Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The essence of the modern Republican party:
Marco Rubio says it out loud:
Except for the Reagan Administration, to be quite frank, both Republicans and Democrats established a role for government in America that said yes we will have a free economy, but we will also have a strong government, which through regulations and taxes will control the free economy, and through a series of government programs, will take care of those in our society who are falling behind. That was the vision crafted in the 20th Century by our leaders. ...
These programs weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government's job.
For those who met misfortune, that wasn't our job to take care of them. That was the government's job. And as government crowded out the institutions in our society that did these things traditionally, it weakened our people.
Weak vs Strong. Spartan values. It's Ayn Rand's vision and the Republicans are 100% in favor of it.
If you are in trouble, you'd better have relatives or neighbors to help you out. If you don't have people to help you, tough.
and Conor Friedersdorf
comment on Rubio's speech.
Even the notion that this is the way you are supposed to do it, and any other way is somehow 'weak' is purely abhorrent (mentally ill, reallly).
These people want everyone to live in the Wild West where might is right is the only arbiter of justice and morality.
So anti-intellectual, anti-humanist and anti-moral.
I've posted this before but it fits perfectly here. Ayn Rand was a sociopath and her philosophy is sociopathic.
Note that making "charity" the job of the Federal Government has created a safety net with a single point of complete failure. What if a future government simply turns off the spigot. They can do that, you know.
I use the scare quotes because if it isn't your money, it isn't charity. There was a time when people understood that.
We should be more like Bangladesh and less like Sweden is what he's saying. Woo! I know he doesn't care but what does he think will happen if we stop social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance? What are the recipients going to do? Starve to death quietly?
social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance?
A safety net is supposed to be uncomfortable enough that you want to get out of it as soon as you fall into it. When the safety net is made so cushy and comfortable that you don't want to get up, then it isn't a safety net anymore. It's a hammock. 99 weeks unemployment, food stamp debit cards ... don't get me started on SSDI, the juiciest gravy-train-for-life program ever invented. It draws scammers like flies. We've turned the safety net into a hammock, and lots and lots of people are taking long, long comfortable naps from the real world, which requires that you do things you don't like. Like work shitty jobs.
What Rubio is showing is that the real unsustainable resource is working people's tolerance for allowing other people to be permanently unemployed at their expense. You may worry or mourn the coming death of the welfare state, but it richly earned its execution.
So you favor the Bangladesh model. Bless your heart.
it's a wonderful life fantasy. charming angels will come down to counsel us in times of trouble.
Anonymous #3 (will you people please use names): "A safety net is supposed to be uncomfortable enough that you want to get out of it as soon as you fall into it"
Really, how exactly does one get off of Social Security? Yeah, I know you die. Great, so you propose making Social Security so uncomfortable, people want to get off of it. I hope you also favor legalizing suicide ... it would only be fair.
why is it baggers are so hyper vigilant against the (mostly imagined)
possibility of the poor scamming the system -- but are completely blind to how the filthy rich and corporations have so rigged the game that they're robbing taxpayers blind with undeserved and unproductive tax cuts, subsidies and loopholes.
How does one get rid of Social Security? First, you drain off the trust fund bonds by extending or expanding the payroll tax holiday, then when the "trust fund" is empty, the country is faced with either slashing benefits for everyone, or means-testing, or a combination. It chooses one of the latter two. Once you have to prove poverty to qualify for Social Security, SS takes its place next to welfare, food stamps and Medicare/Medicaid as part of the welfare state.
That's soooooooooo 2004.
But hey, we have massive unemployment because we trap those thoughtless people who lost their jobs in the vicious ambush of 'barely enough money to live on', unemployment insurance, thus sapping capitalism and the vital fluids of the American people at the same time, or so it would seem.
Works for me.
Is "RUBIO'S CUBA-IO" the newest GOP puzzling game?