Skip to main content

View Diary: David Brooks is a dick - with UPDATE (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I realize the economy is an issue, an important (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb

    issue. However, I am sick to death of columists and pundits taking every single situation and turning it into an economic argument. Is that all we think about? How much money will this cost?
    At times it seems like the good old common sense and humanity is taken out of each one of these sitautions and it always goes back to how much money.
    When talks of spending cuts are on the table, the talk always comes around to cutting spending on those people who need it most, the poor and the elderly, and not cutting defesne spending. No one is talking about disbanding our military or leaving this nation unprotected, all we are saying is that we spend too damn much money on military contracts that produce out of date equipment and do nothing but fatten the pockets of defesne contractors and the people in the government, (Congress) that they own. The poor and the elderly own no one in Congress, so cutting from these programs will not be a finacial hardship on anyone but those who need it most.
    I am also sick to death of people taking isolated incidents about people on food stamps buying steak or lobster, when most of the people who survive on food stamps have a really hard time simply feeding their family. How about Fox news rather than repeating story after story about some one on government assistance going to strip clubs or spending money on unnecessary items, (they are in the minority) we all see some stories about how difficult most of the people on Food Stamps are having to simply survive until they can get a job.
    I see seniors every day who can no longer work, and who make sacraficies daily in order to be able to survive on the small amount they receive from Social Security, and none of them are getting rich by using Medicare either. When you think about it, the G.O.P. has painted these seniors as selfish and not caring about their children or Grandchildren, but in reality the fact that they have Social Secuirty and Medicare directly benefits their children and grandchildren, by allowing them to have some small shred of dignity and independence, and not rely on their chldren to support them. I think what I am saying is we need to start telling the truth and not allowing people who know nothing at all about living in poverty or fixed incomes to control the narrative and turn everything the humanity of the situation and toward the financial. Much of that money is not wasted as defense spending is, it helps people, real people, people in need of help.

    •  I concur, Vera (0+ / 0-)

      I especially hate the fact that Dick Brooks qualified "Medicare" recipients by referring to only "middle-class" seniors -- pitting seniors against children and the poor, as if only middle-class seniors receive Medicare. That's a lie.

      And didn't Bush preside over the largest expansion of Medicare, with the prescription drug benefit?????

      The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

      by LiberalLady on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:21:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A couple of weeks ago on MTP, I saw Tom Brokaw (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Minnesota Deb, PeterHug

        talking about Social Security and Medicare recipients and how $250,000. is not alot of money becaues you have to support your parents in perhaps a nursing home that can cost up to $35,000. a year. It hit me that these people who have the microphone, know nothing at all about how the rest of us live. Not only do they not know, but they don't much care either. They care only about what effects them and how it effects them. They make these statements they get played on national t.v. or in the case of Brooks in a national newspaper and people hear it or read it and think they know it all. They don't.
        For 15 years up until my Mom died she lived with us, she received $800 per month from Social Security, not enough to live on, after my Dad died because he was handicapped we took her to live with us. She insisted she give me $200 per month to "pay her way". That left her with $600 per month to pay for her supplemental health insurance, life insurance (for her burial) and necessities, bithtday and Christmas gifts for her children, grandchildren and great -grandchildren. That gave her pleasure. Since her health insurance and life insurance increased as she got older, there was never any money left over each month, but try as I might to get her to keep the $200, she insisted she "pay her way". I saw first hand how that gave her dignity and how her Medicare kept her from being a burdon on all of us, her children. We are not in the Tom Brokaw catagory where we could put her in a nursing home that cost even $5,000. per month, let alone $35,000. per month. When they were younger, my parents owned a home, sold it and moved to California, they had no large savings and in order to supplement their S.S. benefits whatever profit they made on selling their home was quickly depleted, it was not much money at all. While my Dad was alive they scrimped and got along, but once he died, it was over $400 less for my mom and not enough money to actually pay rent buy food and pay for her needs.
        Not too many of us "middle class" folks make 6 and 7 figure incomes as these pundits and talking heads, so when they speak, they don't represent the majority of American people, and that pisses me off, they don't know what the f**k they are talking about at all. Sorry, I had to vent.

        •  Honestly, the awful thing is, he's right. (0+ / 0-)

          If I had to support my parents in a situation where one or both of them (God forbid) was severely disabled, and I wanted to do it properly - I could blow through $250,000 really pretty quickly.

          I CERTAINLY couldn't do it (not even with all my brothers and sisters, and they surely would be there as well) - but that just means that people like you and me need to make awful choices about what we do, and what the options are.

          No one should have to do that, unless everyone has to do that.  In the end, this is something that we are all in together as a society, and the faster we all realize that and behave that way, the better off we all will be.

          •  By not cutting Social Security and Medicare, we (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PeterHug

            lesson the chance of doing this. If you ask me Social Security should have larger cost of living increases, because what they call cost of living increases in S.S. are nothing when you get done paying for food, gas, even Medicare payments have increased. Seniors went without a cost of living increase in SS for two years because Congress refused to act, however that didn't stop the prices of necessities from going up.
            I think my point is that Social Security and Medicare doesn't just help seniors, it helps all of us. We all have parents, and most of us love them and would not turn our backs on helping them out as they age. We will all be there one day, and many of us will not be as well prepared for retirement as Tom Brokaw or David Brooks, we simply didn't have the same opportunities to make as much money in our lifetime. They just don't see it that way, they think Seniors are selfish and are placing debt on future generations by wanting to perserve these necessary programs. That is not the way it is at all,actually it is quite the opposite, they need SS and Medicare so they don't place debt on their children that love and care about them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site