US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

I've never understood why Democrats haven't run with "fairness" as a meme

Because "fair" means "equitable" means "wealth redistribution" which means "pinko."

Man somebody ate his Cynic-os today.

Frankly, I'm just happy a local tax referendum was passed yesterday to bolster the school budget for the first time in decades. 55% to 44% or so.

To be fair all UK parties ran on fairness in the last few elections and the distribution of impact from the crisis and recession is much the same.

"Fairness" .. "fat cats doin favors for their friends" .. this stuff should be easy. I know everybody has bought into David Brooks' contention that Americans all imagine themselves as pre-millionaires, but I think those days are done, (if they ever even existed as a legitimate mass phenomenon, which I doubt).

Ed sure, every catchphrase can be deployed cynically or hypocritically but the fact that everyone in the UK wanted a piece of "fairness" proves its potency

The point is more that boehner could come out and call tax cuts fair, call cutting medicare and social security fair. (Fair distribution of limited resources or somesuch)

Chuckie Schumer halfheartedly floated the "fairness" of letting the Bush tax cuts expire for millionaires only around January (or December?), and it went nowhere. cuz it's hard to live on a million.

Americans all imagine themselves as pre-millionaires, but I think those days are done

But see, it's just that easy! Campaign that the fat cats are *preventing* you from becoming a millionaire due to their selfishness and greed.

Paul Ryan to seniors: drop dead

all this haggling over 33-40 billion dollars is some weak theater. 40 billion is fucking chump change.

Meyerson in the Washington Post describes Ryan's proposal as an attempt to "repeal the 20th century"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whos-hurt-by-paul-ryans-budget-proposal/2011/04/05/AFfP7PlC_story.html

national problem: it's getting really expensive to provide government services, especially health care for the elderly.

ryan solution: don't!

let's just turn them into paste

the fix was in from the get-go with Barry (tip-off to ILXors should've been gabbneb's shameless man-crush on him). the Dems don't run on "fairness" b/c that'll mean they get less money from gay agnostic hedge-funders of color (who'd go GOP for tax/economic reasons if the GOP weren't so homophobic, ignorant and bigoted).

That's a pretty good way to put it. I become more & more fascinated by the moral conditions that were in place in order to support the New Deal & then the Great Society, and what kind of moral slippage we've had since then to make so many people think that we should dismantle those accomplishments. Or at least: there's been such a moral slippage amongst our elite; the general populace still favors a generous welfare state.

My own view is that the accelerating decline of religious belief amongst elites will further propel the dismantling of the welfare state in the USA.

xp to the Post article post

My own view is that the accelerating decline of religious belief amongst elites will further propel the dismantling of the welfare state in the USA.

― Euler, W

Huh?

to ensure that America’s safety net does not become a hammock (from the Post article)

This meme needs to die, like, NOW.

I mean that I think the normal human state of affairs is to be selfish. A welfare state is a construct of capitalism, built on self-interest, & the motivation historically for support that construct was moral: it's the right thing to do. But that moral stance is either directly the result of religious commitments, or a remnant of a religious commitment in one's more or less direct heritage (you were raised that way, or raised amongst such people, for instance). I don't think non-religious capitalists would have any reason to support a welfare state.

x-post-For some naive reason I was surprised that Ryan would actually say that in print. I like that some have responded that the folks chillin in the hammocks are the well-to-do and corporations who Ryan is giving tax cuts to.

To Euler:
Was FDR religious? I am not sure that having a remnant of a religious committment is or was somehow required to support the notion of taking care of those with less(welfare state). Also, lots of conservative folks loudly assert how religious they are and oppose the welfare state (you can assert if you want that they're not really religious or that they're misunderstanding the meaning of religion, but that's just muddying the waters regarding the roots of morality based compassion).

>>folks chillin in the hammocks

Ryan didn't coin this; it's been making the rounds lately and I find its implied -- hell, overt -- racism mindboggling. As if corporations and factory farms aren't beneficiaries of some of the most generous "welfare."

And yeah, the whole religious component is an interesting one, given the ostensibly Evangelical Tea Party have been some of the loudest proponents of gutting the system, and turning "social justice" into code for "liberal agenda."

http://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/the-tea-party-as-a-social-justice-movement/

I don't think non-religious capitalists would have any reason to support a welfare state.

Yes, they would, because it's good economics for christssake! I hate this ground-ceding shit where taking care of the least of these "may not be the best move fiscally, but..." because it most certainly is!

I think there's a legit argument to be had about welfare state stuff for the middle class, but when it comes to food stamps, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, social security, etc. it is definitely in everyone's best interests, including the upper class, to continue these programs.

The 'morality' behind classic capitalism was bolstered by a certain smug Calvinsim but that has often not been the case with other protestant sects nor with many Catholics for whom Caritas was real moral imperative usefully put into practice w/ a welfare system.

The difference between classic liberals and modern 'progressives' was that liberals were decidedly pro-capitalism but that they saw the social utility in unemployment insurance, old-age pensions and healthcare, even if only as a bulwark against the real, illiberal threat of socialism.

michael white beat me to the punch re Catholicism and the welfare state. the Church, for all of its faults, has a strong (and praiseworthy) tradition of emphasizing aid to the poor and unfortunate. when you look to European Christian Democratic parties (an important element of the political right in continental Europe), they strongly support social welfare programs as an outgrowth of this view. to the extent that people today are less willing to accept the Church's authority on any number of things, i can agree with an argument that the decrease in religious belief amongst nominal Catholics would have a ripple effect wr2 support for social welfare policies.

i can't speak for protestants b/c i'm not protestant and have at best scanty knowledge of their traditions and beliefs on these issues.

My own view is that the accelerating decline of religious belief amongst elites will further propel the dismantling of the welfare state in the USA.

I see a silver lining in this.

think it's also important to note that prior to the Depression/New Deal shit was REALLY REALLY BAD for the working class: child labor, no wage controls, no workplace regulation, no health codes. large swathes of the population worked at low-paying jobs that endangered their lives on a daily basis and shortened their lifespan in the long-run. People working themselves literally to death, for next to nothing. This provided a really solid basis for support of a welfare state. And shit just isn't that bad for the majority of votes in this country, who are basically still rich enough to be fat, stupid, and myopic.

in an american context the willingness to support state welfare wasn't driven by catholics alone. richard rorty's grandfather walter rauschenbusch was active on the protestant (baptist) side in the nineteenth century and early twentieth:

http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htallant/courses/his338/students/kpotter/

the progressive movement was definitely religious! but id think europe--scandinavia in particlar--points toward a model of welfare-state capitalism in a country that largely doesnt participate in religion?

yeah the big wrinkle in this argt is that the party of god in the US is the one taking the welfare state apart.

for 'religion' in this equation, you could sub in 'some sense of solidarity with the broad mass of americans', which i want to say is definitely on the decline, but i don't have a quantity for it or anything

Jews still mostly vote Democrat.

good ol jews

Except for the neo-con ones!

Obama meeting again with Boehner and Reid tonight. Boehner was quoted as still pushing for the policy riders. I hope Obama does not cave on those(Planned Parenthood, EPA, and NPR)

I'm on the run right now so I can't reply back in detail now but I wanted to say quickly that goole's point is a good one, but that in The_West religion has traditionally been the glue of social solidarity & I don't see what else can replace it.

internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ibgvv2fv8

can we take bets on the gov't shutdown?

am kinda hoping that Tea Party jokers all come out in FAVOR of the shutdown, since this is their ultimate goal, right? for there to be no federal govt?

2011 US POLITICS PREDICTATRON

i predict a shutdown, not sure on the length, going to go with a full work week.

is there any reason to doubt that this is just going to be 1995 all over again?

I love this implication that Democrats are the primary recipients of social security, medicare, and medicaid.

1995 in what sense? the length, the political ramifications?

the entire scenario! over-reaching GOP nutjobs in the House force a gov't shutdown, gov't shuts down for a couple weeks, public goes apeshit, blames the GOP, Dem president crushes exceptionally weak opponent in next election. the only real variable to me seems to be how big a shift in Congress we might see, and whether the majority tilts back to the Dems.

As far as actual policy goes, this will just poison the well for the rest of the year, and no major legislation will pass on either side.

i gotta say i dont really trust obama to uh "message" well w/ shit like this anymore

on the other hand it seems like structurally people just tend to blame legislatures in these situations and the executive emerges unscathed

either way im REALLY looking forward to the debt-ceiling fight

if the gov't shutdown will those who go unpaid still go to work? will their salaries, soc. security etc be re-paid or will it be lost?

people get IOUs and still go to work iirc. which is great for the economy!

thx

over-reaching GOP nutjobs in the House force a gov't shutdown, gov't shuts down for a couple weeks, public goes apeshit, blames the GOP, Dem president crushes exceptionally weak opponent in next election. the only real variable to me seems to be how big a shift in Congress we might see, and whether the majority tilts back to the Dems.

wouldn't be that surprised to see most of that happen, yep. but there are other scenarios, too. two of the biggest differences between 1995 and now are that:

1) crazy media (angry talk radio/fox) is even more dominant now than it was then. there's a giant echo chamber out there waiting to blame the shutdown on democrats, 100%, no matter what the facts are.

2) the perception of bill clinton's role in 1995 vs. the perception of obama's role in 2011. bill clinton took a hard stand and made newt gingrich look like a little fucker. obama is...going to do whatever...the most people...think he should do?