General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow an Astounding New Right-Wing Lie About the Economy Is Born
http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-astounding-new-right-wing-lie-about-economy-bornThere's a new economic myth that's now being amplified by the conservative media. It demonizes vital public services and suggests that the poor are doing just fine thanks to the largesse of the country's makers. Conservatives are being told that the United States is now spending vast fortunes combatting poverty more than we dedicate to national defense, Social Security and Medicare.
This new spin is notable not for its mendacity although it is completely divorced from reality but because its origins are easily traced, allowing us to see how these kinds of distortions come to be. This one originated with the work of an analyst at the Heritage Foundation who is well known for his intellectual dishonesty. It was then picked up by Republican staffers on Capitol Hill, who lent the claim credibility by requesting a Congressional Research Service report on the analysis. They then further distorted the narrative before distributing it to friendly writers at conservative media outlets, who dutifully reported the falsehood. It will soon become conventional wisdom on the Right, further distorting conservatives' view of taxes and spending.
The Myth
Several conservative outlets had the story before Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard , but his piece is the one that's been cited by hundreds of conservative blogs , right-wing radio talkers and Fox News . Halper, citing the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, framed the story like this: Welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.
For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion.
tclambert
(11,085 posts)Now I'm gonna time how long it takes before I hear some right-wing boob quote it to me.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Viking12
(6,012 posts)something about person collecting all sorts of benefits living better than someone make $65k...blah, blah, blah.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)My math gives me an average "welfare" benefit of just $7,092 per year, or $136 per week.
Or are the Repugs backing off from their 47% figure?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They do good work, Obamacare is based on concepts that originated in the Heritage Foundation and were originally implemented in Romneycare.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)I have no idea on earth why you would think that "They do good work", when even a casual familiarity with the orginization would tell you that they are now, even before leadership at Heritage changes next month, always have been nothing but a dishonest right wing mouth-piece.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You know, the individual mandate for private insurance.
If Heritage Foundation ideas are so bad then why did Obama pick one of them to implement as the core of one of the most sweeping changes in modern history?
MessiahRp
(5,405 posts)Or how about because he didn't have the guts to start the negotiations on the left wing position of Single Payer so that when he finally did compromise, it would have come all the way back to a public option and been viewed as a major concession versus the original idea?
He picked a bad plan. That's why it's been so embattled in the courts. The legality of most of it is questionable.
The fact that you think the SUPER FAR RIGHT WING Heritage Foundation does Good Work makes me wonder about what other third way bullshit you buy into.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)before America lost its mind...Barack Obama would have been a "moderate Republican."
We have a president who to my great chagrin likes some RW ideas.
Context: http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080#.UMx6XXfNp8E
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)He figured that since it was a Republican plan, the Republicans would support it. It was blindingly obvious that the best course, a single payer plan such as the British NHS or Health Canada or the system they have in Germany, would never fly -- after all, to a conservative, what is more important, affordable health coverage for the American people or the profits of the health insurance companies?
No, he went for what he thought he could get. Politics, the art of the possible.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)it would pass the GOP Congress. In fact, it has a built-in doomsday machine and that is that every penny paid in will result in a profit for insurance companies, guaranteeing that the total cost of our health system will be higher, the efficiency lower and the outcomes worse.
In order to get anything through conservatives in the country you have to make it so bad that even the dumbest Fox News viewers see it for what it actually is. And we're not there yet.
ck4829
(35,069 posts)tomg
(2,574 posts)I would simply change two words, were I the author. A "which" for a "who" and an "its" for a "his."
"This one originated with the work of an analyst at the Heritage Foundation which is well known for its intellectual dishonesty."
Actually, I think intellectual dishonesty is a requirement for a job there.
ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)$168 a day? $1176 per week? More than $61k per year for folks on welfare? No way.
The day someone shows me the data that supports that, i'll listen. Until then, i will assume them to be liars. Not someone making an error. Someone willfully lying.
valerief
(53,235 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,010 posts)I had not considered that. I doubt it though. I think they're made up numbers to make an anti-welfare point.
Cerridwen
(13,258 posts)I tripped over this lie yesterday as I was investigating a "family and justice" organization and I couldn't figure out what the hell they were up to. Oh, and the Orwellian names some of these orgs use: family and justice; if your family looks like Ward, June, the Beaver, and Wally and if by justice you mean everyone "knows their god-given place" in the world and "behaves" themselves.
Anyway, it's nice to have the background at hand.
Thanks.
RVN VET
(492 posts)He's an avowed atheist* who has spoken publicly on the desperate need for religion in the lives of America's children -- especially via prayer in school, doncha know?
He has a real genius for diving into a large pool of loosely connected numbers, multiplying and dividing them, and coming up with, guess what, "all this spending on wealthy "poor" people" is bankrupting the nation and taxing it's good (mostly white) people into the ground" -- or something along those lines.
*He was avowed when I knew him, but that was before the Heritage Foundation (founded in 1973 to combat Richard Nixon's " embrace of the liberal consensus", and twisting facts and truth into right wing talking points ever since) discovered his genius for complicated mendacity and hired him.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)the problem is the welfare spending? Or is the problem the income of the majority of Americans, because of the Great Divide in income in America now?
Or would it also be a natural occurrence of the Repubican-caused Great Recession? Income per household took a nosedive, of course, as companies instituted pay cuts or salary freezes, and millions were laid off....at the same time throwing many of those people into the system to seek food stamps or other assistance.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)I have dis associated myself from several former friends who have expressed their disdain of poor people. this is hate speech and this is what must be stopped. as long as there are 60 million asshole republiscumbaggers who eat this shit up, it wiill continue. I am looking forward to the day there arent enough low IQ people , bigots, and hate filled sociopaths to support this agenda
maindawg
(1,151 posts)and the grotesque insatiable consumerism that he engendered among what was once a well intentioned populace.
This is the result of his condemnation of the poor. This is his legacy, hate speech.
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)The short version is that they got their $1 trillion figure by lumping together everything that could conceivably be described as "means-tested," including many programs designed to benefit the middle class and many grants to colleges with more than the average number of low-income students or to small rural communities.
Then then divided that total -- the greatest part of which benefits people who are not poor -- only by the number of people living below the poverty level.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)The excerpt did not touch it.