was a great segment in Mad Magazine in the 1970's called something like "Why You Can't Ever Argue with a Bigot," where if, for instance, a black baseball player strikes out it was because black people are stupid and lazy, but if he hit a home run it was because black people are strong, simple-minded apes.

Wow

I can't believe how upset some people get over pointing out the obvious. Of course some people game the welfare system. Most everyone who is honest about what they see in front of their faces knows this. Who hasn't seen someone buying steak with food stamps? Does this mean we need to end all welfare for everyone? I don't think I saw anyone asking for that. Does it mean we can be a little skeptical about the people demonstrating for more government freebees? Of course - why should they be immune from questioning? Does it mean there is money now going for taxes that could be used for better purposes? Arguably.

The more interesting question is: Why do liberals need people, especially black people, to be poor helpless victims?

That's actually not an interesting question, it's a very stupid one. It suggests that either poor people didn't exist before we as a society decided to help them out, or that there's a way to eliminate poverty altogether, making relief for the poor nothing but a scheme by liberals to maintain power. As I said, very stupid.

It doesn't suggest that at all. That just shows you can't address someones point unless you take it and change it into something ridiculous.

It's a fair question. Ross writes a column that shows how the "Myth" of welfare queens is perhaps not a myth and then gets jumped on for being a racist and every other thing in the liberal catalog of evil, none of which address the facts he raises, they just impute supposed nefarious motives to everyone.

So I am doing the same. I say your motives are questionable. Why does looking at people on welfare the same way we look at anyone else threaten you so?

tcd99 writes: "Of course some people game the welfare system. Most everyone who is honest about what they see in front of their faces knows this. Who hasn't seen someone buying steak with food stamps?"

OMG! They bought STEAK? Don't they know they're only allowed to eat tripe and rotten vegetables?

"Ross writes a column that shows how the "Myth" of welfare queens is perhaps not a myth and then gets jumped on for being a racist and every other thing in the liberal catalog of evil, none of which address the facts he raises, they just impute supposed nefarious motives to everyone."

I "jumped on" Ross because his lazy, dishonest defense of Saint Reagan is about the 100th one I've seen lately, and he knows better. Anyone who was older than 12 at the time knew what Reagan was doing when he referred to "welfare queens in Cadillacs." As for "the facts he mentions," they were addressed, for what they're worth - which is damn little.

MLJ - Right - people on public assistance should NOT be buying steak. The fact that you disagree with this shows how out of touch "progressives" such as you are with the people they claim to be fighting for. The reason politicians make points like this is because it outrages working class people to see food stamps used to buy steaks at Safeway. It was resentment of things like this that Reagan was appealing to.

Keep defending this stuff - you are doing more than I possibly could to dismantle the welfare state.

If some family wants to eat rice and beans for six months and then use the food stamps they've saved up on a steak dinner on honor of their annoversary, or their kid's getting all A's for the year, or their grandfather who was just diagnosed with cancer or some such, I'm not the man to tell them they're wrong. Perhaps some of you right wingers are more bold than me, however.

And come on now. "Strapping young buck" has no possible meaning or connotation other than the racist one.

Anyone who imagines that poor families are going to follow some abstract model of thriftiness and not going to celebrate once in a while understands little about how people, _all_ people, work. Most families, as thrifty as they may be, are not going to deny themselves a celebration once in a while. Brazilian shantytown families bankrupt themselves for Carnival. African peasants bankrupt themselves for funerals. Indian families bankrupt themselves for weddings. This is how people are, all over the world. If you want to help people you need to help them on THEIR terms, which means acknowledging that they need money not just for necessities, but also for the occasional luxury, in order that they can feel human.

"And come on now. "Strapping young buck" has no possible meaning or connotation other than the racist one."

yes - if that was what Reagan said, that is a racist appeal - no question.

As for the steak for a special occasion, that may be true, I don't pretend to know the circumstances of every purchase someone makes. But when you see something again and again, the preponderance of the evidence begins to point in a clear direction.

Douthat seems to have no greater blindness than to the fact, and it is certainly a fact, that Reagan was a incorrigible liar. There is example after example after example. And, yes, this is one. "Reader's Digest style" is a euphemism for dishonest. Reagan represented something as true when he knew it wasn't. That's not being fuzzy with details, it's lying, just as when he lied about the retarded janitor, or when he lied about his honesty costing his high school team a football game, or when he lied about liberating a Nazi death camp.

Let's not forget when he lied about the Vietnamese testing chemical weapons on villagers (it turned out to be bee excrement) or any of his many lies about Central America, including that thousands of Miskito Indians were being killed by the Nicaraguan government, or that there were no opposition parties in Nicaragua, or that the Guatemalan human rights abuses were much exaggerated.

Reagan's embrace of a racist Southern Strategy went a lot further than his repeating of the welfare queen story.

Reagan's “states’ rights” speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where civil rights workers had been slain.

Reagan's declaration in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.”

There was also that time Reagan intervened on the side of Bob Jones University's ban on interracial dating

Reagan fired three members of the Civil Rights Commission only to have them later reinstated by the courts

Reagan opposed making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.

Reagan's embrace of the white racist leaders of then-apartheid South Africa

Reagan's defense of Sen. Jesse Helms' attacks on Dr Martin Luther King

Reagan's drastic cuts to important social programs that provided needed assistance to minorities

Reagan had Col Oliver North involved with smuggling cocaine into the U.S. which led to a crack epidemic at the very same time he had so erroneously declared a war on drugs, building prisons and increasing the sentences that has resulted in the disenfranchisement of generations of mostly black would-be voters to this very day.

I could go on.

tcd99 again: "MLJ - Right - people on public assistance should NOT be buying steak. "

You can actually buy steaks at a lower per-pound cost than some other meats, of course - it all depends on what kind of cut you're talking about, and whether there's a sale or not, so I have to say that you and your anecdotes are both full of shit. But I suppose you have a full diet in mind for the depraved poor.

tcd99 again: "As for the steak for a special occasion, that may be true, I don't pretend to know the circumstances of every purchase someone makes. But when you see something again and again, the preponderance of the evidence begins to point in a clear direction."

I have never seen anyone "buying steak" with food stamps - but then again, I'm not the sort of grudge-bearing asshole who monitors such things. The "preponderance of the evidence" doesn't mean a whole lot when it's anecdotal crap supplied by vicous racist assholes - see Casey's cop brother's crap up above.

Ross:

From watching you on BloggingHeads.tv, I usually think you're a reasonable man, even if I don't agree with all of your positions. I especially note that your Christianity is less tiresome than many who get air time. But your hypocrisy is pretty blatant in this post. I think you ought to review what your main man Jesus said, as Roy points out here:

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2007_12_16_archive.html#1939347067799016102

Welfare blacks and liberal whites are in a symbiotic relationship, even if neither want to socially mix with the other.

Greddulty stupidly writes: "Welfare blacks and liberal whites are in a symbiotic relationship, even if neither want to socially mix with the other."

I would say that Bush Repiglicans and Islamic extremists have a symbiotic relationship and don't want to socially mix with each other, but I've seen the pictures of Dumbya Bush and then-Prince Abdullah playing kissy-face and holding hands too many times to believe it.

MoeLarryandJesus’ M.O....Get all fiery and indignant and call the other guys the R-word. R-A-C-I-S-T! Even if the other guy never mentions race, stick that word in there and chances are you will sound really intelligent and reassuringly compassionate.
"Repiglicans" and "Dumbya Bush"? Wow. Oscar Wilde would be jealous of such biting wit!

Casey says: "Oscar Wilde would be jealous of such biting wit!"

Yeah, but your cop brother would just say Wilde was a homo and then make some dumbass comment about what homos have in their apartments. You'd go on to pretend your idiot sibling was some sort of authority worth citing, when in fact he's just another dime-a-dozen bigot with a badge.

Just like you - only you (fortunately) lack the badge.

I occasionally buy steak with food stamps. Then I take it home and cut it up for stir-fry.

1)It's a great way to get the kids to eat their veggies.

2)One steak feeds three.

3)Round steak, for instance, is often half the price per pound of hamburger.

You don't know much about being poor, do you?

Of course they don't, cassandra - and they lack the imagination or the will to think about what it must be like to really struggle from week to week.

I've only seen a couple of your posts, but you write very well and I suspect your kids will turn out very well, and that things will work out for you in the long run. Keep on kicking against the pricks.

Now now, Moe, don't dodge the issue. How in the world could someone who came up with the dynamic duo of "Repiglicans" and "Dumbya" not have a job at the Atlantic?! Truly you are the Orwell of Ross Douthat's comment section.

Casey stops playing with his noose collection and writes: "Truly you are the Orwell of Ross Douthat's comment section."

That's quite a compliment. In return I'll just say that you're the George Allen of the section. I'm sure that will make you, your brother, and your brother's mother very proud.

This was a good post by Ross, and an important subject. It's too bad the discussion got sidetracked into name-calling and crass generalization.

I worked for years with the poorest of the poor in the urban Northeast, and can testify categorically that poor people were victimized by the welfare system more than any other group. The big-screen tv's and Cadillacs are viable markers for a corrupt system, but the dependency and reinforcement for self-destructive behavior it fostered was a much bigger problem. Clinton's welfare reform was in my view his greatest domestic accomplishment.

Having grown up in the segregated South, I'm not one to understate the importance of race in politics. When I was a kid, the most avid supporters of segregation and the most overt racists were Democrats. Their switch to Republican was facilitated by subtle, and not-so-subtle, appeals to a "conservatism" that facilitated carrying on the old system of separate but equal.

That said, anyone who thinks racism explains everything about Republican gains in the South is guilty of gross oversimplification, and probably excuse-making for political incompetence. The fact that ostentatiously non-racist candidates like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton carried the South by big margins, and that Hubert Humphrey polled very well there, should put that myth to bed. Southerners, Black and White, are simply more conservative than people in other regions. When Dems nominate moderates, they can carry the South and win. When they nominate Northerners from the party's left, they don't. True in the Sixties, still true today.

Moe: You're dead-on in this thread. Jesus would be appalled at these people.

Cassandra: Good luck with your kids!

Everybody else: The point isn't that Moe likes to use terms of art for Republicans and Bush. God knows they deserve it. The point is that some people here are saying loathsome things about poor people like they all waste their money on plasma TV's. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Just because you don't personally have to struggle doesn't give you a license to jeer at people that do. Not only is that not Christian, it's not even minimally decent.

The "there are no poor people in America because almost 100% of the people classified as "poor" have TV's!!!" has become the 90's & 00's equivalent of the "welfare queen."

Do you know how stupid this complaint makes you appear to people who take even a moment to think about it? As others have pointed out, you don't know where she got the TV. A used TV that size might go for as little as $200. It might have been given to her as a gift by a member of the family who is a fix-it man. And even if she bought it new and paid a thousand dollars for it, it's kind of stupid to point to such an item as "proof" of someone living high on the hog on the taxpayer dime when you think of what it costs to live month to month: rents starting at $600 in small, inexpensive cities; utilities running several hundred a month, ditto for food, health insurance (if you can get it) at $200 or more a month per person....apparently those of you who are upset by the thought of a poor woman with a nice television set are all in the Barbara Bush camp ("these people were underprivileged to begin with so...heh heh...this is working out pretty well for them").

Anyone who can get their panties in a wad over a poor person's television, even if it is purchased with publicly-provided funds, while blithely ignoring the much more massive amounts removed from their wallets by the likes of Halliburton...I can be pretty comfortable with thinking of them as a racist (or at the very least, as a nasty and unenlightened person) and moving on. Some of you folks only seem to have a problem with theft and fraud when it's committed by people who have nothing - and then you're willing to make the accusation without any proof whatsoever.

Holy Crap your defense of Reagan is lamer than David Brooks'. You write:

>Of course, there couldn't be a third option - like, say, that Reagan was indulging in his typical fondness for using vivid Reader's Digest-style anecdotes to illustrate his arguments, and that the "welfare queen" story drew on real-life incidents to get at the underlying reality of an easily-abused welfare system, even if the Gipper's details were fuzzy. No, it's racism or nothing.

Krugman's criticism concerns the specific repetition of racist imagery, it doesn't take much for one to hear the message (as was his argument). It's not, as you suggest, a false dichotomy (racism or nothing). You're picking an irrelevant feature of the non-representative example, and claiming that its stylistic features (that it's a silly Reader's Digest style example) better explain its continued use. That's a pretty entertaining sophism.

Robert Powell writes: "The fact that ostentatiously non-racist candidates like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton carried the South by big margins, and that Hubert Humphrey polled very well there, should put that myth to bed."

It might if those were actually the facts. Jimmy Carter won the South by 9 points in 1976, but lost it to Reagan in 1980.

In 1992 Clinton lost the South to Dumbya's daddy by 2 points. In 2000 he tied there with Bob Dole, who was a zombie.

Those are the facts. Find another myth and another bed, Bobby.

Well, lookee over there, Bubba. One of them uppity negro wimmen done gone an' got herself a teevee. There oughta be a law!

This thread is crazy. From her minor complaints about the apartment, its clear she's a long term tenant of subsidized housing with no intention of leaving. It's wrong for her to have that TV. No she didn't buy it before she started getting welfare and she shouldn't have accepted it as a gift while being on welfare. Just because other people have done bad things or are racist, it doesn't change the fact the way she is living her life is morally wrong.

bp, you have no idea what her situation is or why she's on public assistance. She may be elderly, she may be disabled - the story doesn't say. You're making some pretty big assumptions here.

The fixation of yahoos on the frigging TV is pretty amusing since again there's no information about what it cost, how she got it, or anything else about it. I suppose you morons think she should be forced to sit in an 8 x 10 cubicle meditating on her mistaken life and the essential goodness of her benefactors.

Go Cheney yourself.

uh

That's not a flat screen TV.

duh.

Its and old style big screen tv. One could probably be had for a couple hundred bucks.

I just found two (one here and other here) big screen tvs similar to the one in the picture on ebay. They are going for rough ~150 dollars a pop.

What were your complaints again?

'Welfare' isn't the same damn thing as subsidized housing. Is there any evidence that this poor lady is actually on 'welfare'? You can't be on "welfare" long term these days, anyway, since there are time limits.

There's nothing 'morally wrong' about being on subsidized housing. We owe it to every one of our society's members to give them a decent place to live. I agree with Moe's description -- "yahoos".

bp, you have no idea what her situation is or why she's on public assistance.

Well, I have seen a picture of her apartment. That is "some" idea of her situation. I know she
complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door and a few other details of a residence that otherwise appeared to have been recently renovated
That's pretty strong evidence that she been there a while and doesn't consider it transitory housing. I also know that she is described as a
victim of changing public housing policies
I think its reasonable to assume, that those policies did not change suddenly and as a "victim" she is likely marginal need case. No, I didn't prove any of this, but thats a pretty high standard of debate for a blog post on the internet.

@Hector
And what's your point about the technical distinction between welfare and subsidized housing? All I care is that it costs tax payers money.

@RickM
So you found a few "old" cheap big screens on ebay that were bought in 1997. How does that give you any idea what she paid for it? I don't think her tv looks 10 years old. I can't tell the depth of her TV, but they still sell rear projection tv's (as opposed to tube based) that are quite nice, that would be my guess as to what it is.

bp again: "I can't tell the depth of her TV, but they still sell rear projection tv's (as opposed to tube based) that are quite nice, that would be my guess as to what it is."

Who gives a fat flying fuck about you or your "guesses"? Have any facts? A moronic yahoo like you makes broad assumptions about a woman's morality based on some dumbass, easily refuted guesses and a tiny picture.

And why the hell shouldn't she complain about missing screens? It's SUBSIDIZED housing - it isn't free - and even if it were free, is she supposed to enjoy the choice between allowing insects access or living in an airless cube?

Here's a 27 inch TV in the NO area for $100.
http://neworleans.craigslist.org/ele/512203188.html

Here's a 32 inch TV - with a table included - for $300.
http://neworleans.craigslist.org/ele/508533805.html

Here's a 42 inch one for $250.
http://neworleans.craigslist.org/ele/506183449.html

Oh, the luxury! The HORROR!

I am so glad Ross took the oh-so-brave step of hammering this woman as some sort of moral leper. Maybe in Scumbag Con Heaven Saint Reagan is looking down and giving Ross the Nicklesqueezing Cheapskate of the Week Award, with a Racebaiting Cluster!

Hoo boy, you people defending this post really are racist. The fact that you don't know it and the fact that being busted for your racism makes you squeal like pigs straight out of Deliverance doesn't change it a bit. Racist, racist, racist.

On top of that, you're stupid. You're letting this canard distract you from the pathetic reality that welfare isn't stealing nearly as much from your pocket as the politicians and their corporate backers who keep you in a lather about welfare cheats are.

And to the idiot that claimed the woman should not have accepted the gift of a large tv if she is on welfare - Christ on a cracker, get your head out of your butt! Are you nominating yourself to be the welfare gift Mullah? You gonna go around and measure tv's to pass judgement on what gift is too big? (no, I'm not saying it was a gift - I don't care if it was or wasn't.)

What's too big, you pretentious prig? Is 13" the appropriately humble size for a poor person? Will a 25" make them uppity? Should poor people shuffle with their heads down and not look us in the eye or risk losing welfare? God, you people are unbelievable!

While you're obsessing over her tv, the gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else is now back to where it was before the Depression hit in 1929. And the bottom of the bucket, the ultra poor, is now the fastest growing portion of our society.

But I suppose the ultra rich, like Paris Hilton, never paying taxes and having a billionaire lifestyle supported by American taxpayers is just ducky with all of you welfare vigilantes. Incredible.

Wake up, there is a welfare problem you should be paying attention to - no, not Mormans with 23 wives and 87 kids, all of whom are living on the dole - although I do wonder why you all never seem to mind the inconvenient fact that whole towns in Utah are made up largely of homes run by women with lots and lots and LOTS of children and they're all on welfare, with no dad in sight because he's at one of his many other wive's homes - all paid for by you.

No, I'm talking about the real welfare drain on this country - corporate welfare. It's a little more complex than the welfare queen sound bite and you might have to do some work to educate yourselves, but what's bleeding this country dry is corporations getting endless federal welfare while they take their hidden profits out of this country and while their CEO's give themselves golden parachutes of obscene amounts.

While you focus on a poor woman's television.

Moe, please watch the language. Mr. Douthat's blog is a family blog. Oh, and "Scumbag Con Heaven"...seriously, with such brilliant wordplay how has Ross not offered you a job yet?

"Moe, please watch the language. Mr. Douthat's blog is a family blog"

Would that be the Aryan Nation family or Klu Klux Klan family? I realize that they are somewhat related, however differences can be important when getting your hate on.

Casey, thanks for being a Concern Troll and being the best little bootlicker that you can be. Perhaps one day when you need help from a good Samaritan, we can all laugh about how ironic this all was and tell you to go fuck yourself.

Such grace, Tarheel, in getting your point across! Putting the Aryan Nation and the KKK in the same sentence is quite simply a stroke of genius...Did you steal that from Moe?

Casey wonders: "Putting the Aryan Nation and the KKK in the same sentence is quite simply a stroke of genius...Did you steal that from Moe?"

Definitely not. I would have used "the Bush family" as one of the options. They're certainly bigger scumbags than either the KKK or the Aryans are these days - and they're responsible for more deaths, too.

I was under the impression that common honor required that you confine your insults to someone stronger than you, not someone weaker. Picking on a destitute woman in subsidized housing, whatever her race, is simply despicable.

I find that far more offensive to common decency than Moe's strong language.

tcd99:

"So I am doing the same. I say your motives are questionable. Why does looking at people on welfare the same way we look at anyone else threaten you so? "

That's not what you were doing at all. You said that liberals "need" poor people to be helpless. Whether you want to admit it or not, the attitude of someone who can honestly ask that assumes that without aid, poor people would be more empowered than with it. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

to all those focusing on Sharon Jasper, take a minute and look at yourselves.

you live in the greatest nation on earth.

you have luxuries that those who came before you could have never imagined.

you have no impediments to being happy, whole, and at peace with yourself and the world.

yet here you are S-E-E-T-H-I-N-G

here you are outraged and filled with contempt

here you rant with dark heart and fume over the ungrateful Sharon Jasper

enablers come in many forms. and here so many unwittingly enable Sharon Jasper to yank their short chains.

the "problem" is less Sharon Jasper and more the need to be outraged, contemptuous, and angry over someone or something.

Wow, I've agreed with everything Hector wrote in a thread. Moving on...

It's just amazing the anger that this TV has generated. So poor people aren't allowed to have one nice thing? It almost feels like arguing with central planners who complain that people are spending their clothes money on red clothes instead of grey clothes. It would be one thing if she was acting like Peter Griffin in that episode where they ended up on welfare, but it's just one fucking TV. I've known white welfare-cheating deadbeat wife beaters and I've had black friends from hard-working families that have been on welfare. Their parents would always have to make sure to buy groceries when one of their kids' friends wasn't working their night job at the grocery store during the times they were on welfare because they didn't want their kids to be made fun of at school for their parents using food stamps. Some of the best, most hard-working people I know have been on welfare. You would be surprised how many rich authors (most famously J.K Rowling) have been on the dole.

the "problem" is less Sharon Jasper and more the need to be outraged, contemptuous, and angry over someone or something.

Well, that is a problem, to be sure, though I think "THE" problem goes more like this: there are a lot of people in the country who have a weird definition of what "patriotism" is, a definition which completely omits that which is the very basis of the nation...its citizens. So they proclaim their patriotism by pointing to their flag lapel pin before launching into the next attack on their fellow citizens. The attack can be focused on a group for any number of reasons: gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, language, economic status, difference of opinion...but it always unfolds in the same way: these people are your enemies. Not "these people are your fellow citizens who happen to be different from you in this way." So the focus is entirely shifted from "these, our fellow citizens are suffering from poverty/discrimination/lack of healthcare/insert social ill here and what can we do to help, since the country prospers when its people do" to "these people are losers and they want to take the money you were gonna spend on your 5th vacation home/Birkin bag/Hummer and piss it away on feeding their kids!!! They're STEALING FROM YOU!!!" And like an invisible dog whistle, it will set some to braying. Which brings us back to the need to be outraged, contemptuous, and angry over someone or something.

As for what I was saying about patriotism, I'm less sure of the definition of what it is than I am of what it's not, and here is what it's not: setting the citizens of the nation at each others' throats. Anyone who seeks to turn citizen against citizen for political gain has an agenda, but that agenda does not include "what's best for the nation." Because once you succeed and get everyone hating everyone else, there is no nation. When your entire strategy revolves around fomenting resentments among the citizenry, a patriot you ain't.

Larrymoeandjesus--what "facts"? "Carter won the South by 9 points" "Clinton lost the South by 2 points". "Find another myth and another bed". Say wha? What planet are you living on?

Carter carried: Texas, LA., Ark, Miss, Ala, Georgia, Fla,Tenn, Ky, NC, SC, GA, with WVA and Missouri thrown in, winning the election.

Clinton won with Ark, LA, Tenn, Ky, GA, and WVA in '92; in '96 he won the same minus GA, but picked up Fla. These are actual facts.

For the purposes of my comment, please compare with the states carried by Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. This isn't rocket science, you can do it.

One of the great strengths of Barak Obama is that he engages people he disagrees with respectfully, granting good faith and points where deserved. In an excellent piece in The American Interest, Mark Schmidt wrote:

"What I find fascinating about his language about unity and cross-partisanship is that it is not premised on finding Republicans who agree with him, but on taking in good faith the language and positions of actual conservatism--people who don't agree with him. One way to deal with bad faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they would actually solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows."

I would suggest you give this some thought. Sanctimonious arrogance, name-calling, and assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, war-monger, and/or plutocrat is juvenile and counterproductive. Democrats who assume that basically conservative Southern Blacks will stay forever on the Democrat plantation as the increasingly invisible, and always exaggerated differences between the parties on race disappear, are making a serious mistake.

Robert Powell s a lying bag of Bush: "Larrymoeandjesus--what "facts"? "Carter won the South by 9 points" "Clinton lost the South by 2 points". "Find another myth and another bed". Say wha? What planet are you living on?

Carter carried: Texas, LA., Ark, Miss, Ala, Georgia, Fla,Tenn, Ky, NC, SC, GA, with WVA and Missouri thrown in, winning the election.

Clinton won with Ark, LA, Tenn, Ky, GA, and WVA in '92; in '96 he won the same minus GA, but picked up Fla. These are actual facts.

For the purposes of my comment, please compare with the states carried by Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. This isn't rocket science, you can do it."''

Dear Stupid -

You omit Carter's 1980 race, which makes you not just a liar, but a lazy liar.

Your Clinton list doesn't contradict my facts - he lost the South in 1992 and tied in 1996, despite the fact that the GOP nominated a walking corpse that year.

You claimed the Dems had won the South - PERIOD - when Carter and Clinton ran. In reality they only clearly won the region ONCE in four elections with those candidates.

I say that makes you either a liar or wrong. In either case you're WRONG. Stop doing the usual GOP tango of using lies to win arguments. Next you'll be repeating the old lie about how Nixon would have won in 1960 if he'd won in Illinois - Repiglican shitheads have been using that one for almost 50 years, but it's bullshit. Kennedy would still have won if he'd lost Illinois.

I apologize--I mistook you for someone with a brain. The large number of Southern states carried by Carter and Clinton are ample evidence that simpleminded charges that Republican gains there were due entirely to racism are, at least, oversimplification, and in my view most damaging to Democrats as excuse-making posing as analysis.

Overtly anti-racist Southerners won three out of four elections when nominated by the Dems (no one could have saved Carter in '80, and that surely wasn't about race). Northern nominees from the left wing of the party lost four out of four. This is math even the Three Stooges should be able to grasp.

Hysterical, spittle-flecked rants against people who poke holes in their self-important pontifications is exactly the kind of behavior that drives common-sense moderates away from the Democratic Party, even though such clowns actually represent a small, if disproportionately destructive, minority in the Party. Karl Rove absolutely loves yahoos like you.

I cannot believe you people. 78 comments and ne raises the biggest objection to Ross' post. He says it's wrong for a poor woman living in public housing has a nice TV. That's an example of Massive Government Waste, but the gazillions we sent in the form of farm subsidies, payment to our mercenaries in our stupid wars, and the tax dodges available to CEO's are wise fiscal policy. Look, maybe the woman wasted some taxpayer cash, but it's at most a couple grand, and that's if the TV is brand new. Eliminate every single wasteful payment to poor people and you make no dent in the deficit at all. Still, it must make members of the ruling class feel good to point out how horrible and wasteful poor people are, so let's make that our Christmas Eve topic.

To quote the most famous character who espoused Ross's sentiment here, "Are there no prisons? . . . And the Union Workhouses, are they still in operation?"

It's just amazing the anger that this TV has generated. So poor people aren't allowed to have one nice thing?
Posted by Reality Man

You're being unfair. It'd be okay if she were white. Seriously. If you didn't believe Krugman's thesis--that race-baiting was a cornerstone of Saint Reagan's campaign strategy--then the comments to this post should give you at least fifty reasons to change your mind. Of all the things that make wingnuts want to run screaming to Mommy (e.g., women, Muslims, Mexicans, science, Jews, and gays), uppity negroes are still at the top of the list. Race-baiting is still a cheap and easy way to pick up a nice chunk of votes from the Cracker Caucus.

It's just as much bigotry to stereotype Southerners ("the Cracker Caucus") as it is to begrudge someone a television set (or air conditioner, car, etc.) because they're on the dole.

The fact is that if the KKK and the Aryan Nation types got together and designed a system to destroy Black families and reduce them as a group to dependency and squalor, they couldn't have done a better job than the welfare system as we knew it. All the lefties who fight tooth and nail for keeping people as wards of the state so they can reinforce their smug self-satisfaction should be forced to write "Beware of unanticipated consequences" 5,000 times before commenting on this subject.

Bill Clinton, who along with Jimmy Carter stands in stark contradiction to the lazy canards about white racism, remains perhaps the most popular political figure of his generation among Blacks not least because he understood the ugly paternalism underlying our welfare system, and took effective steps to fundamentally change it.

Don't be an ass.

It's not "bigotry" to deny someone any pleasure in life just because they're on the dole. It's "assholery" as in, "I can't be a fully satisfied smug asshole unless someone else out there is being treated like - and knows they are - dirt." The right has long had a problem with thinking of poverty as a "moral" issue, and not in the sense that Christ talked about, but in the sense that poor people are to blame for their own poverty, and should be punished for it because it's a moral failing. I don't believe anyone on the right has it in them to think of the poor as our fellow citizens - they're too conditioned to thinking of them as subhuman leeches who are their only barrier to unlimited wealth. Meanwhile, these poor benighted souls rush to pull the lever for whatever millionaire promises to really get tough on the folks who have nothing, all the while lining their own pockets and those of their cronies.

You want to talk about "unanticipated consequences"? Get back to us when the folks who have nothing wind up living in a refrigerator box on the sidewalk in front of your home, thanks to your compassionate desire to lift them from their moral morass by cutting off all public aid. You know, there are a lot of countries in the world where things work exactly that way...what I can't understand is why you don't just move to one of them, rather than trying to bring the third world home to your own doorstep.

Here's what Robert "Colon" Powell, lying Repiglican weasel, said initially: "The fact that ostentatiously non-racist candidates like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton carried the South by big margins, and that Hubert Humphrey polled very well there, should put that myth to bed."

When confronted with the FACT that Clinton never won the South, and that Carter won it once and lost it once, he squirms like a tapeworm in Dick Cheney's intestine: "The large number of Southern states carried by Carter and Clinton are ample evidence that simpleminded charges that Republican gains there were due entirely to racism are, at least, oversimplification, and in my view most damaging to Democrats as excuse-making posing as analysis."

He could simply admit that he was wrong about the initial "large margins" comment, but h lying Repiglican weasels can never admit to being in error.

The relative amount of success Carter and Clinton had in the South was due to the fact that Southerners are xenophobic and are somewhat more likely to vote for Southerners than "outsiders." This doesn't mitigate the fact that racist appeals continue to resonate throughout the region, and that the GOP has conciously and consistently exploited them.

MoeLarryAndJesus,

I guess that you used enough insults that you get to win. Congratulations and Merry Christmas.

bp says: "I guess that you used enough insults that you get to win. Congratulations and Merry Christmas."

So how do you celebrate? Do you break into the apartments of poor people and steal their TVs to help them achieve an acceptable-to-you level of "morality"?

In regards to Clinton, it's unlikely he could have won any Deep South state had Ross Perot not been in the race in both 92 and 96. Perot stole a lot of votes from the GOP (mostly picking off the more moderate and secular Republicans), rather fewer from the Democrats (where it was mostly conservative Democrats he captured)

The difference between Moe's insults and yours is that his are mostly accurate. It is true that many Southern conservatives and perhaps some Northern ones are racist (hence, 'Cracker Caucus') while it is simply not true that poor people are lazy or stupid, and anyone who says that simply betrays their own selfish pride.

Anyone who thinks that 'dependence' on others, 'paternalist' government, or subsidized housing are bad things, or that people who are poor are lazy or stupid, does not know the first thing about Christian morality. You are, in fact, your brother's keeper whether or not you choose to accept that obligation. If you choose not to accept it that just makes you a lousy and irresponsible excuse for a brother's keeper. Subsidized housing, i.e. ensuring that every one of us has a decent place to live that does not force us to skimp on feeding our kids or things like that, is an absolutely essential responsibility that the State has. If you have a problem paying taxes to ensure that inner city women have acceptable housing, then cry me a river. The State does not exist to coddle your greed.

The difference between subsidized housing and welfare, for those who are too unperceptive to understand it, is this. Welfare is for people who aren't working and therefore it's less than ideal, since we should be striving for a state in which every able bodied citizen is working. (and by the way, this means I have as much criticism for people living off inheritance, rent or interest as I do for those who live off welfare by choice and not by necessity). Subsidized housing on the other hand is for people who are poor, even if they may be working. You can still work and get subsidized housing. There's nothing morally wrong about living in subsidized housing your whole life.

Some of the comments in this thread make me sick.

1) You're right -- that does look like a big, expensive flat-screen tv. Poor people often have a few extravagant things. Sometimes they're gifts. Sometimes they happen because poor people (like rich people) make bad economic decisions out of poor judgment, laziness, or an effort to feel good about themselves.

2) That kind of behavior makes me kind of angry. Shouldn't that woman be spending the money on more important activities, or accepting less from the state, or saving money so she'll be able to meet future needs? How

3) But you know what -- a flat screen tv costs relatively little compared to housing. You can get a 42" HDTV LCD at Walmart for $972 dollars. Amortized over 3 years (and ignoring interest), that's just $27 per month. So buying a tv like that -- while it is a comment on the woman's financial decisionmaking -- doesn't really say much about whether or not she needs her housing subsidy.

4) And you know what: A Cadillac is a *lot* more expensive than a tv. Reagan wasn't just using a hypothetical from the category of stuff we know happens all the time. He was making up an *outrageous* story -- one whose very value to him stemmed from the outrageousness of the expense. Using current pricing, just to make it easy, cadillac lease payments appear to range from $370 o $900 per month.


So at the very least, it was an example of pure willful mendacity (Reagan said it even though he knew it wasn't true). I don't see why anyone thinks that a great *defense* for the gipper -- so you're saying he was just a liar and not necessarily a racist liar.

Given Reagan's numerous other race-baiting issues (Bob Jones, MLK, the "strapping young buck" comment, etc), there's probably reason enough to think that he viewed it as somewhere between the intended purporse and a pleasing side effect that he knew his welfare-queen lie would be received with racist overtones.

Credit where credit's due: L,M&J is right that I unintentionally overstated the margin of victory in the South of Clinton (though not Carter in '76). This is the kind of thing that happens when I write quick posts without checking every jot and tiddle, but in any case, it's a fair point.

That said, I will continue to object to insulting and mean-spirited posting that assumes everyone who disagrees with you is a liar or a villian. And I will continue to believe that Democrats would have much better chances in presidential races if they don't write off the South as a lost cause. No one here can maintain that Bill Clinton was a racist, and he would never have been elected without the electoral votes he got in the South. It is simply excuse-making to assert that the reason nominees like Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry failed to get any Southern support and lost was because of racism.

Moreover, zealotry of the kind on display here is a net loser for Democrats. I've been a Democrat all my life, and there are lots like me. If anyone who suggests that the best interests of the party like in the reasonable middle rather than the left wing is automatically insulted and labeled a Republican, the party is finished.

Man, I'm bummed out that in this long comments thread I haven't yet seen Casey or bp use the word "shiftless".

This is how people are, all over the world. If you want to help people you need to help them on THEIR terms, which means acknowledging that they need money not just for necessities, but also for the occasional luxury, in order that they can feel human.

Merry Christmas, Hector. I do wonder if you grasp that a problem with the (unreformed) welfare system, not completely vanished now, is that _working class_ families -- the people, in part, who shifted to voting for Reagan, were upset that, in a non-insignificant number of cases, the system was helping those who (sometimes) _would not_ rather than _could not_ work buy those things, while providing fairly little help to anyone who managed to be just "successful" enough to stay above water. The old system often rewarded complete incompetence or failure at life while "punishing" (in terms of rapidly falling benefits) anyone who managed to climb a little out of the ditch. St. Paul and Chesterton would both see some problems with that.

Marquis,

Well, yes, I think that that's true in a number of cases, and I'm probably more amenable to that argument than I used to be. I do question how often those circumstances arise, but I'd ackowledge they do exist.

This particular argument isn't about welfare, though, it's about subsidized housing, which is not tied to whether you are working or not. Subsidized housing is supposed to ensure that you're not paying more than 33% of your income in rent. Plenty of people do work full time at _working class_ jobs but can't afford a reasonable quality apartment, at least in large East and West coast cities. Most of these people could probably afford a poor quality, small, unhealthy apartment if they had to, but subsidized housing is an attempt to ensure they have a better option. To use your image, many people who are quite a bit out of 'the ditch' continue to use subsidized housing. I don't have a problem with that any more than I do with the State paying for public schools.

Merry Christmas, and have a good St. Stephen's day, by the way!

Re: Using current pricing, just to make it easy, cadillac lease payments appear to range from $370 o $900 per month.

Was the Welfare Queen's Cadillac ever specified to be a new Cadillac? I see (presumably) poor people driving big gaudy cars all the time-- and they're all ten year old junkers. Even a Cadillac might be cheap if it has a 100K miles on it.

TMoC returns from his pilgrimage to Lourdes and writes: "I do wonder if you grasp that a problem with the (unreformed) welfare system, not completely vanished now, is that _working class_ families -- the people, in part, who shifted to voting for Reagan, were upset that, in a non-insignificant number of cases, the system was helping those who (sometimes) _would not_ rather than _could not_ work buy those things, while providing fairly little help to anyone who managed to be just "successful" enough to stay above water. The old system often rewarded complete incompetence or failure at life while "punishing" (in terms of rapidly falling benefits) anyone who managed to climb a little out of the ditch. St. Paul and Chesterton would both see some problems with that."

So would St. Moe, but I think the solution is to help both sets of people as much as feasible while avoiding what are far more egregious uses of government funds - such as lining Dumbya Bush's pockets when he was an equity-less "owner" of the Texas Rangers. But we both know that the Repiglicans have been whipping idiots into grudge-filled fits of envy over the "thieving poor" since before their were Repiglicans. (Their sort will always be with us.)

The act that TMoC can't quantify the "non-insignificant number of cases" is revealing, as is the undeniable fact that Saint Reagan had to puff up the extent of the fraud in order to construct a really, really outrageous "welfare queen." He was a liar, and that's what liars do. He added in the Cadillac because he was a racist, and that's what racists do.

In any government program that distributes money there will be fraud and abuse, and if Repiglicans showed 1/1,000,000th of the disgust over the missing billions in Iraq than they do over some poor woman with a BIG ASS TV then perhaps I would respect them as human beings. But they do not, so I do not.

JonF writes: "Was the Welfare Queen's Cadillac ever specified to be a new Cadillac? I see (presumably) poor people driving big gaudy cars all the time-- and they're all ten year old junkers. Even a Cadillac might be cheap if it has a 100K miles on it."

I guarantee that if you're living in Michigan these days and you want a 10 year old Cadillac in good working order you'll be able to find one for less than a $1000 in less than a week. That's the reality.

The biggest problem with welfare-as-we-knew-it wasn't the fact that some no doubt tiny minority of people who might better have worked got it; or that some who got it spent some of the money on a tv set or a Cadillac; but that as structured the system was an enormous reinforcer for negative, self-destructive behaviors. This is a scenario with which I have had regrettably frequent acquaintance:

A young girl living in a poor, urban, female-headed household has routine sorts of conflict with her mother--the boyfriend isn't approved of, school is getting ignored, too much partying, etc. Solution--the girl gets pregnant, allowing her to apply for a subsidized apartment of her own which, along with the food stamps, health coverage, etc. represents a package unlikely to be matchable by any likely prospective husband in the neighborhood. Over the next few years she has a few more kids with a few different guys who have been marginalized by the system, and one day she wakes up to find her looks are gone, she's got no education, is perhaps strung out on drugs, has no effective support system to help with the kids who grow up essentially wild and prepped to continue the cycle. Multiplied thousands of times, this scenario goes far towards explaining some of our most intractable social problems.

The problem isn't wanting to help people. The problem is imagining that we can create a giant government program that will replace the family, and make middle-class people feel good about themselves by throwing money at a problem they don't want to take the trouble to really understand. If the KKK and the Nazi Party had designed a system to destroy Black families and neighborhood communities, they couldn't have done a better job than the old welfare system.

The "liberal" Robert Powell writes: "A young girl living in a poor, urban, female-headed household has routine sorts of conflict with her mother--the boyfriend isn't approved of, school is getting ignored, too much partying, etc. Solution--the girl gets pregnant, allowing her to apply for a subsidized apartment of her own which, along with the food stamps, health coverage, etc. represents a package unlikely to be matchable by any likely prospective husband in the neighborhood. Over the next few years she has a few more kids with a few different guys who have been marginalized by the system, and one day she wakes up to find her looks are gone, she's got no education, is perhaps strung out on drugs, has no effective support system to help with the kids who grow up essentially wild and prepped to continue the cycle. Multiplied thousands of times, this scenario goes far towards explaining some of our most intractable social problems.

The problem isn't wanting to help people. The problem is imagining that we can create a giant government program that will replace the family, and make middle-class people feel good about themselves by throwing money at a problem they don't want to take the trouble to really understand. If the KKK and the Nazi Party had designed a system to destroy Black families and neighborhood communities, they couldn't have done a better job than the old welfare system. "

Well, sure they could - they just would have killed them, you silly bastard.

Seriously, are you truly that obtuse, or is it just an act?

Did your "welfare-as-we-knew-it" line mean you're satisfied with recent changes? Have you noticed any appreciable changes in society as a result, or have those been swallowed up by Dumbya's top-first society?

What other factors have been involved in the problems you see, and how have "conservative" "solutions" contributed?

Is the Completely Insane War Against Drugs been a factor, given that it has been waged most aggressively against blacks?

Thrill me with your acumen.

I suppose Robert Powell would prefer that poor black women have no health insurance, no food assistance, and no subsidized housing. They might be feeding their kids boiled potatoes 3 times a day, and having them go untreated for illness, and living in a little tenement, but at least they would be dependent on a husband (as if a woman today shouldn't have a work life of her own).

Keep going, Bob, you're just showing more and more how little you really care for the poor.

It is among the most basic obligations of a decent society to provide food, education, medical care and housing of an acceptable standard to all of its citizens. I would say that requiring everyone to work would be a good idea, so would moral education about the responsibility to care for one's children. But the idea that we should 'solve' these problems by taking people's benefits away is atrocious. Better the old welfare system, with all its problems, than your 'solution'.

Why on earth would you think a think like that, Hector? Certainly not because of anything I've written, suggested, or experienced.

Only a truly limited intelligence would suppose that the only means a society has of providing for the basic needs of its citizens is through government benefits. It's easy for you to declare "better the old welfare system", as you apparently don't have to depend on it, and seem untroubled with the very real harm it has caused to the most vulnerable elements of our society.

I am aware of the fact that some people will always have to depend to some extent on the larger community, and I think we should do as good a job as we can for such people. But that includes being honest about the shortcomings and drawbacks of the system designed to do it, and being prepared to address them with something more than excuses, unfounded villification of critics, and pork-barrel appropriations. The system you're defending was in many ways doing more harm than good, but that seems less important to some than an ideological position. This is the kind of "care for the poor" that has ruined whole societies. Fortunately it's only the failed religion of a steadily dwindling number of self-absorbed political cultists in most modern societies.

Ross,

Your views on Reagan and race are so incredibly naive that I can no longer believe you make these defenses (and this post REALLY takes the cake in terms of bigotry) in good faith.

That's sad because you were one of the conservative voices I respected. Looks like I only have The American Scene left for something reasonable (esp sinc Eunomia went on hiatus).

Seriously, it's obvious the TV is rear projection and used. It likely came from a pawn shop and doubtless cost, if it wasn't just a straight up gift to grandma, about $200 at most. So after intentionally ignoring the obvious, you make it worse by misleadingly labelling that old TV a "flat screen" and then you have the audacity to label this lady a Welfare Duchess?

Amazingly bad faith on your part, Ross. That's my term of art for your post.

Robert Powell writes: "This is the kind of "care for the poor" that has ruined whole societies."

That's the sort of idiotic sweeping statement cons make with no rational justification. "Fags destroyed the Roman Empire!" "Jews cost Germany the War!" "Illegimate children will ruin America!"

The facts show that Colonial America had a very high rate of illegitimacy, so I guess America was doomed from the start.

"But that includes being honest about the shortcomings and drawbacks of the system designed to do it, and being prepared to address them with something more than excuses, unfounded villification of critics, and pork-barrel appropriations."

It would help if the "critics" were honest themselves about the extent and nature of the problem. But they seem to be incapable of that, as shown by the overblown ramblings of Saint Reagan.

Mr. Powell,

I believe I made it clear I wasn't a big fan of welfare-as-we-knew it. However, I am even less a fan of those who believe that private capitalism can solve the problem. It never will, and we should start by recognizing that. Most people outside the United States seem to see it as the responsibility of the government to provide basic social services to its inhabitants, so I believe it is your views that are the dwindling province of self absorbed political cultists.

I believe that the government needs to continue to provide housing, food, health acre, and financial benefits to those who are in need. I think that they should also take on the responsibility of ensuring that all citizens have both the opportunity and the legal responsibility to work at a productive, non-alienating job- in a farm, factory, intellectual profession, whatever. I further think that we as a society should try to do a better job of moral education about the need to take care of one's children, dissuade promiscuity and drug use, etc. Sadly for some people, that means a much bigger role for government, not a smaller one. The liberals typically want the government to be a provider, and the right want it to be a moral teacher; I want it to be both.

I have a rental property wherein the tenant receives subsidized rent (paid directly to me from the municipality), she is on a subsidy for her utilities (HEAP), she receives SS $$ for at least some of her 5 children and she recieves SSDI. She does not work.

She drives a BRAND NEW car, which is much nicer than the car I drive. She has a large flat screen TV that is nicer than any tv I own. She and her children all have cell phones. She has a computer. She has leather furniture.

Nobody that lives in this home works. She has a sometime live in boyfriend, and two children living there over the age of 18.

Tell me again how the "welfare queen" is a myth. It is very real, and much, much, much more common than most people (particularly those on the left) believe. I talk regularly with other landlords who have all experienced this phenomenon first hand. Pretending that government handouts do not create a class of people like this is idiotically stupid and naive.

Unfortunately, none of these people are at all educated, and have no work experience or work ethic. Their ability to earn any kind of decent living is non-existent, b/c they were taught all of their lives to live off of gov't largess. They have no shame of it.

If the people who were forced to live off of government welfare at least had some personal pride and shame in taking government charity, they would do everything in their power to get off the gov't dole.

Instead, we have created a society wherein people have absolutely no shame in taking gov't handouts for all of their lives, and feel no need whatsoever to take any measures to get off of the gov't dole.

This is exactly the situation the right has been warning about for over 50 years. Yet, the left will not see the truth staring them in the face - that a whole segmant of society has been created that was raised to live off welfare and has no goal or thought to ever get off welfare or do anything other than live off of other people's hard-earned money. That is all that gov't largess leads to.

There is a huge differnece between a safety net that helps people in dire circumstances when they have simply fallen on hard times, and a system that grants entitlements to people for years on end, regardless of the person's actual circumstances (i.e., criminality, attemtps to actually work, etc). It is sad.

In any government program that distributes money there will be fraud and abuse, and if Repiglicans showed 1/1,000,000th of the disgust over the missing billions in Iraq than they do over some poor woman with a BIG ASS TV then perhaps I would respect them as human beings. But they do not, so I do not.

I don't know about respecting you as a human being, but as a rational thinker who makes an argument on facts and analysis, I certainly see no evidence of it from you and thus do not respect you whatsoever in terms of mental capacity. but your clever use of language (i.e., "repiglicans") demonstrates just how "clever" and "mature" your thinking is. I'm sure all of the "repiglicans" are devastated by your lack of respect. I know I am losing sleep and questioning my very humaness on a daily basis because some cliche throwing leftists does not like to think anyone has a different perspective from him/her.

Illegimate children will ruin America!

Well, not really. The upper-middle classes still have relatively "old-fashioned" lifestyles (in these terms, at least), and are insulated by money from the problems that come with illegitimacy. And forming a mild welfare state in conditions of general material prosperity doesn't require ruinous levels of taxation, at least for some time to come. America will survive.

But --- I'm curious. Moe -- do you think there's anything to the various studies showing a correlation and strongly suggesting some level of causation between the _particular kind*_ of illegitimacy that characterizes the modern American underclass, and life-outcomes that I suspect you would agree are bad? Is it all racist whitey's fault (some is, historically, sure, but less racism probably can't do a lot to fix it now), and some problems are inter-twined with the "war on drugs" -- but there are reasons beyond having some money why the drug war doesn't bring down the house for middle-class white kids, even when they get caught with pot, and they go beyond racism to family and community structure. Do you think the old welfare system in any way encouraged this kind of behavior?


* Illegitimacy of the kind prevalent in colonial America or village life is quite different in that it is rooted in quite different sexual and reproductive (and communal) patterns, and you know that quite well, unless you're stupider than I think.

Ahh, a real life slumlord shows up to pound the table about the welfare queens whilst suckling from the government teat every month when the subsidy check comes.

You are a joke Banana. Where's your personal pride? Why do you need the government's help to make it as a landlord? Can't you get a decent tenant in your slummy rental property without me (a taxpayer) paying for your mortgage on your rental property? Cause it's got to be real frustrating for you renting to a Welfare Queen (excepting, of course, each month when you open your very own shiny government check that covers the mortgage).

Keatssycamore,

You are an idiot. I bought a duplex and lived in it. then, when I got married, I moved into the house my wife already owned. Some slum lord. On the side that the welfare queen now lives (the side I lived on for 2 yars) I put my own work into the house while I lived there and remodeled the kitchen, bathroom, and re-did all of the original hardwood floors. I put in a new furnace and hot water heater, and replaced over 1/2 of the windows.

So shut up and try and think instead of being a liberal cliche and having your first instinct be to call me names.

I accepted this woman and her welfare check for 2 reasons - 1) I did not want to be sued for discrmination and 2) I thought at the time it was the right thing to do. Believe it or not, I was very liberal in my youth, and still believe in trying to help people (I just don't think it is the gov'ts job). I'm sorry if this act of kindness on my part offends your sensibilities.

The $$ she gets from the gov't (sent directly to me) only covers 1/2 of her rent. She pays the rest (about 2/3 of the time when I can get her to pay it). That "shiny gov't check" only pays about 1/4 of the mortgage on the house. And, I have no problem renting the place out, so don't need the gov't $$.

The other side of the duplex is rented out to a normal couple who fully pay their rent (and their rent is more than on the other side as the gov't "caps" the amount I can charge the "welfare queen". I will never again rent to anyone who receives any type of public assistance. Trust me, I agree with you that renting to people like this is wrong, wrong, wrong. On the "welfare queen" side the wear and tear is about 10 times on the other side. Plus, they don't take care of the yard (even though they are responsible for it in the lease). So, it costs me more to try and be a good person then it is worth.

I have not kicked this welfare queen out b/c a) it is difficult to do; b) I would lose many months of rent while doing it; and c) I would probably get sued for discrimination. Despite what you think, I am not made of money and would have a difficult time covering the mortgage while going through the legal proceedings to get this family out. So, as long as I'm getting most of the rent due every month, I'm letting status quo stay.

So, try actually addressing what I said instead of calling me names and falling into your liberal cliches.

Where I live, most landlords of decent apartments will not rent to anyone receiving government assistance for these very reasons, which is what you seem to want. Which of course means that the only people renting to those on gov't assistance are real live "slum lords". I understand now why the people who rent to those on gov't assistance do not invest whatsoever in their properties.

The house I own and rent is in good condition, in a nice neighborhood, and is definitely not a slum.

As I said, this woman is not just a myth - I have personal knowledge of at least 10 different families like this. This leads me to believe that this problem (i.e., "welfare queens" for lack of a better term) is very, very widespread and real, as opposed to the myth that you so desperately hope it to be. Maybe I it is just a coincidence that I happen to know the only 10 families in this 1/2 million population area who are "welfare queens", but somehow, I doubt that is the case.

still believe in trying to help people (I just don't think it is the gov'ts job). I'm sorry if this act of kindness on my part offends your sensibilities.

What burns my sensibilities (and has since I practiced in law eviction court, ) are slumlords like you who don't think it's the government's responsibility to help people and, meanwhile, you take that same government for a ride every month by receiving guaranteed $$$$s.

You are full of BS. You did this because it is easier and safer financially for you to suck on the government's teat. Then, with your cognitive dissonance turned up to 11, you sit around and moan about Welfare Queens while you get your mortgage paid by the government. Slumlord. Try renting on the private market where half the rent isn't guaranteed, or try to stop bitching about people doing exactly as you do (receiving a government subsidy for their chosen lifestyle).

Quit bitching or get off the government teat, slumlord.

BTW your discrimination lawsuit talk is utter BS, you can rent to whomever you want, Section 8 or not. You just can't categorically turn down Section 8. Just another lying slumlord.

I have not kicked this welfare queen out b/c a) it is difficult to do; b) I would lose many months of rent while doing it; and c) I would probably get sued for discrimination.

Lies. All slumlord lies.

Truth:

A) It isn't any more difficult to evict a Section 8 tenant than it is a private renter.

B). You would be guaranteed half of all the many months of rent by the government. When the woman is evicted, you will DEFINITELY and IMMEDIATELY get half of all the rent paid. With a private tenant you'll have to sue them and then obtain a judgment and then take all the steps necessary to try to collect on that judgment and you still might not get anything. But in your situation, evict here and you are guaranteed 1/2 of all rent due.

C). You really are an idiot, aren't you? I'd suggest you hire a lawyer for advice on rental matters, or get out of the rental business.

Real life is a bitch. Fancy theories about sharing the wealth are getting stale. Where I live in Eastern Europe, they say that the State discovered that it could not manage to distribute the wealth, but that it could distribute poverty, which proceeded to do comprehensively.

The poor ye shall have always with you. Given that, better to distribute the poverty around evenly than to have some living in luxury and others in destitution. And complaining about the lack of wealth in Eastern Europe, I suppose, depends on your vantage point. Tito's Yugoslavia would look like heaven to a citizen of most Latin American countries, which is probably why socialist ideas continue to be very popular there.

I take no position on whether Mr. Banana is a slumlord, or how much of his income he derives from the rental property. But I will say this. I agree with Tolstoy that the mere fortuitous possession of a bit of property that one uses to make money doesn't count as "work". Someone who plays golf all day and relies on the income from the set of rental properties that they own is just as immoral as the welfare queen (and I would add, anyone else who lives off of any income source other than wages, salaries, or household production).

I prefer to be on the opposite side of the debate from the East European right wingers and the slumlords, thank you very much.

Marquis: Like I said, I believe that the government ought to be moral teacher and enforcer at the same time that it is an economic provider. I don't believe the solution is cutting off the system of social provision. Of course I do agree that there are a great many cultural problems in the inner city, including fathers not taking care of their children. I don't believe dismantling the welfare state is the solution. Any solution that I can envision would involve a state that is bigger and more active, not less.

Powell,

Better distributed poverty than undistributed wealth. Since when is it legitimate for a Christian to participate in the fetishization of wealth, anyway? Christ was not made man in order that we might have faster cars, bigger houses and more toys.

Re: Multiplied thousands of times, this scenario goes far towards explaining some of our most intractable social problems.

No it doesn't, because there's a deeper problem still. Most of the young women would much rather find a good man to take them away from their conflicts with their mothers and help raise their children. Problem is, there's a severe shortage of marriageable men in those communities. That is the bottom line. Until we can find a way to gainfully employ (with family-supporting wages and benefits) lesser skilled and lesser educated men we are not going to solve any of those problems. If it means we have to pay people $20/hr to sweep the streets then maybe that's what we have to do. Anyone got any other ideas?

Great Banana writes: "I have a rental property wherein the tenant receives subsidized rent (paid directly to me from the municipality), she is on a subsidy for her utilities (HEAP), she receives SS $$ for at least some of her 5 children and she recieves SSDI. She does not work.

She drives a BRAND NEW car, which is much nicer than the car I drive. She has a large flat screen TV that is nicer than any tv I own. She and her children all have cell phones. She has a computer. She has leather furniture.

Nobody that lives in this home works. She has a sometime live in boyfriend, and two children living there over the age of 18.

Tell me again how the "welfare queen" is a myth. It is very real, and much, much, much more common than most people (particularly those on the left) believe. I talk regularly with other landlords who have all experienced this phenomenon first hand. Pretending that government handouts do not create a class of people like this is idiotically stupid and naive."

Hey, stupid - if you think she's defrauding the sstem, DROP A DIME AND TURN HER IN. If you don't, then as her landlord and a recipient of some of the proceeds of her fraud, you're just another hypocritical fraud. Put up or shut up, pal. Unless you do, you're as big a crook as she is. What are you more concerned with, losing the rent or doing the right thing?

&%$#*@ yahoos!

More Banana peels: "certainly see no evidence of it from you and thus do not respect you whatsoever in terms of mental capacity. but your clever use of language (i.e., "repiglicans") demonstrates just how "clever" and "mature" your thinking is. I'm sure all of the "repiglicans" are devastated by your lack of respect. I know I am losing sleep and questioning my very humaness on a daily basis because some cliche throwing leftists does not like to think anyone has a different perspective from him/her."

Since you like to yammer about the lack of education other people suffer from I'd like to know why you write English about as well as the average Ukrainian 12 year old, chuckles.

Dear moron - I love the fact that you have a different perspective. If I shared your views I hope I would have the decency to drown myself.

But "humaness" did make me smile.

TMoC asks: "But --- I'm curious. Moe -- do you think there's anything to the various studies showing a correlation and strongly suggesting some level of causation between the _particular kind*_ of illegitimacy that characterizes the modern American underclass, and life-outcomes that I suspect you would agree are bad? Is it all racist whitey's fault (some is, historically, sure, but less racism probably can't do a lot to fix it now), and some problems are inter-twined with the "war on drugs" -- but there are reasons beyond having some money why the drug war doesn't bring down the house for middle-class white kids, even when they get caught with pot, and they go beyond racism to family and community structure. Do you think the old welfare system in any way encouraged this kind of behavior?"

Of course it's a factor, and of course it has to be examined. I just think that its importance is overstated by miles by "my tax dollar" cheapskates and the Repiglican pols who play them like the world's dumbest violins that they are. Somehow Repiglicans have convinced these people that a poor woman getting a few hundred bucks is a bigger shame than Dumbya Bush making a Texas-sized fortune off the public tit via his Texas Rangers "job." And I'm in no way exaggerating that comparison.

BTW, middle class white kids stuck with pot don't go to jail unless it's a SHITLOAD of pot. The Completely Insane War On Drugs is a shotgun aimed straight at poor minorities and family stability, and is in my view a far more important factor. Having grown up in a working class white town I knew several dozens of kids who used drugs and even sold them - and that continued when I went on to an elite college, where it was the wealthy kids who always knew how and where to get "goodies" - but I never knew anyone who got arrested as a result. Not once. That just doesn't happen where the shotgun points.

I didn't complain when Clinton overhauled welfare - I figured it was okay to try to deal with some obvious problems. But the same cons who applauded that move also bitched about "midnight basketball," a cheap program which also seemed to have merit. I submit that most cons don't give a hot damn about helping anyone - the cheapskate impulse always comes first. If you tell me otherwise, why exactly should I believe you, given the track record?

The Limp Banana sobs: "I have not kicked this welfare queen out b/c a) it is difficult to do; b) I would lose many months of rent while doing it; and c) I would probably get sued for discrimination. Despite what you think, I am not made of money and would have a difficult time covering the mortgage while going through the legal proceedings to get this family out. So, as long as I'm getting most of the rent due every month, I'm letting status quo stay."

In other words, you're a chickenhawk in the Culture Wars! Cluck for us!

I'm 90% sure you're a lying troll, but if not, you're accepting funds that you know are obtained by fraud. You're a criminal, a damned racketeer!

Drop a dime and get the government to evict her for you, gutless one. Or you could kick her out and get one of those "10 other welfare queens" you know to move in.

"Sued for discrimination"! What a sad and sorry dingbat you are. You don't want to kick her out because you want the cash. You're on the dole just like she is.

The vast majority of America's "poor" enjoy a standard of living superior to that of middle-class Americans of just a generation or two ago, comparable to that of middle-class Europeans of today, and vastly superior to the standard of living of the vast majority of people who are alive today.

Liberals don't really care about poverty. What drives them is their pathological resentment of the wealthy. If poverty were their concern, they would focus almost entirely on the developing world, where hundreds of millions of people really do live in conditions of severe material deprivation.

"Middle class' Europeans are not denied routine health care. They also enjoy a life expectancy and educational levels substantially better than America's poor. For that matter, life expectancy and literacy rates are higher in Cuba and Costa Rica then they are among America's poor.

Speaking personally, I do focus (in my work and also in my side interests) on the developing world. I have worked for three years in development in Africa, you realize. The problems of the developing world are very substantially of our making, however- probably the best thing we could do for the Latin American countries, for example, is to leave them to their own devices and stop meddling in their internal affairs.

I suppose it would be true, however, to say that I have more contempt towards most of the American ruling class than I have sympathy towards the American underclass. Not something to be ashamed of. There is a time for sympathy, and a time for contempt.

Moe: Thanks for taking on the 'dingbats' in this thread, I agree with most of what you say. The people who bitch and whine about 'incentives' and 'welfare state' are often (with some honorable exceptions, like I would suspect the Marquis) really concerned with the size of their own pocketbooks.

Mixner writes: "The vast majority of America's "poor" enjoy a standard of living superior to that of middle-class Americans of just a generation or two ago, comparable to that of middle-class Europeans of today, and vastly superior to the standard of living of the vast majority of people who are alive today.

Liberals don't really care about poverty. What drives them is their pathological resentment of the wealthy. If poverty were their concern, they would focus almost entirely on the developing world, where hundreds of millions of people really do live in conditions of severe material deprivation. "

America's "poor" also don't die from syphilis or polio much these days, which must upset Mixner greatly, since he has both.

And the evidence that conservatives care more about "the developing world" can only be found in the fact that so many of them cheer very loudly as their "my tax dollar!" bombs fall there.

I support a social safety net in my own society because it makes this country, my home, of which I am actually usually quite proud, a better place. That I have been deprived of multiple reasons to feel proud of this country by its current leadership does not mean I have stopped caring. If anything, it has made me care more.

So take the magnetic ribbons off of your car and eat them, Mixy. I hope they hurt on the way down.

Hector says: "Moe: Thanks for taking on the 'dingbats' in this thread, I agree with most of what you say. The people who bitch and whine about 'incentives' and 'welfare state' are often (with some honorable exceptions, like I would suspect the Marquis) really concerned with the size of their own pocketbooks."

My pleasure. And I noticed TMoC's lack of ardor here, too, so I figure he's squeamish about pushing the wingnut taglines here. There's hope for him yet.

The shortage of marriageable young Black men in inner cities is directly related to the unintended negative consequences of the welfare system as it was structured for decades after WWII. Young women were encouraged to be married to "the state" instead, as it was a lot simpler than dealing with the ups and downs of a relationship, especially in the context of lower working class economics. Fathers were actually discouraged by social workers from living in the family home, in extreme cases on pain of having the family benefits slashed. Denied access to decent jobs and made at least irrelevant in their own homes, many of these guys drifted into crime and self-destructive behaviors, leaving the kids to grow up without a male figure and perpetuate the cycle. This extraordinarily destructive process moved very quickly in the 60's and 70's to turn formerly exemplary cities like Hartford and Bridgeport, which once had fine working class neighborhoods, libraries, schools, museums, etc., into hellish urban war zones. It is undeniable that the "war on drugs", another Big Government "solution" to a social problem, has made matters considerably worse.

Leftists who don't really understand how the economy works, and don't really care about the details of social policy as long as they have their "do-gooder" self image, were behind the worst excesses of this system. It's been pretty bad, but pales in comparison to the total ruin of society caused where this kind of "ideology before people" philosophy really took over. This comprehensive failure makes compelling evidence of the need to re-think the idea that only the state can provide, and every problem should be addressed by a government bureaucracy of the kind which nearly everywhere quickly evolves into a system that helps its bureaucrats at the expense of those it was set up to aid. I certainly agree with a non-interventionist approach in Latin America, but think anyone who would rather impoverish an entire society rather than see some of its members succeed disproportionately, is guilty of criminal reasoning. Fortunately it is an idea that's virtually bankrupt politically, and serves only to damage the prospects of any candidate its exponents support.

I am forced to conclude upon reading this post and some of the comments that Mr Douthat is an arsetard and so are most of his commenters.

"It is undeniable that the "war on drugs", another Big Government "solution" to a social problem, has made matters considerably worse.

Leftists who don't really understand how the economy works, and don't really care about the details of social policy as long as they have their "do-gooder" self image, were behind the worst excesses of this system."

See? This is what I mean. It's your war on drugs, you arsewit. Us leftists are all too busy smoking them to fight against them. HTH.

Gee, I suppose the fact that the righteous capitalists were moving their factories out of Hartford and Bridgeport out of greed for bigger profits, had nothing to do with the collapse of those cities. Neither did the fact that the government was unwilling to expand the public sector and provide more jobs. Nor did the fact that the U.S. government was willing to turn a blind eye while the murdering Nicaraguan-Contra scum flew drugs up to American inner cities. No, it's never the capitalists' fault is it.

I am not a big partisan on the US welfare state as we know it. If nothing else, from the left-wing perspective, it politically emasculated the poor and the African Americans by making them dependent on the system. But I am confident that any solution to the problems of this government intervention is going to require more and better government intervention. The solution, whatever it is, is not going to come from the good hearted capitalists of America. Those people, I would not trust farther than I could throw them.

Moelarry,

How am I committing fraud by accepting money she is qualified for? The authority that pays her rent does inspections of the propery more than once a year and sees who is living there, and sees what material things she possesses. They still give her the benefit.

How am I on the dole b/c part of her rent comes from the gov't? What difference is it to me where the rent comes from as long as she is paying it and not committing crimes in my property? Like I said, I can rent out the other side no problem, so it's not a question of "needing" her gov't check. Indeed, I would rather get rid of her as I said, and likely will once I am in a more stable position financially and can take a few months hit of not getting rent for that side while I go through the eviction process.

Just because the facts I outlined don't fit your liberal cliche mind, does not make them incorrect.

Let me explain to you how it really works. I rent out that unit for $750/month. It is a nice unit, in a nice neighborhood. When I first rented it out (when I moved out myself), I had tons of government assistance people coming to try and rent it. I had never sought tenants before as when I bought the house, the tenants on the other side were already there.

I found out during that process that people who get gov't subsidies cannot get any landlords in a nice neighborhood w/ a nice rental property to rent to them. I thought (at the time) that was wrong. (this 2 unit duplex is my only rental property, I am not in the rental business, I just happen to own this one property).

B/c I thought it was wrong that these people could not rent in a nice neighborhood / nice apartment, and b/c I thought this particular woman was nice and seemed responsible, I decided to give it a try. (she also told me a major sob story about her life, etc, and I felt bad for her).

That was my mistake. I have since learned why landlords do not rent to people on gov't assistance (which really does not have anything to do with the "welfare queen" issue - it has to do with the fact that such people have no respect for other people's property, abuse the property, don't pay on time or fully, and create other hassels).

The "welfare queen" issue is just something I noted b/c I go over there a lot to repair damage her family has done, to collect rent, etc. I have since met and talked w/ many other landlords, mostly people like me with only one duplex, who have run into the same thing.

As to kicking her out, that is easy to say (something libs are good at - talking about things they don't understand), it is not that easy. I am not even remotely rich can't at this time afford to go a few months with absolutely no rent from that side (which will happen as I go through the eviction process).

Also, if I kick her out, she will still receive the gov't subsidy, so I don't see where that fixes the "welfare queen" issue in this instance.

Nor do I see how it addresses the point I made that "welfare queens" in fact exist, that our current welfare system has created a class of people who believe it is appropriate to live their entire lives on the dole and who work the system, and the fact that such is much more widespread and common than liberals believe. It used to be that people felt shame in having to accept government handouts, which created motivation for people to work to get off government assistance as soon as possible. My comment is that there is a generation of people now who were not brought up to feel this "shame" and thus don't feel any motivation to stay off of or get off of government assistance.

No matter how many insults you hurl my way, you have not addressed a single point I have made (again, common liberal "argument").

I tried to be a good person, and get attacked by liberals for that - b/c it upsets their world view. I point out my experience, and get attacked by liberals for that b/c it upsets their world view. Nice. You want me, and others like me, never to rent to people on gov't assistance? That's fine, I already will never do it again. Don't whine when you learn that the only place that such people CAN rent is true slums - that is the world liberal policies have created - and based on your responses here, you are happy with that world.

You want it both ways. You want to attack conservatives for not having "compassion" for the poor. Then, when one of us does something compassionate, and tells you the results, you attack us for having done it - or claim we are lying. When you are unable to acknowledge facts and only attack personally, don't you realize that means you have already lost the argument b/c it proves you cannot make a rational point? Doesn't that ever occur to you?

I never said that we should not have a social safety net for those truly in need. I don't think any conservative would (despite what you believe). What we are saying is that our current system is a mess in that it creates people who are raised to believe it is entirely appropirate to live their entire lives on government assistance, feel no motivation to try and get off government assistance, and feel like it is perfectly o.k. to work the system. In other words, creating a class of people doomed to live on welfare. I don't understand why liberals defend that - or refuse to acknowledge it.

Maybe someday if you live in the real world, and actually try to think rationally you can understand.

Moelarry,

Dear moron - I love the fact that you have a different perspective. If I shared your views I hope I would have the decency to drown myself.

Ahh, true intelligence from a true humanitarian. The world would certainly be a better place if you did drown yourself. Like all liberals, you cannot argue or think rationally, cannot accept facts that differ from your liberal cliches, and can only insult. And you think you are intelligent and a good debater. That is comedy gold.

I doubt you will ever know a rational or original thought. But, I expect you are happy in your little world.

Hey, stupid - if you think she's defrauding the sstem, DROP A DIME AND TURN HER IN. If you don't, then as her landlord and a recipient of some of the proceeds of her fraud, you're just another hypocritical fraud. Put up or shut up, pal. Unless you do, you're as big a crook as she is. What are you more concerned with, losing the rent or doing the right thing?

&%$#*@ yahoos!

Even if this were true - which it is not, see my other posts above explaining that the gov't agency who gives her the money is well aware of her expenditures, etc., how does that disprove that such "welfare queens" exist? Or somehow disprove a single one of my points? Does insulting me somehow disprove it? I guess logic is not your strong suit. But, having read your comments, you will never understand that.

Libs - you think personal attacks somehow equate rational debate and facts.

Lies. All slumlord lies.

Truth:

A) It isn't any more difficult to evict a Section 8 tenant than it is a private renter.

B). You would be guaranteed half of all the many months of rent by the government. When the woman is evicted, you will DEFINITELY and IMMEDIATELY get half of all the rent paid. With a private tenant you'll have to sue them and then obtain a judgment and then take all the steps necessary to try to collect on that judgment and you still might not get anything. But in your situation, evict here and you are guaranteed 1/2 of all rent due.

C). You really are an idiot, aren't you? I'd suggest you hire a lawyer for advice on rental matters, or get out of the rental business.

First, you don't know what you are talking about - but if you want to have a discussion of the law in the area where I live, I would love to discuss it with you offline and educate you as to it - give me your email address and I'll cite you to the Code, to caselaw, etc. and educate you. Maybe then you can move beyond isults and join and adult conversation.

Second, that does not disprove a single one of my points, does it? That:

a) Welfare queens exist and are pretty common; and that
b) that we have a generation of people who have no qualms about live their entire lives on the gov't dole and abusing the system.

So, like a typical liberal, you attacked me, called me names, and think you have made some kind of rational point addressing my arguments. You have not, you have only proved yourself to be an idiot that is incapable of rational thought and debate.

Moreover, if you have any legal training whatsoever, you would know that you can sue anyone for anthing, that their are liberal legal aid socities that will take this person's case and sue for her, and that it will be costly and time consuming for me even if she does not win.

I am dealing with my tenant, and will eventually get rid of her. And, as I am sure it will make you happy, I will never again rent one of my 2 units to anyone on government assistance. No, those people can in fact go live in the true slums now. Which again, apparently makes you cheer.

However, as I stated above, my situation with my tenant, whether I keep her or get rid of her, has no bearing on my points that a) "welfare queens" are not a myth and b) the current system creates a class of welfare people and hurts the poor more than it helps.

You may believe you have addressed either of those points by insulting me, but you have not.

I am very sorry that facts, logic and rational thought are so difficult for you and your fellow liberals on this board, such that you need to lash out like children and call names.

What burns my sensibilities (and has since I practiced in law eviction court, ) are slumlords like you who don't think it's the government's responsibility to help people and, meanwhile, you take that same government for a ride every month by receiving guaranteed $$$$s.

You are full of BS. You did this because it is easier and safer financially for you to suck on the government's teat. Then, with your cognitive dissonance turned up to 11, you sit around and moan about Welfare Queens while you get your mortgage paid by the government. Slumlord. Try renting on the private market where half the rent isn't guaranteed, or try to stop bitching about people doing exactly as you do (receiving a government subsidy for their chosen lifestyle).

You really don't have any reading comprehension ability do you?

I have 2 units. A duplex - a side-by-side split house. both units are exactly the same. One is on the private market making more than the unit that is going to a Section 8 tenant.

When I first moved in to one side, I inherited the tenants on the other. I moved out and rented my side (my very first experience with seeking tenants). You are correct that you can categorically deny Section 8 tenants. I did not know that at the time, however, and having only one rental unit, did not think it necessary to consult a lawyer - my mistake. As I've said repeatedly, I will never rent to someone on gov't assistance again - so that should make you very happy.

People like you probably bitch that landlords in nice neighborhoods w/ nice properties won't rent to people on gov't assistance, forcing such people to actually live in slums. Yet, you will also come on this board and hurl insults at someone who did rent to such a person and demand that I kick her out. I guess for you helping the poor is only done in the abstract. It's all fine when you are spending other people's money through government but you don't want to get all messy and meet the real thing.

Second, you are incorrect that it is easier and safer financially, again, I get less rent on the Section 8 side b/c it is capped. The tenant regularly (about once every three months) fails to make a payment and then pays me $20 or so extra each month trying to make it up. Her family does constant damage to the unit that I have to pay to repair -and although I could charge her for it, getting the actual $$ is next to impossible.

The other side has become vacant and rented out on the private market no problem. So, I could rent this side pretty quickly once the "welfare queen" is gone. going through an evictiction process won't happen overnight, however, and I will likely lose several months worth of rent in the process (despite what you say - you don't know what you are talking about). I can't afford that right now. Howver, I will be able to w/in 6 months and will do so.

Again, however, this does not address any of teh actualy points I was using my experience to demonstrate:

a) welfare queens exist and are much more common than liberal will admit; and
b) there is a generation of people raised to basically live their entire lives on welfare.

Do you think that instead of calling me names you could address either of those points? I would be surprised if you could.

Going off the topic of "welfare queens" a little, I do note, again from my experience with this one tenant, that if she is representative, one of the major problems with people in that economic class is a lack of understanding of finances.

For instance, she rents furniture that is nicer than what she could buy, but ends up in long contracts and pays much, much more that such furniture is even remotely worth. I would guess that her large, LCD flat-screen is the same - rented. And, I would guess that her nice, brand new car is also leased.

If she understood more how to manage money, I think she would find that she could live better, and perhaps save up some money.

That's just a guess, but when I drive through poor neighborhoods and see $50,000 cars, I always wonder. I sometimes watch the show "big spender" which deals with people in massive debt who do things like this, and think we should focus more on teaching poorer people who to manage money / debt.

The Limp Banana replies: "How am I committing fraud by accepting money she is qualified for? The authority that pays her rent does inspections of the propery more than once a year and sees who is living there, and sees what material things she possesses. They still give her the benefit."

Oh, really? They know about how all of her kids have cell phones? They know she has a new car? How exactly do you know what they know, you silly con troll? Do you see their reports?

Again, you say she's defrauding the system - so DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or shut up. Until you do, you're simply another leech.

"Indeed, I would rather get rid of her as I said, and likely will once I am in a more stable position financially and can take a few months hit of not getting rent for that side while I go through the eviction process."

On what legal basis will you "get rid of her"? Because you don't like receiving the Section 8 money? You sure dont mind cashing the checks. If it's because you don't like her lifestyle, then I hope she resists the eviction attempt with every means at her disposal and bankrupts your miserable ass. You deserve it after years of living vicariously off of her benefits while cluck-clucking at her all the while.

"No matter how many insults you hurl my way, you have not addressed a single point I have made (again, common liberal "argument")."

You haven't made any points - you've just ladled out a self-serving argument that you're not intelligent enough to know makes you look like a hypocrite.

"You want it both ways. You want to attack conservatives for not having "compassion" for the poor. Then, when one of us does something compassionate, and tells you the results, you attack us for having done it - or claim we are lying."

You haven't done anything "compassionate." You've rented out an apartment at the market rate and you've been compensated for it. Where's the "compassion" in that, chuckles?

Keep on patting yourself on the back. I didn't even know leeches had arms.

The Limp Banana again: "Going off the topic of "welfare queens" a little, I do note, again from my experience with this one tenant, that if she is representative, one of the major problems with people in that economic class is a lack of understanding of finances.

For instance, she rents furniture that is nicer than what she could buy, but ends up in long contracts and pays much, much more that such furniture is even remotely worth. I would guess that her large, LCD flat-screen is the same - rented. And, I would guess that her nice, brand new car is also leased.

If she understood more how to manage money, I think she would find that she could live better, and perhaps save up some money.

That's just a guess, but when I drive through poor neighborhoods and see $50,000 cars, I always wonder. I sometimes watch the show "big spender" which deals with people in massive debt who do things like this, and think we should focus more on teaching poorer people who to manage money / debt."

Hoo boy. Anecdotal trolls just kill me. We're supposed to believe this woman's on public assistance, isn't committing fraud, but has a $50,000 leased car and rents furniture and her hugely expensive TV and all her kids have cell phones and she tells him all of this and that this anecdote fuels his entire socioeconomic worldview - and that it's not just an anecdote, it's a "POINT" that no "libs" can refute.

And he thinks he's qualified to speak of the lack of education in others? It would be funny if it weren't so pathetically common and idiotic.

What unmitigated tripe.

First of all, you do realize, don't you, that SSDI is not "welfare"? It isn't. So your tenant, if what you say is true, would be a "disability queen". Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Secondly, your expressed attitude is that these folks don't deserve a nice place to live. That was the thinking for many years and it led to warehousing of the poor in housing projects, where children were sure to grow up in an environment where there were no examples of anyone who had broken the cycle. Even with subsidized housing, this is still often the case with the inner-city poor - they still end up in substandard housing living around people who are all in the same boat. So what's your alternative? For them to live in shantytowns under overpasses with people in the same financial circumstances? I hardly see that as addressing the problem in a way that will make it better. Whatever the accompanying problems, "mainstreaming" the poor into working and middle class neighborhoods via housing subsidies is a better alternative than what we've tried in the past.

Third, you complain that public assistance infantilizes the poor and makes them unable to fend for themselves. Has it ever occured to you that this might not be the case, if instead of making people jump through hoops to fit the guidelines of specific programs (which we have to do because if we just give them a stipend, they might buy a nice TV) we were to just make sure every family had a minimum level of monthly income to cover their basic needs? How the hell do you expect people to ever be able to figure out how to navigate the real world if at every turn you're dictating every little detail of what they can and cannot do? The poor are restricted as to where they can live, which dictates where their kids will go to school, where they can work if work is to be found, what they can buy at the store with food stamps, where they can get medical attention if they can get it at all, etc etc etc etc. And all of this only because there are a lot of folks like you who are so afraid that they might get something nice they haven't paid for. The system is set up to insure that the poor never have the experience of truly "managing" money to allow for discretionary spending. So how do you expect them to know how to do it? Suppose we were to give families on public assistance a stipend rather than food stamps, a housing subsidy, etc etc...do you not think that some of them would use that as an opportunity to learn how to economize so that they could in fact afford to buy some non-necessity items? And if they did, what would be the problem with that? It wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny more, but I guarantee there would be a lot of foaming at the mouth about how these "good for nothings" were living high on the hog on someone else's money. But would that not be better, to empower people to manage their own lives?

The problem, friends, is that due to your own stinginess, you insist on a system that both infantalizes and punishes people who need assistance. You are more concerned that someone might get something they didn't pay for, something over and above the very barest of necessities, than you are in truly helping the poor learn to manage for themselves. And you still bitch, moan, and gnash your teeth when they somehow cagily manage to find a way to have a few nice things in spite of all the barriers we erect to make sure they never have anything extra from the assistance we give them. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Moelarry,

You are probably the stupidist person I have encountered on blogs, and that is saying quite a bit. I hope for your sake you don't act this way in real life and are capable of acting like an adult. In all seriousness, you seem to have somre real problems, and for that I am sorry for you.

You have failed to rationally adress any point I have made. You have only insulted me, and not even very well or with wit.

I suppose you think you are smart of clever, but you are not. Nor do you have any idea what you are talking about, as demonstrated by your comments. I have nothing but pity for you.

Someday you may mature and be able to reason with logic and act like an adult. I hope for your own sake that day comes soon. Until then, enjoy the new year.

First of all, you do realize, don't you, that SSDI is not "welfare"? It isn't. So your tenant, if what you say is true, would be a "disability queen". Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Umm, try reading what I wrote again. First, she receives several different kinds of assistance. As to her disability, I did not ever say anything about that specifically - although I will point out that I have never seen her exhibit any form of disability.

Second, I never said I was scared that she had things she couldn't pay for. My point is that she has nicer things then me, but is living off of my earned money - i.e., my taxes. That hardly seems reasonable or just.

Third, I was the one who said that giving them some education on finances - i.e., not leasing or renting things at exhorbent prices so as to better utilize their money, would be a public good. I don't know how that is so awful.

God, you people are so filled with hate and cliches, it is really pretty disturbing. YOu don't read what is written, you simply put your lib spin on it, assign evil motives and away you go. If nothing else, this conversation has proven to me once again that libs really are incapable of rational thought. It is all pre-conceived notions and emotion. Facts, analysis, reading what other people actually stated, that is all out the window. And yet, you consider yourselves morally and intellectually superior. Tragic.

Then you tell me to kick her out of the house and in the same argument complain that people on gov't assistance are forced to live in slums? Which is it? Do you want me to kick her out and refuse in the future to rent to people on gov't assistance (forcing them to live only in slums) or do you want me to talk about ways to fix the system so only the truly needy get help? And what is wrong with that? Wanting to fix the system? Why are you so hostile to the idea that the system has problems? I really don't understand the hostility to the idea that there are people who work the system and that it could be fixed to work better.

I'm sorry that my experience is so upsetting to you. Grow up and experience some reality for a change.

One would think a smart conservative trying to make the case that the "welfare queen" myth is neither so mythical nor race-baiting would have the good sense to point to an real-life example that is both clear cut and not a person of color. I thought Ross Douthat was a relatively smart conservative, but judging from his post, he's not. The evidence he points to of the underlying truthiness of the welfare queen myth, a photo of a "welfare duchess" and her "digs" reveals her to be—surprise!—a black woman. And the article provides no information on Ms. Jasper to support Ms. Douthat's implication that she is a "welfare duchess", whatever that is.

It may be, for example, that Ms. Jasper, has worked in a low-paid job her entire life. In fact, research conducted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development shows that most non-elderly and non-disabled persons living in publicly subsidized housing are low-wage workers, just like most recipients of the mortgage interest tax subsidy are workers, albeit better paid ones who sometimes live in real mansions.

As the comments so far on Mr. Douthat's post reveal, pointing to a photo of a black woman who receives a housing subsidy and using a revised form of the welfare queen slur inevitably leads to discourse that is hostile, uncivil and full of negative characterizations of working class individuals.

Mr. Douthat should know by now that, as Republican pollster Frank Luntz puts it, "it's not what you say, it's what people hear." And when you say "welfare queen" or "welfare duchess" for that matter, what people hear (and see in their minds) are negative pictures of people of color.

Research conducted by UCLA's Franklin Gilliam—"The 'Welfare Queen' Experiment: How Viewers React to Images of African-American Mothers on Welfare"—provides further evidence on this point:

... among white subjects, exposure to [the welfare queen narrative] ... increased stereotyping of African-Americans, and heightened support for maintaining traditional gender roles. ....

Of course, there's always the possibility that Douthat is unfamiliar with the research on stereotyping and made an "innocent mistake." If that's the case, he'd be smart to apologize to Ms. Jasper for prejudging her, and, to not, like Mr. Reagan, keep making that same mistake over and over again. Instead of carelessly repeating words that many Americans will hear as a racial slur, Mr. Douthat should stick to the business of building a 21st century conservatism that doesn't need race-baiting to win at the ballot box.

The Limp Banana replies: "You are probably the stupidist person I have encountered on blogs, and that is saying quite a bit."

Heh. He wrote "stupidist."

Is a "stupidist" someone who studies stupid people? Because if it is then I certainly am a stupidist, considering all of the time I spend sparring with mindless yahoo conservatives.

The Limp Banana again: "Do you want me to kick her out and refuse in the future to rent to people on gov't assistance (forcing them to live only in slums) or do you want me to talk about ways to fix the system so only the truly needy get help? And what is wrong with that? Wanting to fix the system? Why are you so hostile to the idea that the system has problems? I really don't understand the hostility to the idea that there are people who work the system and that it could be fixed to work better."

Oh, yeah - your "teach them how to spend money better" idea is revolutionary. You've really spent a lot of time here proposing ways to "fix the system." No - you've spent time here venting over "my tax dollars" and inventing words like "exhorbent," which I suspect is how you were conceived.

Banana,

It's not 'your money', chuckles*. 'Your money' is whatever society (i.e. the government) says it is, and your tax dollars don't belong to you. If the government decides to burn your tax dollars in front of the Washington Monumnet, that's none of your affair. Love it or lump it. And stop complaining. Jesus said you had to choose between God and Mammon. It's painfully evident you've made your choice. He also had some choice words for those who claim they're being charitable when in fact they're nothing of the sort.

From my point of view, of course, landlords and welfare queens are both living off the labor of others (unless you built the house with your own two hands) so it's amusing to me to watch them going at each other's throats. Kind of like watching Mormons and Muslims go at it. The difference of course being that the welfare queen, unlike you, presumably has extenuating factors in her life.

*Moe: sorry for borrowing your term of art, but I couldn't resist.

I just want everyone to know that the Great Banana is a lying slumlord. If his facts are not merely his delusions, then he is committing fraud by not reporting this lady. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE HAP (housing assistance payments) CONTRACT THAT BANANA SIGNED WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY!

Anyone who wishes to deconstruct Banana'z lies (there are simply too many for me to list) about Section 8 is encouraged to go do a search for 24 CFR 982 (these are HUD's tenant-based Section 8 regs).

All this slumlord's lies are laid out there.

Here's one example of his bull:

going through an evictiction process won't happen overnight, however, and I will likely lose several months worth of rent in the process (despite what you say - you don't know what you are talking about).

Banana, you idiot, you get your Section 8 payment (you said it covers half of the rent) for all the days she remains in the unit until the Sheriff/Constable, or whoever does that in your jurisdiction, sets her out of possession.

You normally have to wait until the eviction is complete to get this money from your PHA (otherwise you'd be stupidly waiving your right to evict), but this money is guaranteed. Thus, the most you would lose if you had valid grounds to evict would be half the rent. This puts you in a better position when it comes to collecting past due rent from an evicted tenant than every landlord renting residential property on the private market.

You have lied. Intentionally, or out of stupidity, every single statement you have made regard the legalities of Section 8 is false. Again, I suggest you consult an attorney because you are clearly too stupid to handle this stuff yourself.

Good stuff from Banana, with cognitive dissonance still turned up to 11, he says,

"I can rent out the other side no problem, so it's not a question of "needing" her gov't check. Indeed, I would rather get rid of her as I said, and likely will once I am in a more stable position financially."

So you don't need her government check, but you need her government check because you are in a bad financial position?

I see. This sounds like something a slumlord would say.

Banana still being the dumbest person alive:

"Moreover, if you have any legal training whatsoever, you would know that you can sue anyone for anthing, that their are liberal legal aid socities that will take this person's case and sue for her, and that it will be costly and time consuming for me even if she does not win.

Nope. Rule 11 prevents that. Just another lie.

But it is funny that you mention Legal Aid. I made my bones in the legal profession sticking it to slumlords just like you. Always gave me great pleasure.

Ever more ignorant, Banana states,

"First, you don't know what you are talking about - but if you want to have a discussion of the law in the area where I live,..."

Idiot. Section 8 is part of a federal law. The Section 8 Rules are, for all intents and purposes (just minor things, like waiver of the rental cap to 125% for instance, vary from PHA to PHA), the same for every PHA regardless of where the PHA is located. The same federal statues and HUD regulations apply.

"I would love to discuss it with you offline and educate you as to it - give me your email address and I'll cite you to the Code, to caselaw, etc. and educate you."

I would be very interested in getting that education. But why only offer to enlighten the guy who practiced this law for 5 years? Why not just educate me here? That way everyone on the board can receive the benefit of your understanding of the tenant based rental assistance program. Just a simple cite to the USC and a couple of case cites should get us started on my education.

Or, at the very least, you should post up your contact information so that me and any other poor unfortunate souls reading who don't understand the intricacies of Section 8 can send you an email and get enlightened.

Mr. Sycamore,

It's nice to hear that you spent some time sticking it to nasty little slumlords...someone has to do it. it's always nice to see the malice and ignorance like that of some of these conservatives exposed. I do appreciate the information you're giving me about Section 8 law!

keatssycamore to Limp Banana: "I would be very interested in getting that education. But why only offer to enlighten the guy who practiced this law for 5 years? Why not just educate me here? That way everyone on the board can receive the benefit of your understanding of the tenant based rental assistance program. Just a simple cite to the USC and a couple of case cites should get us started on my education."

As a stupidist, I can confidently state that Mr. Banana won't be doing any such thing any time soon. I would also bet that he's trying to figure out what your username means, and has gotten as far as figuring out what the "amore" part means. Something about how the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie was his first clue.

MoeLarryandJesus,

God knows why, but I read this entire damn thread. You are so annoying! I'm a Democrat, very strongly, and I'm nothing but irritated to have you on our side.

All the dumb name-calling ("Dumbya", "Repuglican") is so juvenile and preposterous. Seriously, you sound like a complete and utter idiot. Sit back and consider the way you're arguing, and ask yourself if its hurting or helping your cause.

And please, don't claim I'm a "Repiglican weasel racist piece of crap in disguise" or something. If I was a conservative, I'd be happy to let you rant on and on like this.

montefiore--
Thanks for your comment. The main reason I'm supporting Obama is because he's figured out that many Republicans have views on race, taxes, the role of the state, and foreign policy that, in spite of the ranting of zealots, do not represent an American version of National Socialism. In fact, while he and people like him may not necessarily agree, they note these views are often based on reality, and he's prepared to debate them on the merits with the assumption of good faith. This, in my view, is what we need more than anything else in politics right now.

We have been divided into camps that encourage the ignorant or the emotionally disturbed to equate political opponents with actual enemies. Given that we currently have real enemies, this seems to me a particularly myopic tactic.

Moe,

I actually kind of like your harsh language. Even when it's sometimes directed towards me ("Jesoids", "Shlomo and the turkey baster", etc.) If nothing else, it's funny. And God knows the Republicans, and the American ruling class in general, have done enough evil things to deserve it. I don't even particularly bother when it's directed against me, because the humor of it helps to blunt the edge of the irreligiousness.

Keep up the good fight against the Repiglicans! And have at us "Jesoids' to your heart's content; though you have some views that seem absurd to me, at least it helps keep us honest.

Powell,

I'm not sure why you think we should give you the presumption of good faith. It's obvious that America does have an economic oligarchy that controls it (being in large part congruent with the political and cultural oligarchy) and seeks policies that will protect its economic position both at home and abroad. This might include trying to keep social benefits to the poor at the lowest level possible. Or it might include trying to vilify and suppress any governments overseas that do anything to threaten U.S. hegemony (Nicaragua, anyone?) Given that the Republican leadership (not every individual Republican voter) does in fact pursue such policies (so do the Democrats but with at least a bit less enthusiasm) then why exactly should we assume that they are actuated by any motive higher than their own greed?

The fact that I agree with the Republicans on abortion, gay rights and a couple of other social issues should not blind you guys to the fact that I am very very far from being a Republican.

montefiore writes: "God knows why, but I read this entire damn thread. You are so annoying! I'm a Democrat, very strongly, and I'm nothing but irritated to have you on our side.

All the dumb name-calling ("Dumbya", "Repuglican") is so juvenile and preposterous. Seriously, you sound like a complete and utter idiot. Sit back and consider the way you're arguing, and ask yourself if its hurting or helping your cause.

And please, don't claim I'm a "Repiglican weasel racist piece of crap in disguise" or something. If I was a conservative, I'd be happy to let you rant on and on like this."

That's funny, because most of the people who object to my comments most strongly are conservatives.

I think you probably lack a sense of humor and you're not very bright, so you probably are backing Hillary. I hope Obama or Edwards kick her ass.

I'm not really a Democrat - I'm an American and I consider myself to be independent. That the Repiglicans have gone insane and have to be disposed of in the next election doesn't change that.

If you really think being a civil pussy has helped your "cause," review the last two elections. Gore and Kerry took the high road and it didn't work. It's time to fight the 'Piglicans and win. Whatever it takes. They're sloppy, incompetent morons. Why not say so?

Hector writes: "I actually kind of like your harsh language. Even when it's sometimes directed towards me ("Jesoids", "Shlomo and the turkey baster", etc.) If nothing else, it's funny. And God knows the Republicans, and the American ruling class in general, have done enough evil things to deserve it. I don't even particularly bother when it's directed against me, because the humor of it helps to blunt the edge of the irreligiousness."

I hope so, since that's part of the intent. I certainly don't think being religious makes someone a bad person, or automatically irrational in all respects.

I like confrontational writing even when I don't agree with it. It leads to more.

There's a big difference between "confrontational writing" and behaving like a jerk. Confrontation with opposing or contradictory facts is effective. Insults and name-calling is simply juvenile misbehavior, and counterproductive to boot. The net does seem to encourage this kind of silliness, but it's one of its worst features. Sort of like trying to have an adult conversation in the library while boorish teenagers run around yelling profanity, playing with matches, and spray-painting slogans on the wall.

L,M&J and Hector seem to be quite young, or at any rate extremely short on political experience. Simple-minded cliche's about "the oligarchy" are a good example. It seems to me that if there really was an organized plot by such a group they'd be in favor of increasing welfare benefits in order to keep the poor dependent and placid, not reducing them. And as far as Nicaragua is concerned, I put by butt on the line there in person in 1984-85 in protest of Reagan's policy of state supported terrorism. The automatic assumption of bad faith on the part of someone who respectfully disagrees with you is simply foolish.

Another good example is L,M&J's remarkably simplistic analysis of "the last two elections"--presumably as far back as he can go. The idea that Gore and Kerry lost because they "took the high road" is patent nonsense. Gore lost because of his prissy refusal to embrace Clinton and his legacy in the campaign, going instead with the ridiculous "fighting for people against the powerful" meme, which turns the vast majority of voters who aren't like Hector and L,M&J, off; and Kerry lost because he was utterly incoherent on Iraq, perhaps the most important moral question in a generation, and had the more leftist of the two Massachusetts Senate voting records.

Powell,

Well, I suppose I took you for a garden variety Republican, I'm sorry. Thank you for putting yourself on the line protesting the Contra war in 1984-1985. I also have some views that are at odds with the Democratic Party (specifically on abortion, gay rights and similar issues) so I do agree that the assumption of bad faith is not cool. I'm in fact in my mid-20s as you guessed.

Actually you raise a good point, I do think that the oligarchy initially was in favor of enacting the welfare state, although they also don't want to raise them too high. I think it would be fair to say that the welfare state was created in part to defuse militancy among the poor and avoid the threat of socialism.

Hector, with all due respect, the oligarchy is in favor of the welfare state, period. There is no oligarchy like an oligarchy acting in the name of a single-party state, and all of those on record have been predicated on Jacobin norms of "kill the oligarchy and redistribute the wealth".

Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss...

Robert Powell writes: "The idea that Gore and Kerry lost because they "took the high road" is patent nonsense. Gore lost because of his prissy refusal to embrace Clinton and his legacy in the campaign, going instead with the ridiculous "fighting for people against the powerful" meme, which turns the vast majority of voters who aren't like Hector and L,M&J, off; and Kerry lost because he was utterly incoherent on Iraq, perhaps the most important moral question in a generation, and had the more leftist of the two Massachusetts Senate voting records."

If you really think that nonsense about Kerry's voting record was more important than his failure to brand the Swift Boat vets as politically-driven lying whores, chuckles, then I don't think there's much hope for you. I also think Gore could have made much out of Dumbya's long and spectacular history of personal failure and incompetence, but he didn't even make an attempt at doing so.

The Iraq War is indeed the biggest moral question of our time, and support for it is what makes Republicans into Repiglicans.

MLaJ,

No, I don't lack a sense of humor. Your jokes are just stupid and predictable. You really think its like uproariously funny when you call someone "Dumbya?" Seriously? You're calling me stupid and humorless cause I don't think it's funny when you call him "Dumbya"? Is that your best humorous effort?

This has nothing to do with being a "civil pussy" as you so eloquently (and HILARIOUSLY!) put it. I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. You're calling a spade a $paEd (lolololz!) and you sound really really dumb.

I also love how your most reliable mode of attack is just claiming people who disagree with you aren't "very bright." Well done! I guess if you don't want to resort to schoolyard name-calling rather than actually addressing issues in a way that is constructive and people can understand (yes, this includes criticizing Republicans for their mistakes), you're not very bright.

But, by all means, hit the stand-up circuit, Moe. You're a regular LAFF RIOT!!!!11!!!

Sorry, still ROFLing from the "civil pussy" comment!! HAHA!

montefiore writes: "I also love how your most reliable mode of attack is just claiming people who disagree with you aren't "very bright.""

Since in your first comment to me you said I was a "complete and utter idiot," I don't see how that would bother you much. Then again, you could just be a rancid hypocrite.

"I have no problem with calling a spade a spade."

That's because you're a racist, too, just like Saint Reagan!

""I have no problem with calling a spade a spade."

That's because you're a racist, too, just like Saint Reagan!"

Are you serious? It's a figure of speech.

"Since in your first comment to me you said I was a "complete and utter idiot," I don't see how that would bother you much."


No. I said you "sound like a complete and utter idiot." That's not an attack on your intellect, but on the content on what you wrote. There's a difference.

montefiore quotes and writes: """I have no problem with calling a spade a spade."

That's because you're a racist, too, just like Saint Reagan!"

Are you serious? It's a figure of speech."

Oh, yeah, I was serious. Big time. Sheesh.

You really need to get out more.

"No. I said you "sound like a complete and utter idiot." That's not an attack on your intellect, but on the content on what you wrote. There's a difference."

Since every response here is a comment on something someone wrote, that's a distinction without a difference. That I don't always choose to use weasel words like "sound like" or "appear to be" is a matter of stylistic choice.