Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show
The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Ryan-show.html
Quote:
Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.
What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.
Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.
Mitt Romney had been hinting, in an oblique, undeveloped way, at this line of argument as he moved tentatively toward finding a real message. Then he took the startling step of appointing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the earth moved. If Romney was the embodiment of the spirit of a free market, Ryan was its prophet. His speech at the convention was so dangerous to the Obama Democrats, with their aspirations toward European-style democratic socialism, that they unleashed their “fact checkers” to find mistakes (“lies”) in it. (Remember the old Yes Minister joke: “You can always accuse them of errors of detail, sir. There are always some errors of detail”.) When Romney and Ryan offer their arguments to the American people, they are, of course, at an advantage over almost any British or European politician. Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.
So it would be deeply misleading to imply that this campaign will be a contest between what Britain likes to call “progressive” politics and some atavistic longing for a return to frontier America where everybody made a success of his own life with no help from anybody but his kith and kin. In the midst of the impassioned and often nasty debate about the future of health care, in which Ryan was depicted as a granny-killer, there has been some serious Republican thinking about the universal provision of medical care for pensioners (or “seniors” as they are called in the US). Because, you see, the debate over there has gone way beyond welfare reform: the need to restrict benefit dependency among the underclass is an argument that has been won. What is at issue now is much more politically contentious: universal entitlements such as comprehensive Medicare and social security are known to be unaffordable in their present form. Ryan, the radical economic thinker, suggests a solution for Medicare in the form of a voucher system. Patients could choose from competing health providers, with a ceiling on the cost of procedures and treatments, instead of simply being given blanket no-choice care. Thus, the government would get better value for money, and individuals would have more say in their own treatment. Now why doesn’t anybody here think of applying that mechanism to the NHS? Oh, yes, some people have – but nobody in power will listen to them.
So how effective will all this turn out to be? Can Romney and Ryan reawaken the self-belief in American independence and real community solidarity? Quite possibly, but the odds are always in favour of the incumbent in US presidential elections. There is, however, a wild card in this game. I suspect that in 2008 a great many voters of good conscience would have felt the moral force of voting for the first black president, in order to exorcise the nation’s hideous racial history. But having proved that America is no longer a land of bigots, they will not feel it necessary to make that point again. Now they will be able to judge Mr Obama as they would any other political leader, and the US will truly have arrived at post-racial politics.
But in the course of this campaign, however it concludes, we are all going to get an education in what it might be possible to say if economic reality was actually confronted. Mr Ryan wound up his acceptance speech for the vice-presidential nomination with the chorus, “Our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate.” Some of us would like to have that debate here. We even think we might have a chance of winning it.
"Can Romney and Ryan reawaken the self-belief in American independence and real community solidarity? Quite possibly,"
The VRWC/Repug strategy has been destruction of civility for 25 years, starting with Noot Grinch in early 1990s, even before with Willie Horton shit. Division, polarization, inflammatory lies and slander, non-stop. "community solidarity"? GMAFB
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Mastered by Obama, tbh.
You Lie, but you're a blindly ideological right-winger, so no surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Anyone who actually thinks Willard would cut Boomer handouts is kidding themselves....
BTW this illustrates the fundamental flaw of the left's wet dream of mob-rule democracy... eventually people realize they can vote themselves future generations' money and it all collapses tbh.....
you're hilariously pretentious, profe. in English we say "follow something." also, you misspelled sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
and you're a horrible bore. get bent! :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Read the article. It talks about the actuarial aspects of the demographic waves, and how the large boomer cohort has done just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
This illustrates a fundamental flaw in taking for granted that people can't act with the future in mind. I am not so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Fuzzy claims entitlements to all other cohorts have declined. That may be true, but the OP does not support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
It's called pedantic and for all of my pretentiousness which of us is doing grammar smack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I don't really care if you think me boring. I do not go around talking up charm and being unpretentious only to then act base and pretentious.
You are a sad little man. You espouse virtues and criticize others for lacking them only to behave in the manner opposite of your notion of said virtue. That's hypocrisy certainly but something far more like self loathing than that. Perhaps that's why you drink most nights. Cannot wait for another evening of multiposts and semi-coherent ranting.
We already discussed this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Contract with America did the following while leaving the three entitlement elephants in the room Medicare, Medicaid and SS:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congr...re_reform.htmlQuote:
Provisions:
Reducing Illegitimacy
The bill is designed to diminish the number of teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births. It prohibits AFDC payments and housing benefits to mothers under age 18 who give birth to out-of-wedlock children. The state has the option of extending this prohibition to mothers ages 18, 19, and 20. The savings generated from this provision to deny AFDC to minor mothers (and to mothers age 18 to 20 if the state elects that option) is returned to the states in the form of block grants to provide services -- but not cash payments -- to help these young mothers with illegitimate children. The state will use the funds for programs to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption, to establish and operate orphanages, to establish and operate residential group homes for unwed mothers, or for any purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the funds may be used for abortion services or abortion counseling.
The bill also includes a number of other provisions to reduce illegitimacy. While AFDC is prohibited to mothers ages 17 and younger who have children out of wedlock, mothers age 18 who give birth to illegitimate children must live at home in order to receive aid -- unless the mother marries the biological father or marries an individual who legally adopts the child. Mothers already receiving AFDC will not receive an increase in benefits if additional children are born out of wedlock.
Finally, the bill requires mothers to establish paternity as a condition for receiving AFDC. Exceptions are provided for cases of rape and incest and if the state determines that efforts to establish paternity would result in physical danger to the mother. The bill requires states to establish paternity in 90 percent of their cases. Also, states are encouraged to develop procedures in public hospitals and clinics to determine paternity and establish legal procedures that help pinpoint paternity in a reasonable time period.
Requiring Work
States are allowed to establish their own work training and education programs to help recipients move from the welfare program to paid employment as soon as possible. The training programs require recipients to work for an average of 35 hours a week or 30 hours per week plus five hours engaged in job search activities. One parent in a two-parent family is required to work 32 hours a week plus eight hours of job searching. States may not provide the work programs for more than two years to any individual or family which receives welfare benefits. States have the option of ending AFDC to families that have been on the welfare rolls for two years, if at least one year was spent in a work program. All states must terminate AFDC payments to families who have received a total of five years of welfare benefits -- regardless of whether or not the AFDC recipient has participated in a jobs program.
As long as states meet the participation requirements, the federal government will not advise other parts of the program. States will design their own work programs and determine who will be required to participate in them. Part of the participation requirement is requiring a certain number of recipients to participate in the job program. Starting in 1996, 100,000 AFDC recipients will be required to work; in 1997, 200,000 recipients will be required; in 1998, 400,000 will be required; in 1999, 600,000 recipients will be required; in 2000, 900,000 will be required; and by 2001, 1.5 million recipients will be required to work.
Identified non-parents, usually men, who receive food stamp benefits are required to work -- eight hours per week for those benefits.
Capping the Growth of Welfare Spending
The bill caps the spending growth of AFDC, SSI and numerous public housing programs, and the mandatory work program established under the bill. The cap equals the amount spent the preceding year for these programs with an adjustment for inflation plus growth in poverty population. The entitlement status of these programs is ended.
The bill also consolidates a number of nutrition programs into a block grant to states, funded in the first year at 95 percent of the aggregate amount of the individual programs. Programs consolidated into the block grant include food stamps, the supplemental feeding program for women, infants, and children (WIC), and the school lunch and breakfast programs, among others. Under the block grant, states will distribute food assistance to economically disadvantaged individuals more freely.
To further reduce welfare spending, welfare assistance (AFDC, SSI, food stamps, housing and host of other public assistance) is denied to non-citizens, except refugees over 75 years of age, those lawfully admitted to the U.S., or those who have resided in the U.S. for at least five years. Emergency medical assistance will continue to be provided to non-citizens.
What it boiled down to was a voucher system for welfare to states and cuts to direct assistance to individuals.
it included cuts to food stamps, AFDC, WIC, school lunch, work programs, etc. All the while the entitlement programs for those that netted $2.2m in net I/O per capita were left alone.
Now let's look at the most recent proposal by the party of the older white male:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...922_REPUBS.pdfQuote:
Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels: With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.
That largest expansion of entitlements since the great society what was that? Oh yeah an expansion of government funded medical aid to boomers.
About the only thing that the nonBoomer has gotten has been the extension of unemployment benefits these last couple of years. The rest of the 'stimulus' has gone to industrialists.
" the extension of unemployment benefits these last couple of years."
no, the House Repug sociopaths cut that. more than 50% of unemployed have been unemployed for more than 1 year.
and you're pretty fucked to think SS and medicare to seniors is the next crisis.
The next crisis will always be from the financial sector.
I am well aware that they ended it but that was after they had extended the benefits from the CWA limits. But you are right the Boomers have done their best to cut all entitlements but their own.
You channelling your Dick Cheney and saying that deficits don't matter.
And Medicare/SS are ~40% of the budget. Boomer's take up 26% of the total population. They didn't pay shit in before but now they will pay nothing yet still soak up ~40% of the budget. If nothing else that is a huge opportunity cost. Thanks for the legacy!
Perhaps you think a giant leech is not a drag on something but i will have to disagree. This world is not a vacuum. I do not disagree that the financial sector is a mess waiting to happen but risks come in all shapes and forms.
I guess I'm on the edge of boomer town. I've been paying into Social Security and medicare since I was bagging groceries at 16. Although, since I was born in 1960, I guess I meet the classical definition of a boommer.
Lol.....fuzzy wrecked shop in this thread. Wine hole, you da man and I enjoy your posts but you're coming off a lot like....well....me in this one and you're better than that.
Good news though is that wild cobra looks dumb....which is about right.
TB, looking back on the past thirty or so years can you honestly say that the political choices of your contemporaries has been righteous?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
I see guys like CC come in here saying stuff along the lines of "well we got ours, you jelly?" and I cannot help but be resentful. There are legions of guys just like him. I am not saying youre like that --I certainly don't think that-- but in Texas it does seem to be a cultural phenomenon.
It's one thing to do your best and just fuck up but I am sick and tired of seeing a crowd knowing full well they are fucking over their descendants and not even trying to make right by it.
What do I see instead? Self righteous horseshit like the Tea Party trying to ram their gravy train up our asses. No new taxes but let's keep that 40% coming our way and defense spending rolling right in.
I see a banking bailout that amongst other things made sure those 401k's didn't take a shit. Sorry but all that political will for $700b bailout didn't just come from Citicorp.
I see cultural hitpieces characterizing my contemporaries as introverted, entitled, lazy, flippant, weak. How many times have you read about a generation supposedly weak because of a fucking Little League rule?
I'm sure that Darrin and/or CC are going to characterize this as a childish rant but I do not think I am out of line in saying that it's wrong and something should be done to correct it. That $2.2m per capita went somewhere.
can't hit a home run every time. Babe Ruth struck out, what, 1,330 times or something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
I absolutely would say that the majority of political choices have been poor ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
I steer clear of making generational generalizations (+10 for alliterative content). I don't think you can measure the individual by the tribe. There's a different dynamic to group behavior that can't completely be attributed to individual behavior. That being said, I think it's reasonably clear that the Boomer generation has shown traits of incredible self-involvement. Ascribing motives to that trait is a little sketchy, imo.