Thurston Howell Romney

[carlfense]

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

. . .

​This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

 

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

 

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

 

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=2ref=opinion&

[knapplc]

CNN had an article on this too:

 

 

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- So who are the Americans that Mitt Romney says are "dependent on government?"

 

A lot of them are his biggest fans: seniors.

 

Older Americans -- those who get help from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- are a big part of the nearly half of households receiving some kind of federal benefits, according to the most recent Census Bureau data.

 

"Seniors are the biggest beneficiaries of the government," said Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank at George Mason University in Virginia. "These are also the ones who overwhelmingly vote for Romney."

 

According to a video of Romney's remarks at a May fundraiser that was published Monday evening, the Republican presidential candidate told supporters that he couldn't concentrate on voters who are "dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

 

Seniors are the biggest beneficiaries, but they're also the most likely to vote for Romney, and the most likely to get pissed at "entitlements."

 

Go figure.

[sd'sker]

link

 

i wonder where romney lands in that chart? is he part of that disparaged 47% while also being part of that other disparaged 1%?

[krc1995]

"Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey"

 

Sure, hard work is fine in theory, but define hard work? For some, it's getting the application for aid filled out correctly and in on time.

 

My perception is that there is rampant dependancy on every form of aid in the area of which I live. I discredit this article and the author's opinion . I disagree with several things in this article, but particularly these two paragraphs " The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency." and "People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear."

 

When your entire family is supported by the government, and has always been supported by the government, you do not have ambition.

[sd'sker]

 

When your entire family is supported by the government, and has always been supported by the government, you do not have ambition.

that is 100% bs and a contrived talking point by the right. talk about class warfare.

 

what about trust fund babies? are they motivated? by your logic, they would not be.

 

also, your perception of 'rampant dependancy [sic]', what is that based on? just your convenient worldview of blaming poor people for all of the nation's problems and the feeling of superiority and entitlement because you have not had to suffer the same fate?

[sd'sker]

and would you look at that:

 

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

[NUance]

Thurston Howell Romney

 

+1 based solely on the thread title.

[carlfense]

"Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey"

 

Sure, hard work is fine in theory, but define hard work? For some, it's getting the application for aid filled out correctly and in on time.

 

My perception is that there is rampant dependancy on every form of aid in the area of which I live. I discredit this article and the author's opinion . I disagree with several things in this article, but particularly these two paragraphs " The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency." and "People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear."

 

When your entire family is supported by the government, and has always been supported by the government, you do not have ambition.

Are these your feelings or does this have a factual basis? If so . . . which facts?

[strigori]

"Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey"

 

Sure, hard work is fine in theory, but define hard work? For some, it's getting the application for aid filled out correctly and in on time.

 

My perception is that there is rampant dependancy on every form of aid in the area of which I live. I discredit this article and the author's opinion . I disagree with several things in this article, but particularly these two paragraphs " The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency." and "People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear."

 

When your entire family is supported by the government, and has always been supported by the government, you do not have ambition.

And how many people exactly are you talking about that have been 'always supported by the government?' Numbers please. It wouldn't be that many.

 

Come on out of your ivory tower and walk in the real world for awhile. By your Randian logic sub-Saharan Africa should be a great place where everyone has drive and motivation to succeed, seeing as some of those nations don't even have functioning governments to hold people back.

 

Great chunks who have 'received assistance' do so for short periods of time.

 

College students taking out a loan for education must not have any drive, otherwise they would just "Borrow the money from their Parents" like Romney, or work their way through school, somehow.

 

All the people laid off by companies just like the ones Bain bank rolled that fired workers to make the execs more money, must not have drive, or ambition if they needed help for a few months while trying to find a job that paid better than a burger flipper at McDonald's.

 

Or how about the people who work 40 or more hours a week for about $35k a year, that get the child deductions on tax returns? They are moochers under the crap Romney spews too. They must not have drive either, otherwise they would have pursued a higher paying job, regardless if they love the one they do, and don't make millions doing it.

 

The first ones attacking others for 'class warfare' are the ones conducting it.

[krc1995]

and would you look at that:

 

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

i can't open you link

I work in a school that has 70% free lunch, I am not sure what the Parish rate is, but I've heard it's above 60%. I don't know where you live, but what does your community look like? Maybe your perspective is a little skewed and not representive of a real culteral epidemic and that is making government your career. Do you think it's fair and right to have baby after baby that you can't pay for, that you knew when you had it that you could pay for, and will never pay for anything for that child? Where are the children advocates? Do you think that if they had a choice they would live with 7 others half siblings in a government house eating banquet meals? Guess what those kids are going to do when they get older? Go to college? Nope, have seven babies each. Seven babies that will be fully supported by the government. So, you might argue that if there was work these people would love to get a job and support their families the American way. Wrong, this area has plenty of very good paying jobs for people without anything more than a high school education. The funny thing is they will tell you how hard they work, at what I can't figure. How do I know? Because as part of my job I do home visits for the school system. Do the math.

 

I am concerned about this and I have a god damned right too be. Is that enough facts for you? What kind of fact do you want? They're there, get out of your white midwest world.

[sd'sker]

and would you look at that:

 

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

i can't open you link

I work in a school that has 70% free lunch, I am not sure what the Parish rate is, but I've heard it's above 60%. I don't know where you live, but what does your community look like? Maybe your perspective is a little skewed and not representive of a real culteral epidemic and that is making government your career. Do you think it's fair and right to have baby after baby that you can't pay for, that you knew when you had it that you could pay for, and will never pay for anything for that child? Where are the children advocates? Do you think that if they had a choice they would live with 7 others half siblings in a government house eating banquet meals? Guess what those kids are going to do when they get older? Go to college? Nope, have seven babies each. Seven babies that will be fully supported by the government. So, you might argue that if there was work these people would love to get a job and support their families the American way. Wrong, this area has plenty of very good paying jobs for people without anything more than a high school education. The funny thing is they will tell you how hard they work, at what I can't figure. How do I know? Because as part of my job I do home visits for the school system. Do the math.

 

I am concerned about this and I have a god damned right too be. Is that enough facts for you? What kind of fact do you want? They're there, get out of your white midwest world.

first, and most importantly, wtf? second, you work for the gov't? so you are completely dependent on the gov't? third, so you want to cut funding/tax credits for those kids? what are you arguing? you still have not told me how much those families or kids receive from gov't. you told me a bunch of anecdotal bs, and in the meantime either made an argument for increased educational funding, including college (as you complain these kids do not go to college), or for mandatory abortions. i am not completely sure what your point was.

 

the story you told me is exactly why i am liberal. those kids did not have a choice to be born, so it is up to the gov't (i.e., all of us, as human beings in a society) to help them have a fair chance in this world. to be fed, educated, and job training so they could eventually be self-sustaining. what exactly was your argument? those kids with no control over their lives are parasites and deserve less? and, yes, i am still waiting for *facts*. such as, how much money do they receive from the gov't and how large of a percentage of the budget do they receive?

 

no, no, though, you are right, it is those 70% of students that receive free lunches that are the ones holding back the economy, weakening this nation, increasing the deficit, and deserve to be vilified. do not come back and say you are criticizing their parents, because you put this squarely on the students already in existence. maybe those parents should have had something other than abstinence-only sex ed. or something, but i do not know how to stop people from having kids other than reinstating buck v. bell or forcing them to receive a childbirth license or some other extreme, controversial measure.

[krill]

...They're there, get out of your white midwest world.

 

I don't doubt what you said is true about your community, but letting one failed community, or individual instances of entitlement abuse shape your entire view isn't fair. sd'sker quoted factual statistics that 90% of entitlement spending goes to seniors, the disabled, and people that work, and I will never understand the logic of focusing all our attention on the small percentage of waste (relative to total spending) just because it's so overt. You don't see or think about the 70 year old man that collects his social security check, deposits it, goes to to the clinic for a test, uses medicare benefits, all while maintaining a respectable life. Those are the people collecting most of the money and benefits from entitlement spending though.

[krc1995]

and would you look at that:

 

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

i can't open you link

I work in a school that has 70% free lunch, I am not sure what the Parish rate is, but I've heard it's above 60%. I don't know where you live, but what does your community look like? Maybe your perspective is a little skewed and not representive of a real culteral epidemic and that is making government your career. Do you think it's fair and right to have baby after baby that you can't pay for, that you knew when you had it that you could pay for, and will never pay for anything for that child? Where are the children advocates? Do you think that if they had a choice they would live with 7 others half siblings in a government house eating banquet meals? Guess what those kids are going to do when they get older? Go to college? Nope, have seven babies each. Seven babies that will be fully supported by the government. So, you might argue that if there was work these people would love to get a job and support their families the American way. Wrong, this area has plenty of very good paying jobs for people without anything more than a high school education. The funny thing is they will tell you how hard they work, at what I can't figure. How do I know? Because as part of my job I do home visits for the school system. Do the math.

 

I am concerned about this and I have a god damned right too be. Is that enough facts for you? What kind of fact do you want? They're there, get out of your white midwest world.

first, and most importantly, wtf? second, you work for the gov't? so you are completely dependent on the gov't? third, so you want to cut funding/tax credits for those kids? what are you arguing? you still have not told me how much those families or kids receive from gov't. you told me a bunch of anecdotal bs, and in the meantime either made an argument for increased educational funding, including college (as you complain these kids do not go to college), or for mandatory abortions. i am not completely sure what your point was.

 

the story you told me is exactly why i am liberal. those kids did not have a choice to be born, so it is up to the gov't (i.e., all of us, as human beings in a society) to help them have a fair chance in this world. to be fed, educated, and job training so they could eventually be self-sustaining. what exactly was your argument? those kids with no control over their lives are parasites and deserve less? and, yes, i am still waiting for *facts*. such as, how much money do they receive from the gov't and how large of a percentage of the budget do they receive?

 

no, no, though, you are right, it is those 70% of students that receive free lunches that are the ones holding back the economy, weakening this nation, increasing the deficit, and deserve to be vilified. do not come back and say you are criticizing their parents, because you put this squarely on the students already in existence. maybe those parents should have had something other than abstinence-only sex ed. or something, but i do not know how to stop people from having kids other than reinstating buck v. bell or forcing them to receive a childbirth license or some other extreme, controversial measure.

 

if you get more money for having kids, you will have more kids.

 

Now, I am dependent on government? Your definition of government dependency is far different from mine. As I stated, governement dependency as a career is what I oppose. This is not some little, isolated problem. Here are the programs in my state that I have problems with: supplemental nutiritional assistance program(food stamps), child care assistance program, family intedependce temporary assistance programs, kindship care subsidy program. The last two are cash programs. There is another program that provides cell phones for families . There is also SSI and SSDI. 20% of this state, as a whole, receive foodstamps- I think the national average is 15% or upwards.

[knapplc]

As I stated, governement dependency as a career is what I oppose. This is not some little, isolated problem.

 

I agree, I hate the "welfare queen" career. But I don't have any idea how many people truly live their lives like this. How widespread is this problem?

[sd'sker]

if you get more money for having kids, you will have more kids.

 

Now, I am dependent on government? Your definition of government dependency is far different from mine. As I stated, governement dependency as a career is what I oppose. This is not some little, isolated problem. Here are the programs in my state that I have problems with: supplemental nutiritional assistance program(food stamps), child care assistance program, family intedependce temporary assistance programs, kindship care subsidy program. The last two are cash programs. There is another program that provides cell phones for families . There is also SSI and SSDI. 20% of this state, as a whole, receive foodstamps- I think the national average is 15% or upwards.

i disagree with your first sentence, but agree that unfit parents are a huge problem in america. i do not think they do it for the check, they are just selfish and irresponsible. here is how we differ, and i do not think you are wrong (reasonable minds can differ, and such), but i think that there are enough people out there if given a honest and fair chance will be able to take care of themselves. they want to take care of themselves. i believe there is only a small amount of genuine parasites and freeloaders who just want to live on as little as possible if it means they do not have to take care of themselves. however, if there is a chance funding to a program will help someone become self-sustaining, then it is totally worth it and will pay dividends in the end. however, a lot of these programs are underfunded or just stop-gaps. they accomplish nothing because they can only provide the bare minimum, but they end up costing more because they do not help people develop into productive members of society.

 

ex. instead of unemployment, that money should go to job training for those eligible. then you provide a valuable skill that will lead to work and those in the program will be dependent on the gov't for less time, leading to a net savings.

 

i agree there should be reform and the system should be more focused on getting people up on their feet. however, we have to take care of the children, they have no say in who their parents are, so that makes it tough. to fix those issues, there would have to be large-scale cultural changes.

 

however, like i said, i believe in aid if there is a chance in someone becoming self-sustaining, i believe more people than not eligible on these programs want to, they just need a lot of help and opportunity. that is the point, if you are born underprivileged, it is near impossible to dig yourself out of the cycle of poverty. so, yes there should be reform but these are necessary programs.

 

finally, ssdi is like insurance. you have to pay into it to be eligible.