Well said.
The other issue is a lack of purposefulness in some lives, i.e. those who could and desire to work but who have very limited options due to the economic opportunity loss of child/elder care, local economy, lack of jobs or benefits, etc.
Obviously, we need to improve our so-called "safety net" for those who require assistance (e.g. physical and developmental impairments), but we also need significant job development in areas savaged by global economic changes (e.g. West Virgina coal miners; Ohio manufacturing; Michigan auto makers).
I read somewhere recently that 1/6 (17%)West Virginians are on public assistance as their primary source of income. Think ioof the impact of that statistic on personal lives; on pride, self-worth, and spirit.
Posted by tfitznc at April 1, 2008 06:34 AMIn Rhode Island the percentage is 8.4 and the reporter plainly says so, but just a paragraph later hides the New York percentage by using a ratio. The New York Times has learned the bidding of its corporate master very well.
From the linked Times story;
In New York, a program to promote enrollment increased food stamp rolls earlier in the decade, but the current climb in applications appears in part to reflect economic hardship, said Michael Hayes, spokesman for the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. The additional 67,000 clients added from July 2007 to January of this year brought total recipients to 1.86 million, about one in 10 New Yorkers.
Is that really the reason for your comlaint against the Times? That they said "1 in 10" rather than "10%"? And all after having given the total of NYS recipients as 1.86 million? Perhaps they should have used all the zeros for effect, 1,860,000? Or do you think the average Times reader doesn't know how many zeros there are in a million?
Sorry paradox but if the average Times reader is not capable of making the rather simple conversion (as you obviously did) from "1 in 10" to "10%" THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE.
Your post didn't need the really weak shot at the Times, which after all, did actually run a story about the problem.
Posted by snark at April 1, 2008 06:52 AM""Long live the welfare king." This person really exists, his name is James E. Cayne, and taxpayers just handed him almost $50 million...as the former CEO of Bear Stearns, and current chairman, he owned a great deal of the company's stock. To put the taxpayer's gift to Mr. Cayne in some context, this is approximately equal to the amount paid in TANF to 10,000 working mothers over the course of a year.
snip
When Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke rushed in to save Bear Stearns last week, he made two other important policy changes. He indicated a commitment to protecting other major investment banks and he opened the Fed's discount window to the investment banks. These are both huge taxpayer subsidies to these titans of free market capitalism.
snip
The Fed is allowing investment banks, which are subject to none of the restrictions or disclosure requirements of commercial banks, to borrow at a government subsidized interest rate. Currently the discount rate is two-and-a-half percent. Those seeking to refinance mortgages, most of whom are probably better credit risks these days than the investment banks, may want to call Mr. Bernanke and ask for the same deal.
snip
...the commitment to support the investment banks is probably the bigger subsidy to the Wall Street crew. The basic story here is that the investment banks made commitments...credit default swaps, that they lack the resources to honor...essentially a form of insurance. The investment banks promise to make payments to bondholders in the event that there is a default on the bonds they hold.
snip
Mr. Bernanke has effectively told the banks' creditors not to worry, because the Fed will make good on these credit default swaps, even if Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, or Goldman Sachs can't.
snip
...the Fed is providing the insurance, but the investment banks get to keep the money they got from selling the insurance: nice work, if you can get it.
The Welfare King of the 21st Century by Dean Baker
truthout/Perspective, Monday 31 March 2008
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033108A.shtml
Socialism is an unworkable system, except in certain limited applications.
For example, it's bad for regular working people; ruins their work ethic.
Our candidates got $12 million from the financial industry in contributions.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at April 1, 2008 08:55 AMbut we have plenty of money for the War Machine:
GAO Blasts Weapons Budget
Cost Overruns Hit $295 Billion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102789.html
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 1, 2008 10:41 AMWow. Fucking wow. That is absolutely the best post I have read anywhere.
I would love to hear one of our presidential candidates say that. But then we would have to deal with an assassination at the hands of a radical Islamocommienazijihadifascist and then we would have to blow up the rest of the world.....that we haven't done it to yet.
Once again, fantastic post.