« 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?"