Where does the New York Times find these guys?

FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2023

Poverty abolition: Where does the New York Times find these guys?

In the present instance, we refer to Matthew Desmond, a sociologist at Princeton, where he is the director of the Eviction Lab. His new guest essay for the Times appears beneath this somewhat murky but challenging headline:

America Is in a Disgraced Class of Its Own

Long story short, Desmond is recommending that we Americans become "poverty abolitionists." His essay starts as shown:

DESMOND (3/17/23): The United States has a poverty problem.

A third of the country’s people live in households making less than $55,000. Many are not officially counted among the poor, but there is plenty of economic hardship above the poverty line. And plenty far below it as well. According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for government aid and living expenses, more than one in 25 people in America 65 or older lived in deep poverty in 2021, meaning that they’d have to, at minimum, double their incomes just to reach the poverty line.

Programs like housing assistance and food stamps are effective and essential, protecting millions of families from hunger and homelessness each year. But the United States devotes far fewer resources to these programs, as a share of its gross domestic product, than other rich democracies, which places America in a disgraced class of its own on the world stage.

On the eve of the Covid pandemic, in 2019, our child poverty rate was roughly double that of several peer nations, including Canada, South Korea and Germany. Anyone who has visited these countries can plainly see the difference, can experience what it might be like to live in a country without widespread public decay. When abroad, I have on several occasions heard Europeans use the phrase “American-style deprivation.”

The essay continues from there. 

For what it's worth, Kevin Drum offered a recent post in which he suggested that Desmond, in a separate essay, was using a statistical measure which substantially overstates the number of people in poverty. 

We don't know if Drum's critique was right. Our own view is that such statistical matters are so complexified that we could never get straight on such measures even if we wanted to.

Which of course we don't.

In his new essay, Desmond seems to say, somewhat angrily, that better-off Americans simply don't care if others are caught in poverty. With that in mind, we just watched the start of today's Deadline: White House:

It's one of our blue tribe's "cable news" programs which almost seems to have been invented to conclusively prove Desmond's point. 

In our view, someone ought to take Desmond aside and help him cool his roll. Here within our exalted blue tribe, we simply don't care about topics like his. There's only one thing our blue stars care about, and they're more than happy to make thar fact crystal clear.

There's only one topic our blue stars discuss:

Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail!

Our tribunes care about nothing else, nor are they planning to change. How much are they paid to treat us this way?

You aren't permitted to know. 

30 comments:

  1. Today's definition of "poverty" is based on a relationship to average income. "Poverty" is not defined by need. One can have housing, sufficient food, clothing, medical care, automobile, TV set, computer, air conditioning, etc. Yet, such a person will still be counted as "living in poverty" if their income is below a certain level.

    Based on this definition, if more middle class people become wealthier, that will automatically cause the poverty benchmark, thus causing more people to be counted as living in poverty. That's why "poverty" (as defined) will never go away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe the dumbest thing I have ever read.

      Delete
    2. cause —> raise

      Delete
    3. @ 5:02 PM - he's got a million of 'em.

      Delete

  2. Well, your tribunes, dear Bob, aren't different from all the other tribunes. All they want is power.

    ...tsk, nah. Scratch that. We do feel that your, dear Bob, tribunes are worse, quite a bit worse. Craftier. Other tribunes are a bit more straightforward... Less dishonest...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin.

      Delete
  3. Maddow feeds helium to lambs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She gives them hydrogen, which they fuse into helium.

      Delete
    2. Fox News host Tucker Carlson called Donald Trump "a demonic force" in a text late on January 6, 2021, according to a court filing.

      Delete
  4. Further thoughts on “woke”

    https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/03/is-woke-just-a-re-labeling-of-politically-correct

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Right hates political correctness, right up until the point you tell the truth about them.

      Delete
  5. “We don't know if Drum's critique was right.”

    But he’s still going to ask “where does the New York Times find these guys?” The implication being that “I’m going to criticize the times guy without knowing if Drum is even right or not.”

    And where in the passage quoted does Desmond say or imply that “better-off Americans simply don't care if others are caught in poverty”? He seems to be stating facts about America’s commitment to ending poverty versus the way it’s handled in Canada or Europe.

    Can anyone really say with a straight face that America is deeply committed to ending poverty? When you have an entire party (the Republican Party) which wants to slash benefits for the poor, calls poor people and unemployed people lazy, and complained bitterly about “Obamaphones”and the fact that poor people had REFRIGERATORS as if they were shocked, SHOCKED that poor people had refrigerators. As if poor people weren’t poor enough to suit the Fox News talking heads and the Republican Party. Not that they intended to do anything about it anyway.

    Here’s what one Republican said recently in Minnesota, explaining his vote against free school lunches:

    “I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry. Yet today. I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that says they don’t have access to enough food to eat.”

    (‘Drazkowski Votes Against Free School Lunches Because “Hunger Is a Relative Term”’

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/steve-drazkowski-minnesota-free-school-lunches

    So, I don’t know, Bob, keep on saying this shit with a straight face, OK?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The school lunch program is supposedly based on the belief that large numbers of parents can't afford lunch for their children. This was probably true at one time. but it's not true now. Just about anyone can afford the cost of a PBJ sandwich and apiece of fruit.

      The school lunch program has two problems. It's inefficient, that is, it's too costly. The cost per person of sending money to Washington and then distributing it to schools is far more than the cost of the parent making a sandwich.

      Second problem: Administrators use this program as a wedge to impose various requirements on schools. This kind of big government meddling generally does more harm than good.

      Delete
    2. The school lunch program is based on the fact that children learn better when they are not hungry. It is further based on the fact that not all parents understand that about learning, as you do not seem to yourself, David. Schools are in the business of teaching kids and they do what helps them accomplish that task, even when it means feeding those undeserving ruffians. You don’t have the first clue that child neglect is more common than child abuse and may be reflected in priorities more than income levels. Feeding kids who are sent to school with no food or money definitely does more good than harm. I know this from personal experience not just stats.

      Delete
    3. I didn’t know that the lunch program was addressing parental neglect more often than poverty. Thanks.

      Delete
  6. Why don’t you seek out Drum’s articles about the ACA and how it’s helped millions of poor people obtain healthcare for the first time in their lives in many cases. You might want to ask why a lot of red states refused to implement the ACA, thus consigning many of their poorest residents to continued lack of healthcare, sickness and death. And then ask yourself again whether “better-off Americans simply don't care if others are caught in poverty.” I mean, we’re still waiting on that Trump/Republican healthcare plan that was going to be the greatest in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. So much for Medicaid.

      Delete
    2. “Medicaid eligibility for adults in states that did not expand their programs is quite limited: the median income limit for parents in these states is just 41% of poverty, or an annual income of $8,905 for a family of three in 2020, and in nearly all states not expanding, childless adults remain ineligible.”

      https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/

      Note that “expanding” means “expanding Medicaid.”

      Please don’t act as if Republicans such as yourself actually support Medicaid, a program passed by Democrats under LBJ.

      And feel free to inform us what the Republican/Trump solution to the high cost of healthcare is. Trump promised us the world, and gave us nothing.

      Delete
  7. Yep. Trump's attempt to declare himself dictator for life
    is all you will see on MSBBC.
    Bob is a weirdo.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How can anyone still suggest that Somerby is any kind of liberal when he is against anti-poverty efforts? And how can he mock Democrats for their efforts to help address things like hunger and housing needs while still saying that liberals are only performative without doing anything?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Somerby isn't even trying any more. And neither are the trolls, who are talking to themselves these days.

    There is no substance to Somerby's complaint that can be addressed. It is just conservative crapola. Drum pretends that it matters to poor people how opinion writers define their condition. It doesn't. Even by conservative measures, poverty went down dramatically after Jimmy Carter and LBJ's war on poverty, then it went back up during Reagan, then it dipped (but not nearly as much) during Clinton, then went back up again and has been going up since then. We can't even seriously address the minimal definition we've been using, much less place poorer people on a more equal footing with the middle class. And Desmond is right. We know how to fix poverty but we can't get conservatives to help, so we cannot implement more effective programs. And it is very odd that the reddest states have more poverty (by any measure) and yet they won't vote conservatives out of office so that state legislatures can do something about people's problems in those states. That's partly because ignorance goes along with poverty, but it is also because poorer people are motivated by fear and the demagogues in red states use fear to turn voters against each other, in order to keep everyone worse off and in thrall to the wealthy, who pretty much own politics in such states. When will red voters wise up? According to Somerby, who plays rubes for fools here, never.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If Somerby didn't like Desmond, he really won't like this guy, but this is what actual liberals believe:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/3/16/2158577/-Have-You-Noticed-America-Is-Looking-Like-a-Third-World-Nation

    By Thom Hartmann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “a”! Good to see you, darling!

      How long before u is morphing to b?

      Delete
    2. Right-wing media calling a $250,000 annual income "middle class", because taxing the rich is too much of a burden on the citizenry.

      Delete
    3. Corby Joe Bob Bill psycho troll is back posting unanonymously!

      Howdy loser!

      Delete
    4. Corby/Joe Bob Bill/psycho troll/loser:

      Just so you know, the author of that post Hartman makes a major omission with regard to tent cities and poverty. Tent cities exist because of drug addiction, specifically to meth and fentanyl and all their new synthetic variants. Those people want to live in tent cities. If we gave them apartments they would not want to live in them or be able to live in them. Blaming them on Reagan's trickle down economics is ignorant and a straw man. I'm not saying he's doing it on purpose, he just doesn't know yet I guess.

      Delete
    5. Corby, why did you lie before when people accurately accused you of being Joe Bob Bill? Why did you lie and say you were not?

      Delete
    6. 10:58,
      It's like blaming "woke" for Libertarians begging Daddy Government to save their bank deposits. Whether they/ them pronouns are used or not, Libertarians are always going to beg Daddy Government to save them from their losses.

      Delete
    7. I am Joe Bob Bill.

      Delete