Topic: Read This

[trapeze]

It's long but it's pretty good.

[Pandora]

Conservatives could help their cause and their country by following Congressman Ryan's lead in making clear that their goal is not to starve the beast, which implies it will die, but to come up with a diet that reconciles the welfare state's genuine needs Huh?  The Left has created an appetite for OPM and Vogel now ascribes to it 'statehood', WITH NEEDS to the food supply's limits. The historical data, some of it presented in Never Enough, show that as nations prosper their welfare states have always expanded. It's plausible for democratic electorates to decide that economic growth gives a society the leeway to direct a portion of its additional income into public programs It's not "society's" income while the rest is consumed or invested privately.

Though the alternative path has hardly ever been taken, it is equally plausible. A democracy We ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, goldammy! could conclude that a growing economy means that a welfare state with a clearly defined mission, as opposed to one where the goal posts are constantly receding as we move toward them, can be financed by spending a decreasing portion of the nation's increasing wealth. This is exactly the approach we have taken with defense spending. In 1953, at the height of the Korean War, America devoted 14.2% of GDP to national defense. In 2010 we spent 4.8%. By this measure, our defense spending has declined by two thirds. But America today is a much richer country than it was in 1953 What America does this guy live in?. Measured in real dollars rather than GDP points, we spent 20% more for defense in 2010 than we did in 1953. There is no obvious reason why the same logic should not permit welfare state spending to grow in absolute terms, if necessary, Why the hell would anybody want to give that a pass, including the idea that it may be "necessary"? while shrinking relative to a larger economy. If the aversion to taxes and the limits of borrowing mean that we are approaching a time when it becomes impossible to do welfare state business the old way, then conservatives will get an opportunity, perhaps soon, to persuade America to try a new one.

"IF"? It is right now impossible to "do" welfare state business in ANY way.

Okay, trap; I read the whole thing and the last couple paragraphs have left me irate; this is another guy that just doesn't get it.  He's at least a decade behind, when what he presents may have had merit, in grasping the realities on the ground.

[Weisshaupt]

Okay, trap; I read the whole thing and the last couple paragraphs have left me irate; this is another guy that just doesn't get it.  He's at least a decade behind, when what he presents may have had merit, in grasping the realities on the ground.

Overall its a good article for the cronology, but the solution leaves much to be desired.  Oblivious to Facts on the ground?   Try this one

It's highly unlikely that our fiscal problems will be decided entirely on conservative terms, where government spending is ratcheted down to permit the continuation of tax levels Americans have grown accustomed to. It's also unlikely they will be resolved entirely on liberal terms, where taxes ratchet up to cover the promises the welfare state has already made, and then go up a lot more to pay for the additional promises liberals want it to make. A resolution that prevents a national bankruptcy, whether achieved in one grand bargain or through a series of policy changes taking place over several election cycles, is almost certainly going to fall somewhere between these two poles.

I can think of a third, way more likely option: A refusal to discuss the problem until a National Bankruptcy does occur via inflationary monetary policy..

[Pandora]

Okay, trap; I read the whole thing and the last couple paragraphs have left me irate; this is another guy that just doesn't get it.  He's at least a decade behind, when what he presents may have had merit, in grasping the realities on the ground.

Overall its a good article for the cronology, but the solution leaves much to be desired.  Oblivious to Facts on the ground?   Try this one

It's highly unlikely that our fiscal problems will be decided entirely on conservative terms, where government spending is ratcheted down to permit the continuation of tax levels Americans have grown accustomed to. It's also unlikely they will be resolved entirely on liberal terms, where taxes ratchet up to cover the promises the welfare state has already made, and then go up a lot more to pay for the additional promises liberals want it to make. A resolution that prevents a national bankruptcy, whether achieved in one grand bargain or through a series of policy changes taking place over several election cycles, is almost certainly going to fall somewhere between these two poles.

I can think of a third, way more likely option: A refusal to discuss the problem until a National Bankruptcy does occur via inflationary monetary policy..

Even then the problem will not receive discussion, much less an explanation to the American people of exactly what they've done.

I am SO disgusted ....

[trapeze]

Hmmm...

I saw it as being somewhat realistic in its goals.

Would I like to see the absolute elimination of the notion of government using OPM for social/welfare type of crap? Of course. Is it likely to happen? Almost certainly not. That's just the way it is short of a right wing dictatorship. King trapeze would repeal all of that stuff and let the free market go almost completely wild. But that isn't going to happen. And even if it did the next king would do something else.

Politics is frequently defined as "the art of the possible" and I think that the article's author is trying to use that as his guide to a fairly drastic reduction of liberalism.

The truth is that like sin, we will never be completely free of liberalism. It must be starved whenever possible but killing it is no more possible than killing off any other human immorality.

Anyway, the article is food for thought.

[Pandora]

trap, what do you see as realistic in terms of his "pick one from column conservative/pick one from column liberal" solution considering the economic disaster just around the corner?  There's not going to be any money for any welfare.

[trapeze]

I saw it as realistic in that it strives to nail down the requirements of the so-called social safety net rather than to keep "moving the goal posts."

Government is always going to believe that one of its purposes is to care for (in some way, shape, manner or form) the "poor." Therefore, it is unrealistic to believe that you can completely kill that monster off. A total objectivist (Ayn Rand) style of government is not going to happen. Pity. So...do what you can. Starve the welfare state as much as possible.

Sorry you didn't like the article. I found it to be thought provoking.

[IronDioPriest]

My mind's ears perked up here:

[blockquote]"Liberals came to consider Obama's even-tempered commitment to post-partisanship, however admirable in the abstract, a betrayal of their cause in the circumstances following the 2008 election, because it meant capitulating to the Tea Party and scorched-earth congressional Republicans..."[/blockquote]

and here:

[blockquote]"Congressional Republicans had so much success in diluting, delaying, and impeding the Democrats' agenda after the 2008 election, many liberals concluded, not just because Obama was feckless and the GOP reckless, but because our Constitution is fundamentally flawed..."[/blockquote]

Both completely assume the liberal narrative as a given, and work off that narrative. Needless to say, "Obama's even-tempered commitment to post-partisanship" cannot be the cause of anything, since it does not exist. The Democrats know it does not exist, and promulgate the lie to serve their own ends. And the latter statement assumes that it was Republican obstructionism that led to the Democrats frustration with the constitution, when the reality is that their frustration is first and foremost with the inconvenience of the constitution itself, regardless of the actions of Republicans.

[Pandora]

I saw it as realistic in that it strives to nail down the requirements of the so-called social safety net rather than to keep "moving the goal posts."

Government is always going to believe that one of its purposes is to care for (in some way, shape, manner or form) the "poor." Therefore, it is unrealistic to believe that you can completely kill that monster off. A total objectivist (Ayn Rand) style of government is not going to happen. Pity. So...do what you can. Starve the welfare state as much as possible.

Sorry you didn't like the article. I found it to be thought provoking.

Nothing to be sorry about.  I did find it thought provoking, but my thoughts ran more to the "is this guy for real?" and it gives us something to bat about.

You say "Government is always going to believe that one of its purposes is to care for (in some way, shape, manner or form) the "poor.", but trap, "government" is nothing more than a group of people and therefore, their preferences in this area are not inevitable.  I keep raising the THERE IS NO MONEY reality and that ain't gonna change except to worsen any time soon.

You want to talk "realistic"; there's your realism.

[Libertas]

Realistic...like picture ID to vote, securing the border from invasion, or...



?

To many peope are just fine with unreality.  The whole state will have to be reset, there is no such thing as reform or expecting people will do anything until their faces are shoved into reality.

[Glock32]

That makes me think of another disconnect. The Left is so big on contraception and abortion, yet do you recall the sh*tstorm when SC attempted to require Norplant contraceptive implants for women on welfare? I mean, what's the Big Deal (tm)? All it would have done is reduce the black birthrate, and the Progressives have a long and illustrious history of aiming to achieve exactly that.

[Pandora]

That makes me think of another disconnect. The Left is so big on contraception and abortion, yet do you recall the sh*tstorm when SC attempted to require Norplant contraceptive implants for women on welfare? I mean, what's the Big Deal (tm)? All it would have done is reduce the black birthrate, and the Progressives have a long and illustrious history of aiming to achieve exactly that.

No disconnect if you consider it's about control and sex, wherever/whenever/with whomever, is the sole activity in the range of human experience they demand remain restriction-free.

Fck a duck in the middle of the street just don't dare light a cigarette afterward.