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

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?

I'm with max: history doesn't repeat itself in the same ways. Obama is not just a shittier communicator than Bill Clinton, but unable to draw from the same reservoirs of anger and self-pity which made him effective in crisis moments.

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.

nah this is pretty much the same. Fox viewership is vastly overstated.

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?

this is hard to predict tbh. but Obama's gearing up for election so he may break out the demogoguery. I dunno

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?

shutdowns are funny because they end up destroying the egos of a lot of people. federal employees are divided into two categories: "essential" and "non-essential". the essentials will go to work and get real paid. the great majority will be designated as "non-essentials", and will not work. in fact, we are BARRED from coming to work, even on a voluntary basis. people are supposed to turn off the blackberries and not even read work-related emails. we will certainly not get paid during a shutdown, if/when it occurs. afterward, there's a chance that we'll get back-pay (as happened in 1995), but that's something congress has to vote on. given the recent past, i would put the chances of us getting back-pay at about -134%

hmmm I guess IOUs are just how it works at the state level (we've done it several times in CA)

And, once again, I'm pretty pissed at cable and broadcast news not bothering to parse the details of Paul Ryan's plan; they're more concerned with the shutdown itself and Who Will Blink First.

via mike konczal, former NEC director bo cutter:

Fourth, if a compromise is reached the Tea Party will think they won that battle. There would be no good reason not to push the limit again in a debt ceiling fight. That fight involves very real dangers; the administration would be forced to err on the cautious side and House Republicans simply do not know enough about the issue to understand how recklessly they are behaving. The way to win the debt ceiling battle is to beat the Republican Congress like a rug in the current fight. The time to win the debt ceiling battle is right now.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/04/05/let-the-government-shut-down-40769/

all they have ever cared about and all they will ever care about is DRAMA. substance is for nerds.

xp

may as well link to Krugman's post on the absurdity of the Ryan plan to save everyone one of yr 20:

Paul Ryan's Multiple Unicorns

...So Ryan is claiming that unemployment will plunge right away; that by 2015 it will be down to the levels at the peak of the 1990s boom (and far below anything achieved under the sainted Ronald Reagan); and that by 2021 it will be below 3 percent, a level we haven’t seen in more than half a century. Right.

...Then there’s the Medicare business. According to the CBO analysis, a typical senior would end up spending more than twice as much of his or her own income on health care as under current law. As Dean Baker points out, this means that seniors would end up paying most of their income for health care. Again, right.

But in a way, the worst part isn’t the Medicare plan: it’s the fact — which so far has not penetrated the debate — that the biggest source of supposed savings in the plan isn’t actually health care, it’s an assumption that federal spending on everything except health and Social Security can somehow be squeezed, as a percent of GDP, to a small fraction of current levels.

...Notice the marked area at the bottom: Ryan is assuming that everything aside from health and SS can be squeezed from 12 percent of GDP now to 3 1/2 percent of GDP. That’s bigger than the assumed cut in health care spending relative to baseline; it accounts for all of the projected deficit reduction, since the alleged health savings are all used to finance tax cuts. And how is this supposed to be accomplished? Not explained.

This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking.

by this point in the first gov't shutdown, Clinton had already defined what he would fight for (which was unexpected considering his waffling for most of the first two years). What's Obama done besides call Boehner and Reid over for a beer summit?

well, he did re-invite them for another pizza party tonight.

why the hell does obama even want to be president again?

he also made sure to tell everyone to get serious and grow up

why the hell does obama even want to be president again?

this is a good question, honestly

I'M FIRED UP

why the hell does obama even want to be president again?

I will remember this for the next US Politics thread.

the reason i asked about particluar details about the shutdown is that my dad is on social security (and is a tea party symapathizer)

Anyway, this Ryan budget is not being negotiated right now is it? is this for next year? sorry, i've been out of it lately

your dad needs to sacrifice for the good of the country FYI. also some banker needs another ivory backscratcher.