Neoliberalism: The Ideology That Dares Not Speak Its Name

[The Wonkette]

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: How in the world does someone who gives all that sensible advice end up supporting the party of entitlement?

Because the notion that the Dems are the "party of entitlement" is a lie? All those people who voted for Trump because they refuse to retrain themselves or go back to school and just want their old jobs back are some of the most entitled fucks around.

At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

You do realize that a heck of a lot of people on food stamps are working, don't you?  Forty percent of all people on SNAP are either working or living with someone who is working (usually that person is a child).*  And they work the hardest jobs in the country, cleaning houses, washing dishes, painting houses, stocking shelves at Walmart, caring for people with Alzheimers at nursing homes.

Of the remainder, another chunk are elderly.  Another chunk are 50-year-olds whose back has given out after years of lifting up people in order to change their bedpans.

Fact is that many jobs don't pay enough for working families to pay their bills without some assistance.

* Source is USDA, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households in Fiscal Year 2015.

[Eric the Green]

(01-07-2017, 05:03 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 02:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 02:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 01:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 12:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Opposing Trump I can see.  Supporting Clinton and the Democrats, not so much.

For the mission of stopping Trump I had no other choice. Some things are more important than partisanship. But you can't deal with that because you are a Boomer. So doctrinaire.

So were you pushing hard for Cruz during the primary?

Yeap.

I thought you were a Kasich kind of guy...

In his "defense" I think he was touting Cruz as the only available alternative to Trump, who was at that point leading him in a two-man race for the nomination.

I would not identify X_4AD_84 with Bill Maher, but I note that Maher made the same recommendation (after, of course, staging an upchuck before doing it).

[Eric the Green]

(01-07-2017, 10:40 AM)flbones too Wrote: neo liberalism needs to die. Republicans need to wake and realize that trickle down economics doesn't work. Any extra money the rich get are going to get invested or shored off seas. Any republican who thinks it does work needs to get their head examined. 30 years of stagnant wages and increasing income inequality isn't proof enough for them?

Guys like you, me and Teacher in Exile just have a keen grasp of the obvious. It's strange that Republicans cannot seem to get it.

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 08:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A committed neo-liberal like Warren is not going to support a Democrat. 

Boomer or not is irrelevant. Neo-liberals are even more common among Xers, I think. At least they used to be.

If I were a neoliberal, I would have been thrilled to vote for Hillary Clinton.  Bill Clinton's economic policies, with Hillary Clinton's susceptibility to corruption, and a Supreme Court that would eliminate the first and second amendment guarantees that are the common man's only check on the elites?  Neoliberal heaven!

Yeah, but you ARE a neo-liberal (might as well be card-carrying, you are SO typical), and you would not have voted for Hillary Clinton.

And she was not susceptible to corruption (those were all lies spread by the fake news generators), her Supreme Court picks would not have eliminated those amendments (just returned to the long-standing, correct interpretation of the Second, perhaps), and the second amendment is no check on anything; it's only protection is for the ability of madmen to shoot up airports (and shopping centers, nightclubs, theaters, schools, what have you). And (mostly ) only a committed neo-liberal would think otherwise.

[pbrower2a]

(01-07-2017, 05:10 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: How in the world does someone who gives all that sensible advice end up supporting the party of entitlement?

Because the notion that the Dems are the "party of entitlement" is a lie? All those people who voted for Trump because they refuse to retrain themselves or go back to school and just want their old jobs back are some of the most entitled fucks around.

At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

You do realize that a heck of a lot of people on food stamps are working, don't you?  Forty percent of all people on SNAP are either working or living with someone who is working (usually that person is a child).*  And they work the hardest jobs in the country, cleaning houses, washing dishes, painting houses, stocking shelves at Walmart, caring for people with Alzheimers at nursing homes.

Of the remainder, another chunk are elderly.  Another chunk are 50-year-olds whose back has given out after years of lifting up people in order to change their bedpans.

Fact is that many jobs don't pay enough for working families to pay their bills without some assistance.

* Source is USDA, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households in Fiscal Year 2015.

..or are difficult hires, like someone over 50 with Asperger's. I just got SNAP. It's generous enough if one chooses to avoid buying junk food or obvious luxury food (as in organic).

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 08:05 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Boomer or not is irrelevant. Neo-liberals are even more common among Xers, I think. At least they used to be.

Not when it comes to Social Security, silly.   The opinion on Social Security seems to more of an age based
statistic.

Considering that many Millennials feel that Boomers are hogging the economy in many ways, and are now payers rather than receivers for their foreseeable future (from the viewpoint of youth), as opposed to predominantly conservative Silents, who get and want their benefits, but vote for politicians who oppose them, I'd say that is very good agreement across generations.

[Warren Dew]

(01-07-2017, 05:10 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: How in the world does someone who gives all that sensible advice end up supporting the party of entitlement?

Because the notion that the Dems are the "party of entitlement" is a lie? All those people who voted for Trump because they refuse to retrain themselves or go back to school and just want their old jobs back are some of the most entitled fucks around.

At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

You do realize that a heck of a lot of people on food stamps are working, don't you?  Forty percent of all people on SNAP are either working or living with someone who is working (usually that person is a child).*  And they work the hardest jobs in the country, cleaning houses, washing dishes, painting houses, stocking shelves at Walmart, caring for people with Alzheimers at nursing homes.

And those were Trump's core supporters, so they weren't part of "people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments ...".

[Warren Dew]

(01-07-2017, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 08:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A committed neo-liberal like Warren is not going to support a Democrat. 

Boomer or not is irrelevant. Neo-liberals are even more common among Xers, I think. At least they used to be.

If I were a neoliberal, I would have been thrilled to vote for Hillary Clinton.  Bill Clinton's economic policies, with Hillary Clinton's susceptibility to corruption, and a Supreme Court that would eliminate the first and second amendment guarantees that are the common man's only check on the elites?  Neoliberal heaven!

Yeah, but you ARE a neo-liberal (might as well be card-carrying, you are SO typical), and you would not have voted for Hillary Clinton.

And she was not susceptible to corruption (those were all lies spread by the fake news generators), her Supreme Court picks would not have eliminated those amendments (just returned to the long-standing, correct interpretation of the Second, perhaps), and the second amendment is no check on anything; it's only protection is for the ability of madmen to shoot up airports (and shopping centers, nightclubs, theaters, schools, what have you). And only a committed neo-liberal would think otherwise.

Apparently you don't understand what the "neo" in neoliberal means.

And "only a committed neo-liberal would think" that assassination and violent armed revolution are checks on the elites?  Your trust in the elites is greater than I realized.

[Eric the Green]

(01-07-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 05:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 08:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A committed neo-liberal like Warren is not going to support a Democrat. 

Boomer or not is irrelevant. Neo-liberals are even more common among Xers, I think. At least they used to be.

If I were a neoliberal, I would have been thrilled to vote for Hillary Clinton.  Bill Clinton's economic policies, with Hillary Clinton's susceptibility to corruption, and a Supreme Court that would eliminate the first and second amendment guarantees that are the common man's only check on the elites?  Neoliberal heaven!

Yeah, but you ARE a neo-liberal (might as well be card-carrying, you are SO typical), and you would not have voted for Hillary Clinton.

And she was not susceptible to corruption (those were all lies spread by the fake news generators), her Supreme Court picks would not have eliminated those amendments (just returned to the long-standing, correct interpretation of the Second, perhaps), and the second amendment is no check on anything; it's only protection is for the ability of madmen to shoot up airports (and shopping centers, nightclubs, theaters, schools, what have you). And only a committed neo-liberal would think otherwise.

Apparently you don't understand what the "neo" in neoliberal means.

And "only a committed neo-liberal would think" that assassination and violent armed revolution are checks on the elites?  Your trust in the elites is greater than I realized.

I won't say all, but many neo-liberals (aka conservative economic libertarians) actually believe that armed individuals can pull off a revolution. Which of course is baloney, like most neo-liberal beliefs. Only a dangerous anarchist would think that assassination is an appropriate political tool. Do you?

[Eric the Green]

(01-07-2017, 05:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 05:10 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: How in the world does someone who gives all that sensible advice end up supporting the party of entitlement?

Because the notion that the Dems are the "party of entitlement" is a lie? All those people who voted for Trump because they refuse to retrain themselves or go back to school and just want their old jobs back are some of the most entitled fucks around.

At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

You do realize that a heck of a lot of people on food stamps are working, don't you?  Forty percent of all people on SNAP are either working or living with someone who is working (usually that person is a child).*  And they work the hardest jobs in the country, cleaning houses, washing dishes, painting houses, stocking shelves at Walmart, caring for people with Alzheimers at nursing homes.

And those were Trump's core supporters, so they weren't part of "people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments ...".

Only in states that actually voted for Trump. Working people in true-blue states know better.

[Odin]

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

Another lie. The only people I know who are on SSDI and shouldn't be are Republican-voting white trash who make excuses for themselves but rant about "blacks on welfare".

[David Horn]

(01-07-2017, 11:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:40 AM)flbones too Wrote: neo liberalism needs to die. Republicans need to wake and realize that trickle down economics doesn't work. Any extra money the rich get are going to get invested or shored off seas. Any republican who thinks it does work needs to get their head examined. 30 years of stagnant wages and increasing income inequality isn't proof enough for them?

They seem to be fooling enough of the people, enough of the time.  I'd like to think one more time around the block will wake up the electorate, but it hasn't happened yet.

This is the scariest part of the current situation: there seems to be no way to correct the impression that empowering the rich yields huge benefits to hoi polloi.  It seems contradictory on its face, so believing it must require a leap of faith that is, based on historical results, totally unjustified.  Yet it succeeds, and not just here and not just now.  The Fascists in the '30s pitched similar malarkey with similar results. 

So the desire to believe must be wired into human beings at some level ... but only SOME human beings.  Others are repelled, and can't understand why anyone could believe this stuff.  As far as I know, it isn't in the water or passed through our DNA, so it must be an accessible human feature that can be redirected if its understood.  Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

[David Horn]

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: How in the world does someone who gives all that sensible advice end up supporting the party of entitlement?

Because the notion that the Dems are the "party of entitlement" is a lie? All those people who voted for Trump because they refuse to retrain themselves or go back to school and just want their old jobs back are some of the most entitled fucks around.

At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

It may be a good time to examine the bases of your beliefs.  Some people believe in things that are patently false, because it fits perfectly into their worldview.

[David Horn]

(01-07-2017, 05:10 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 10:14 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: How in the world does someone who gives all that sensible advice end up supporting the party of entitlement?

Because the notion that the Dems are the "party of entitlement" is a lie? All those people who voted for Trump because they refuse to retrain themselves or go back to school and just want their old jobs back are some of the most entitled fucks around.

At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

You do realize that a heck of a lot of people on food stamps are working, don't you?  Forty percent of all people on SNAP are either working or living with someone who is working (usually that person is a child).*  And they work the hardest jobs in the country, cleaning houses, washing dishes, painting houses, stocking shelves at Walmart, caring for people with Alzheimers at nursing homes.

Of the remainder, another chunk are elderly.  Another chunk are 50-year-olds whose back has given out after years of lifting up people in order to change their bedpans.

Fact is that many jobs don't pay enough for working families to pay their bills without some assistance.

* Source is USDA, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households in Fiscal Year 2015.

Bravo Jenny, but facts tend to be ineffectual in changing opinions ... especially these days.  That said, making them known is still valuable, so press on!

[Warren Dew]

(01-08-2017, 11:50 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: At least they want to work, unlike all the people who voted for Obama and Clinton because they would maintain increased food stamp allotments and make it easy to get on and stay on Social Security disability.

Another lie. The only people I know who are on SSDI and shouldn't be are Republican-voting white trash who make excuses for themselves but rant about "blacks on welfare".

People you know are not a representative sample.  There's plenty of "white trash" who voted for Clinton, particularly in places like California where abuse of the welfare system is rampant.

[Eric the Green]

I don't see any evidence of welfare abuse in California. And in any case, welfare spending stimulates the economy, while tax cuts for the rich do not.

[Odin]

(01-08-2017, 12:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: where abuse of the welfare system is rampant.

No it's not.

[Warren Dew]

(01-09-2017, 01:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 05:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 05:03 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 02:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 02:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So were you pushing hard for Cruz during the primary?

Yeap.

I thought you were a Kasich kind of guy...

In his "defense" I think he was touting Cruz as the only available alternative to Trump, who was at that point leading him in a two-man race for the nomination.

I would not identify X_4AD_84 with Bill Maher, but I note that Maher made the same recommendation (after, of course, staging an upchuck before doing it).

Spot on.

In general, although I am nominally of The Right, I can't stand Theocons. Nonetheless, Cruz was not a Quisling of the Kremlin. Of the two horses who'd ultimately be the ones leading the race on the GOP side, he was the least worst.

It's not clear just how much Cruz is Religious Right, and how much he was just emphasizing that because he thought it was the right strategy to win the nomination.  Certainly those of us who really examined his background found that he was pretty strictly libertarian - if minarchist - in his economic outlook.

[Eric the Green]

(01-09-2017, 03:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 01:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 05:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 05:03 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 02:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Yeap.

I thought you were a Kasich kind of guy...

In his "defense" I think he was touting Cruz as the only available alternative to Trump, who was at that point leading him in a two-man race for the nomination.

I would not identify X_4AD_84 with Bill Maher, but I note that Maher made the same recommendation (after, of course, staging an upchuck before doing it).

Spot on.

In general, although I am nominally of The Right, I can't stand Theocons. Nonetheless, Cruz was not a Quisling of the Kremlin. Of the two horses who'd ultimately be the ones leading the race on the GOP side, he was the least worst.

It's not clear just how much Cruz is Religious Right, and how much he was just emphasizing that because he thought it was the right strategy to win the nomination.  Certainly those of us who really examined his background found that he was pretty strictly libertarian - if minarchist - in his economic outlook.

Which just goes to show that, most of the time, libertarian and religious right are perfect allies and can combine easily in one candidate, and frequently do. Both are extremely authoritarian, and yet can convince people that they aren't.

[Odin]

(01-09-2017, 03:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's not clear just how much Cruz is Religious Right, and how much he was just emphasizing that because he thought it was the right strategy to win the nomination.  Certainly those of us who really examined his background found that he was pretty strictly libertarian - if minarchist - in his economic outlook.

Cruz's dad is a crazy Dominionist fundy preacher who thinks Ted is "anointed by God" to rule America. He's a wacko.