Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Matt Yglesias makes a good point:

• In domestic politicy, right and left tend to have basically different goals. The left is trying to construct a well-designed social welfare system and the right is trying to keep the government as small as possible.
  

• Bullshit. Atticus' S.S. dodge aside, I assume you mean welfare. The "left" is trying to get elected by continuing failed programs that it can hold up to some of its special interest groups as evidence of its caring. The "right" is trying to help those same groups by saying "why not try entering the work force?"* I admit that many on the right take this position to keep their groups voting for them. Of course, much of the right is offended by taxation at the extreme levels. Taking away programs that require tax dollars is the response, and I suppose meets your "small government" theory.
  

  Foreign policy goals, however, are fairly uncontroversial, at least in a general sense. None of us want to see nice democratic countries overrun or innocents slaughtered in terrorist attacks and we would all like to see other nations become freer, more democratic, more prosperous, and so forth. But it's not totally clear how you get from here to there.
  
  The tendency, though, is to blow up every policy dispute into some massive gap of principle. "You looked at the Iraq War and decided it was a bad idea -- well, you must hate freedom!" Well, no, I don't.

No one I know, even on these boards, has said an anti-Iraqui war voice is one who hates freedom. Maybe this guy now feels guilty, or sheepish, and tries to spin this idea, but he shouldn't feel bad. The peopel who opposed the war feared possible (still possible) consequences on several levels, okay, understood. I doubt that many opposed the war to keep Saddam in power (besides Chirac, the bastard).

*snide "size of workforce" joke omitted in spirit of the holiday.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I still have no idea what you mean when you talk about a social welfare system "that actually works well." If you compare welfare reform in Wisconsin with, say, Alabama, you will see very different results. Wisconsin works better. The problem most conservatives have is hostility to the basic goals -- Yglesias's point -- which leads them to try to kill the programs, not to make them work better.

Not my point, it was the bloggers point. See my post above to AG.

Conservatives certainly want to abolish certain welfare programs, but not all. I don't know anyone calling for the end of SS or Medicare. The education department? Yes. The NEA? Emphatically.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop It's not a question of whether he has the balls. Those aren't his principles. He pays them lip service, but that's it. He is taking advantage of you.

How is he taking advantage of me? What is my alternative? Gore? Dean? Palease. I did vote for Clinton in 1992, mainly because 41 broke his read my lipse pledge. I would have considered Clinton in 1996 had he not been such a collasal fuck up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not my point, it was the bloggers point. See my post above to AG.

Conservatives certainly want to abolish certain welfare programs, but not all. I don't know anyone calling for the end of SS or Medicare. The education department? Yes. The NEA? Emphatically.

That social welfare programs do not work certainly is not Matt Yglesias's point.

Conservatives on this board have called for the end of SS or Medicare, as I recall. And whatever you want to call the National Endowment for the Arts, it is not a social-welfare program in any meaningful sense of the term.

How is he taking advantage of me? What is my alternative?

Exactly.


Edited to say that I didn't mean to ignore your post above, Hank, but I only just noticed it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That social welfare programs do not work certainly is not Matt Yglesias's point.

I know. His point was that the left is trying to create a well-designed social welfare system. My point was that that is not an obtainable goal.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Conservatives on this board have called for the end of SS or Medicare, as I recall. And whatever you want to call the National Endowment for the Arts, it is not a social-welfare program in any meaningful sense of the term.

In theory I would agree, but not given the 70 years history. It is just not practical. Both do need to be changed significantly if they are to survive. I take it you want them to survive, so you should agree with this.

If the NEA is not social welfare what is it? And if it's not, then I would gather it's unconstitutional.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
"Well enough" is not well designed, which was the blogger theory as to what the goals of the left are. My point was that these goals are not obtainable. I'm not sure I want to abolish SS or Medicare, but both need major rehauling. The personal savings accounts to be introduced in 2004 would be a start, but they won't pass next year. Curious though that you select the 2 untouchable programs, rather than the system as a whole. It goes back to my post a few weeks ago. Trot out the old and the sick and see who is against it, then brand them insensitive.

No, the argument is over your premise that no social welfare system can ever be well-designed. If a system providing only for SS and Medicare (as modified) is your idea of a well-designed social welfare system, you are hoist on your own petard. It's what I do. Hoist people on petards, that is.

As for welfare, I'm curious how the board neocons feel about the sticky wicket of single motherhood. Do you believe it's possible to work an entry-level job and be able to afford daytime childcare? If so, have you priced daycare options recently?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If the NEA is not social welfare what is it? And if it's not, then I would gather it's unconstitutional.

That's a fascinating question. I'd never thought about Enumerated Powers vis-a-vis the NEA. Off the top of my head, and without reading any caselaw, I'd say it can be justified in a post-Rooseveldtian world with reference to Enumerated Power 8 ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" in conjunction with Enumerated Power 18 ("To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers").

A smarter person can tell me why the, um, limiting clause of Power 8 doesn't render this argument very weak indeed.

ETA: It appears the defenders of the NEA rely on the "general welfare" clause more than the promotion of the useful arts ---according to Googleable neocon websites. But your beef with Ty is really whether "social welfare" means anything involving commercial subsidies in which the federal government is not the actual purchaser of the good or services thus created, but benefits (in Congress's view) from the health and survival of the suppliers in the marketplace. I don't think Ty would necessarily defend all of those programs.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, the argument is over your premise that no social welfare system can ever be well-designed. If a system providing only for SS and Medicare (as modified) is your idea of a well-designed social welfare system, you are hoist on your own petard. It's what I do. Hoist people on petards, that is.

As for welfare, I'm curious how the board neocons feel about the sticky wicket of single motherhood. Do you believe it's possible to work an entry-level job and be able to afford daytime childcare? If so, have you priced daycare options recently?

I still hold to the idea that it is not possible to design a social welfare system well, mainly because the incentives (shhh, I know that's a bad word in your circles) are all fucked up.

As for your question, though I do not consider myself a neocon, I'm sure it is very difficult for a single mother. But in this (and nearly all others) area I'm pro-choice. That is, for most single mothers, being a mother was a choice, which choice was made or should have been made knowing that day care was going to be a bitch.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That's a fascinating question. I'd never thought about Enumerated Powers vis-a-vis the NEA. Off the top of my head, and without reading any caselaw, I'd say it can be justified in a post-Rooseveldtian world with reference to Enumerated Power 8 ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" in conjunction with Enumerated Power 18 ("To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers").

A smarter person can tell me why the, um, limiting clause of Power 8 doesn't render this argument very weak indeed.

Query what is "useful" about elephant dung.

I'm certainly not a smarter person, but I think 8 refers to patents, trademarks, and the like, no?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I still hold to the idea that it is not possible to design a social welfare system well, mainly because the incentives (shhh, I know that's a bad word in your circles) are all fucked up.

Bad word? Bitch, please. I'm all about incentives. For example, I think no-bid gov't contracts have bad incentives. I think immunity from litigation has bad incentives. I think limitation of subsidiary liability has bad incentives (though I lost that debate fair and square).

As for your question, though I do not consider myself a neocon, I'm sure it is very difficult for a single mother. But in this (and nearly all others) area I'm pro-choice. That is, for most single mothers, being a mother was a choice, which choice was made or should have been made knowing that day care was going to be a bitch.

When I picture you, the image is in black and white. You're in a suit with a skinny tie, and you're going to see the Yoo-Ess-Ay in your Chev-roh-lay. You're adorable.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Query what is "useful" about elephant dung.

Query what is "useful" about Mickey Mouse. And yet, he has a copyright. If you're saying that copyright is unconstitutional, well, hell hath no fury . . . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When I picture you, the image is in black and white. You're in a suit with a skinny tie, and you're going to see the Yoo-Ess-Ay in your Chev-roh-lay. You're adorable.

That's funny, especially because you don't know just how off you are.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Query what is "useful" about Mickey Mouse. And yet, he has a copyright. If you're saying that copyright is unconstitutional, well, hell hath no fury . . . .

Two funny posts in a row. That's your quota 2003, so you can go home now.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm certainly not a smarter person, but I think 8 refers to patents, trademarks, and the like, no?

Turns out, I'm barking up the wrong tree. No need for Power 8. "General welfare" gets you there.

Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65, 66 (1936). I really, really should have remembered that from Con Law. How else could we have bought state lands for national parks? Duh.

And with that, I wish you all a very merry feast of Sol Invictus.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Query what is "useful" about Mickey Mouse. And yet, he has a copyright. If you're saying that copyright is unconstitutional, well, hell hath no fury . . . .

pre-party alcohol starts earlier here, so this may be a whiff, but, what are you talking about?
"useful arts" is broad, sure. An arrangement of dung, done originally attracts copyright rights, and the author can prevent others from copying that expression.
Surely no one has a problem with this basic government function.
On the other hand, I may not care to pay for the expression.

there are probably a few patents on the bunker buster bomb. you don't question that. you question when the government spends $$ to buy/use them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I still hold to the idea that it is not possible to design a social welfare system well, mainly because the incentives (shhh, I know that's a bad word in your circles) are all fucked up.

That's exactly what I had in mind when I said conservatives object to collateral damage that they're willing to downplay elsewhere. So some people won't work because there are unemployment benefits. That's an unfortunate side-effect of alleviating the outcomes produced in our market economy -- a goal many of us think worthy, but many of you do not.