Qu’ils mangent de la brioche!

h/t to Rep. Kevin Brady for this one.

Our Dear Leader is *totally* in touch with the Common Folk.

Meanwhile, Simcha Fisher notes on her FB page:

“Okay, it was callous and clueless of Obama to say this, but argh, this is the exact response so many conservatives give when people struggle to afford food, or school lunches. All of a sudden when these same people can’t afford Obamacare, suddenly conservatives understand how much poor people struggle and how they deserve to keep their dignity.”

No kidding. The sudden concern for the poor from the Thing that Used to be Conservatism is touching:

Poor people! If you’re poor, just stop being poor! Knock it off!

Not Left vs. Right.  Ruling Class vs. the rest of us.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    You’re both inaccurately describing the situation as well as the conservative response to the poor on food. This is not one of your better efforts.

    By including government mandates to add coverage options to the minimum legal and making perfectly legal health insurance no longer legal, what Obama did is very different than conservative indifference to the poor. He promised unicorns and fairy dust on health insurance while making realistic insurance illegal. He raised the cost of insurance while promising to lower the price and now the con is coming unraveled. I have zero sympathy for that. Obama is hoist on his own petard and the mockery should be unrelenting.

    Conservative insensitivity to difficulty buying food is often of a very different character. Take a look at the food stamp challenges that have been going on for a few years. I’ve seen repeated examples where conservatives had to loosen up their food buying habits to stay within the rules of the challenge. They ate more frugally than a SNAP budget as a lifestyle choice. Their insensitivity is in thinking that those on SNAP all know how to do that as well but simply don’t choose to. That simply is not the case.

    • bob cratchit

      You seem to inaccurately presume that all poor folks are on SNAP.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        The issue of poverty is really too big for a blog comment, or even a blog post. It’s not a simple phenomenon.

        When conservatives talk about poverty and food, usually they’re talking about SNAP so I focused there. If you want to talk about a different aspect of poverty, I’ll be happy to follow your lead and discuss whatever aspect of poverty and the political reaction of conservatives to that aspect. What I don’t think you’ll find is the sort of evil policy outcome that’s happening in the case of healthcare where healthcare reform’s dominant effect is to toss people who have insurance out of their existing plans and into worse ones for higher premiums.

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          I’d like to respond to SNAP. I see very little difference between zeroing out the budget for WIC and cutting SNAP and TANF and Obamacare. Both approaches hurt the very people they’re attempting to help.

          Maybe if we actually still had morality and hadn’t permanently lost the culture war, my attitude would be different, but the way I see in, greed and lust, the dominance of government-based market and the sexual revolution, are two sides of the same coin.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            Theodore Seeber – It’s not like this is our first economics conversation. I’m completely unsurprised that your economic horizons do not extend to the mispricing damage that Obamacare is doing to the health care system. Were we not to fix this systemic mispricing, it would be a complete mystery to you where all the doctors have disappeared to 20 years from now.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              Oh, no, I see the mispricing damage that Obamacare is doing to the health system. I also see the systemic mispricing that subsidies from large market based agribusinesses have done to the food system.

              The real question we should be asking is, are the poor human?

              • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                Since mispricing leads to death at the margin, I wonder which of us has thought of that question more?

                • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

                  Mispricing does not always lead to death at the margin. Sometimes, it leads to great profit at the margin. The problem is, it’s not *sustained* profit.

                  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                    Your first sentence is false. Mispricing always leads to death at the margin. Always. This is the heart of why I see you as cruel and why we so frequently clash.

                    Money’s always getting sucked away from where it would go elsewhere and the weakest, the most vulnerable, the ones whose lives are in the balance, those are the ones who ultimately pay because when you take away that last marginal dollar, they die. They have no reserves. That’s what it means to be on the margin. It’s the knife edge between life and death.

                    No economic allocation system prices perfectly. Even the market has its failures. As humans, the best we can do is to minimize the mispricing and the bad consequences that follow.

          • The Deuce

            I see very little difference between zeroing out the budget for WIC and cutting SNAP and TANF and Obamacare

            Oy, even with Obama right there in front of you, telling people to get rid of their cellphone plans to make ends meet and afford his inflated health care costs, you’re *STILL* unable (or unwilling) to figure this out?! I’m pretty sure we could all be standing in long lines to buy bread and sausage rations due to massive government meddling in the economy “for the poor” a la the USSR, and you’d still be saying that any cutting of spending on government programs was bad for the poor.

            • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

              I heard the same rhetoric from Gingrich in 1992 about welfare. It’s not new to me.

  • John Barnes

    But Mark, false equivolence … Republicans bad … Democrats good … horrible suffering in Bush years … women, children, old people, and animals dying in the streets back then … Obama has good intentions … Fox News sucks … criticisms of Obamacare are right-wing propaganda … at least Obama is trying …
    Did I miss anything?

    • chezami

      A good summation. Now let’s hear from the people will be upset because, in addition to criticizing Obama I “hate conservatives” and couldn’t just leave well enough alone with attacking Obama. Always important to be fair and balanced.

    • Alma Peregrina

      You forgot “you’re racist!”

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    My all-time favorite response from a conservative lady at our school when we were discussing poverty. She said: “Being poor wouldn’t be such a struggle for those people if they’d only learn to handle their investments better.”
    It wasn’t that she was callous. She was just completely clueless.

  • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com/ Ben @ 2CM

    Not that his March comments are right or wrong, but why is the President of the United States talking about our household budgets as if it were his business?

    • chezami

      Because he is our Dear Leader, just and wise!

      • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com/ Ben @ 2CM

        That would explain it then.

  • Dave G.

    In fairness, I think it’s about people not being able to afford something the government is making them buy, rather than just not being able to afford it. Sort of like accepting the existence of insurance plans that cover abortion or birth control, as long as the government doesn’t make you provide it.

  • ivan_the_mad

    When the president is right, he’s right, even if it’s by accident. We’ve got certain basic needs that must be satisfied, e.g. shelter, clean water, food, healthcare. In general, I am rather sure that we don’t need smart phones with data plans and 8394280 cable channels. If we’re having trouble meeting a basic need, we should look into cutting discretionary household expenses. If we as a people aren’t thrifty and frugal, why should we be upset when our government isn’t?

    More critically, if we proponents of a more limited central government insist that the provision of material relief and economic betterment should almost always be a private effort, why don’t we provide an excellent example of that by directing money towards such a provision rather than cable or other relative luxuries? Kill your TV for charity. In a rough estimate, one or two households cutting out cable television subscriptions can redirect that money to send somebody through a vocational program at a community college. A similar solidarity to matriculate through technical college proved the genesis of the Mondragon corporation. Just a thought.