Even Critics Of Safety Net Increasingly Depend On It

nytimes.com:

Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[Plantsmantx]

05:38 PM on 02/15/2012

Schadenfreude...is that what they call it? Yeah...that's what I'm feeling.

[ThankGodhesgone]

12:33 AM on 02/15/2012

We have the lowest tax rates since the 1950's. The prior administration pushed through 2 tax cuts without cutting a dime to pay for them. It also started 2 wars without paying for them. The housing, mortgage and banking crisis' occurred under their watch. But the debt is all Obama's fault?

[ThankGodhesgone]

12:22 AM on 02/15/2012

'They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.'

Then I suggest that they stop applying for aid, like the gentleman who's 3 children need breakfast. Let them starve. When they reach 65, decline SS and Medicare. But, no, they will, since they are hypocrites. It's not that they resent getting aid, it's because all those underserving 'others' are getting it.

[booyahcah29]

03:09 PM on 02/14/2012

You want to know what really bothers me, this guy has 5 children! That is a huge reason why he has to take the handouts. Cmon...I dont want to hear your "woe is me" attitude. I see this. People complain about how hard things are, then have a bunch of kids. Im sorry but there should be no more than 2 kids per household. He has never made more than 46000 per year. These people do not process things correctly. That is why we should always have a good education system. Yet he will vote for people that want to defund it, when he obviously need to go back to school. What a joke. Too many people just do not assess their financial situations correctly. There is a reason I have no kids...I cant afford it. But, by not having kids, I dont need the help. I would prefer my money going into infrastructure...give me some high speed rail.

[nonethewyzzer]

03:43 PM on 02/13/2012

The people quoted in this article seemed, at least to me, to think that it was the low-to-middle income population that were facing tax hikes. One person in particular stated that 'people can't afford to pay more taxes', or words to that effect.

Have they been watching and reading the same news we've been watching and reading? Do they not realize that tax increases won't affect the 99%? Do they really think that millionaires can't afford a tax hike?

[booyahcah29]

03:15 PM on 02/14/2012

So we cant raise taxes because this t o o l had to have 5 kids and he cant survive now. Sorry, but you pay your share...you were paying the higher taxes before Bush took over just fine. If you cannot survive paying 50 bucks more per paycheck, sounds like you have to start re-assessing....you need to start cutting things. I wonder how many gifts he bought his kids for Christmas?

[Stephanie Beavers]

10:23 PM on 02/14/2012

What a horrible thing to make this about. It's difficult enough getting people to accept that higher taxes can be beneficial and that a government should be in a position to help it's people without going around insinuating that maybe this guy shouldn't spend so much on his children's Christmas presents. I understand that he has made choices that you disagree with and would have done differently. I'm right there with you. But it's possible to debate and discuss policy/cultural issues without resorting to snarking on children. Or, well, I've always found it possible. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[ThankGodhesgone]

12:28 AM on 02/15/2012

No, they just listen to Rush and Fox talking points. Tonight, Paul Ryan claimed that President Obama plans to raise the tax rate of those making 250K or more to 45% on Greta's show. She didn't even question his statement.

Can anyone source that?

[nonethewyzzer]

06:10 AM on 02/15/2012

Of course no one can source that, it's complete fallacy, falsehood and fairy tale.

[Chester Erickson]

01:58 PM on 02/13/2012

I'm a Republican, and I support having robust social safety nets, because they are good for our country. I think that some programs need fixing, but that's a normal part of their development.

I think the Tea Party is short-sighted in their assumption that social programs ("entitlements" is frequently used, but nobody agrees on what "entitlements" actually are) are harmful to the overall well-being of our country. They see the expense, but the benefits elude them.

If we take a look at programs like free/reduced cost lunches, we can clearly see the expense. It's just a number to evaluate. What we can't see is that children learn better when they are not hungry. If we want to compete in the global marketplace, we need children who are highly educated. Therefore, feeding low-income children is good for our future bottom line.

It's a bit more complicated when you look at welfare, but the benefits are still there. People without jobs (whether they want them or not), are dangerous to us if they are desperate. Nobody is going to crawl into a corner and die, they'll steal to survive. If we take away the welfare programs, we'll have to increase our budget for police protection. There won't be much net gain monetarily, but there will be a considerable net loss to our safety.

Somewhere along the line, the Tea Party has managed to uncouple the benefits from the costs, but that's a mistake.

[soeasy]

05:17 PM on 02/13/2012

That is not so often that we see a Republican seeing and coming to the conclusion that you came. Everything that you say is what we see so clear and the consequences are obvios. I do not understand why some people can not see it.
Congratulations, my friend, you are loyal to your convictions, but you are not blind and full of hate. I admire you!

[Stephanie Beavers]

10:33 PM on 02/14/2012

My parents are Republicans and feel much the same way, and I know there are plenty out there like them. It just doesn't feel that way since candidates (especially at a national level... and many of the local ones back in Georgia) don't "play" towards those party members. Instead, it's always about 'courting/energizing the base' and 'appeasing the more hardline conservatives'.

Strangely, my parents managed to produce a flaming liberal and I never feel very energized. Never mind courting, I don't think the Democratic candidates are even trying for first base with me. Instead it's all about the middle-of-the-road voters, the moderates, the independents. I suppose that, over all, I prefer this to targeting a vocal minority but still... *Sigh* I don't think I understand politics.

[ThankGodhesgone]

12:35 AM on 02/15/2012

Sir - you are a rare breed. I salute you. I thought republican's like you had been extinguished. F/F

[Taterhead McGobstopper]

12:18 PM on 02/13/2012

We all use "social safety nets." Like roads. And schools. And agriculture support. Everything is somehow dependent on what we do collectively.

[Frog of War]

11:21 AM on 02/13/2012

Sacrifice ... it's what other people are expected to do.

I think that is the moral of this story.

[Patriot86]

10:31 AM on 02/13/2012

Typical red staters who would lie down and foam at the mouth if they ever really had to live with out the Fed money.

[booyahcah29]

12:41 PM on 02/14/2012

Even if they were to pay 1 percent taxes, it would still be too much. Its a joke really. I cant stand these types of people. Is it really going to k*l l you to pay more...we paid more before and people did it...that was it. Complaints or not, you pay it. That is what you do to keep this country going. Hey, I hate the situation as much as anyone, but I still pay gladly. Even when it goes to the military, I say nothing. People really dont know how good they have it. Really. If you want to change something, change the way the gov runs. Change the corruption.

[Patriot86]

01:56 PM on 02/14/2012

I know...used to know this guy. His wife was on disability for MS...nothing wrong with that but he railed against government money so one day I said you work, why is your wife on disability since you are so against these programs..he stalked out of the house and never spoke to me again.

[morgantown]

10:21 AM on 02/13/2012

"Mr. Gulbranson: Instead, he said he would rather give up the earned-income credit the family now receives and start paying for school lunches for his children.

“I don’t demand that the government does this for me,” he said. “I don’t feel like I need the government.” "

Sir, you did have to make a request for these things, perhaps not a demand, but they did not appear at your door magically. You ASKED for them! Geesh.....

[KaPi]

11:00 AM on 02/13/2012

Denial knows no bounds.

[nonethewyzzer]

03:41 PM on 02/13/2012

My thought exactly. He or his wife had to complete an application for the kids to receive free/reduced price breakfast and lunch. He and his wife had to sign the tax return that got them the earned income credit.

If he really feels this way, maybe he should just stop taking the benefits and the money.

[morgantown]

06:58 PM on 02/13/2012

I think I prefer the lazy bums (and I mean the really truely lazy bums not the ones needing temporary assistance, but the ones that live on it eternally) on welfare to these hypocrites.

[Phreaked]

10:16 AM on 02/13/2012

More Republican liers and hypocrites, no surprise there

Anyone remember a certain plumber that said he made so much money he would be considered so rich that he would have been hit hard by taxes? Remember that he lied and it would have benefited him?

[Nosybear]

10:12 AM on 02/13/2012

Reality is not a concept Americans easily embrace. Fact is, unless you were born a one-percenter, most of us will use the safety net at some time in our life. Even those of us doing relatively well haven't always done so and doing well is getting more difficult all the time. And the guy mentioned, just from the basic description above, is using the safety net in some way - his income isn't high enough not to.

[notmisaacm]

10:10 AM on 02/13/2012

Last year, the Wash Post had an article on one of the founders of the Tea Party, a sympathetic figure who got around on crutches, but was worried about 'government spending'. Towards the end of the article, the woman was very excited because she qualified for Medicaid, and was going to get a, you guessed it, government paid for new set of hips. Naturally, she didn't see the hypocrisy in wanting to shrink government and celebrating her new taxpayer paid for hips.

If you listen to the Tea People, they are under the illusion that they have this money coming, but that someone else doesn't. They believe that their are legions of able bodied (probably Black or Hispanic) people drawing government checks that could and should be cut off tomorrow, which would prompt them to go get a real job, of which there are many just waiting. THOSE people don't deserve a government handout, but Tea People do. Reading this article, and the map of Red States where our tax dollars end up shows just how disconnected with reality these people are.

[maconmo]

10:07 AM on 02/13/2012

Baggers don't mind taking from the government, it's those damn people who ask that they can't stand.

[Nosybear]

10:13 AM on 02/13/2012

Put another way: It's only an entitlement if someone else is getting the check.

[serz4u]

09:59 AM on 02/13/2012

Like the cartoon character that saws off the branch he's standing on...

Or the Dave Chappelle black white-supremacist character.

Puh-thetic.