No need to be heartless -- or clueless

  • Article by: CRYSTAL KELLEY
  • Updated: October 3, 2012 - 9:53 PM

A commentary about disabilities didn't reflect Republican views.

  • 9
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 9 of 9
pumiceOct. 3, 1211:30 PM

From the article: "We're appalled that more Americans need food assistance than ever before not because we hate those who need it, but because we hate the policies that have made it necessary." Which policies do you hate, Crystal Kelley: Republican borrow-and-spend, supply-side, trickle-down, deregulation policies which added nearly 14.7 million recipients to food stamp programs under Bush 43's watch? Or policies put in effect since January 20, 2009, in response to the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression which added about the same number of working poor and unemployed workers who needed to eat, to keep their homes and/or to receive disability benefits? If the latter, Will Nagle's column absolutely reflects Republican views. If the former, how will going back to Republican borrow-and-spend, supply-side, trickle-down, deregulation policies "change America's course so this many people won't need government programs"?

longmemoryOct. 4, 12 6:50 AM

The people Romney talked to about the 43% being moochers feel they are the real victims.

owatonnabillOct. 4, 12 7:06 AM

Excellent article. Ms. Kelley's analysis was spot-on, both regarding the application process for SSDI and her analysis of what, in her eyes, is the view of Republicans vis a vis the economy. It's a no-brainer really. If as the common conception goes, Republicans favor business, then it would be logical for them to favor a healthy economy in which business can grow and prosper. A moribund economy and growing dependent class, such as we have today, does no one any favors. It can conceivably add to the tax burden of those able to pay taxes while at the same time making them less and less able to engage in work or business that enables them to pay more taxes. I'm not saying that life under Romney would be much if any different than under Obama, but I cannot envision it being any worse.

pumiceOct. 4, 12 8:03 AM

Re: "I'm not saying that life under Romney would be much if any different than under Obama, but I cannot envision it being any worse." Unless one is unemployed during a moribund economy in which the vaunted job creators are taking trillions in profits and sitting on those trillions, owatonnabill. By the way, how does owatonnabill think a moribund economy makes those able to pay taxes "less able to engage in work or business [which would] enable them to pay more taxes"? Does owatonnabill no longer have confidence in risk-taking as the path to success?

Also, if owatonnabill can't envision life under Romney being any worse, I suggest owatonnabill read the transcript of the Social Security/Medicare segment of last night's debate and take note that Romney defined "near retirement" as "60". Talk about growing the "dependent class" one is disparaging!

jgmanciniOct. 4, 12 8:36 AM

"I'm not saying that life under Romney would be much if any different than under Obama, but I cannot envision it being any worse."---------1. I can envision it being much worse than it is today. I can envision going back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. I can picture my 401K value tanking again, and getting laid off again, and having a president who calls me a moocher for getting laid off and wanting to collect unemployment until I can get back on my feet. 2. If you can't see life getting any better under Romney, then, really, what's the point of voting for him?

pumiceOct. 4, 12 8:39 AM

More about owatonnabill's inability to "envision it being any worse" under Romney: I submit that a recession caused by a return to the very policies which caused the Great Recession would be much, much worse, owatonnabill--especially in light of the fact that there's no Clinton cushion to break the fall.

justthetruthOct. 4, 12 8:40 AM

This is a bit of a ramble, but bear with me. I was born with a 50% hearing loss. With the support of family and social services I was able to have a productive 30 year career in business rising to significant management responsibilities. Now, I am nearly deaf even with hearing aids, which has effectively ended my career. It took me three years to get SSI which I only pursued when I lost my last position at age 55 and was unable to get employment at positions paying less than half what I was making. I am not asking for sympathy but what I would like to see is a society that offers more opportunities economically while at the same time preserving an individual's self-respect and self-worth. We used to have that but I don't see much of it today. And unfortunately, since I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate most of the blame for that has to go to those who think it's okay for the "winners" to get more of everything and for the "losers" to fend for themselves. That doesn't work as I've seen in my travels through third world countries. Politicians have never had much of a moral compass, but business leaders used to. We need a return to traditional Republican values, not the "Ayn Rand" scorched earth philosophy we see today.

jcw1370Oct. 5, 1212:00 PM

Thank you Ms. Kelly for a well thought commentary. I was frankly surprised the the StarTribune printed the one you are responding to, as it was so obviously lacking in facts and not worthy of printing. It read like a rant that one would read on the Internet with "anonymous" as the author. Unfortunately, I do think the thoughts communicated in that article reflect the world view, with respect to disability payments, of a fair number of people in the U.S., which is too bad.

beebalmOct. 6, 12 7:05 AM

Kudos, Ms Kelley, for explaining the realities of those on SSDI and the difficulties of qualifying. You said it well. It is beyond infuriating to hear Nagle and others spout their knee-jerk reactions to anyone receiving any type of government assistance even though we pay into SS. They make snap judgements and can be bothered to do even the most cursory research. People do make assumptions when someone doesn't look visibly disabled but I was a little taken aback when you said you were treated with disdain by only Democrats. Seriously? How do you know that? Nagle, for one, doesn't sound like a Democrat to me. In my experience, most people I hear freely resent those on disability or any kind of assistance as moochers have been conservatives, Republicans. You can't have not noticed that the Republican party wants to kill SS/Medicare/ Medicaid/food stamps, etc. They are hardly making a secret of that. As Tommy Thompson said not long ago to a group, I'm just the guy to come up with plans to do away with Medicaid and Medicare. I shudder to think what would happen to your and other's SSDI under complete Republican rule.

  • 1 - 9 of 9

Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters




question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question