General Discussion

2016-07-01T4:10:33+00:00

there is more then good argument for Obama to pursue the course of calling out inequity. And as many times Hillary has claimed she would like to continue and build upon Obama's legacy, she should leading the charge again Neoliberalism in the Dem party. Its been a pretty disgusting couple of days here on DU as I see poster after poster more worried about their 401K then the plight of people suppressed under by Neoliberal Economic policies. Pretty much "I got mine and Fuck You for wanting to feed your family" - and for all the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth, our heavily manipulated Stock Market (casino) is almost right back to where it was when this whole thing began Simply disgusting It was Obama who began speaking out against income inequality - don't blame me for paying attention and here is why .... Heres the real question to raise against Lanes argument: even if income inequality is not as much of an instant political winner as some liberals would wish it to be, why should Obama and other Democrats therefore play down the issue? Parties need a purpose and identity, and soaring inequality strikes as close to the animating core of the party of the New Deal as any other issue. Obama is talking up inequality not just because hes grasping for an issue to ride into a midterm election year but because he seems to have genuinely believed for some time now that, as new White House hire John Podesta declared this week and as the Holy Father himself declared two weeks earlier, it is a serious problem with a clear moral dimension. And it is! As Lane himself notes, the top 10 percent of U.S. earners claimed about half of all before-tax income in 2012, including capital gains. Another stunning stat that Obama cited in his big speech on inequality last week: A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. Meanwhile, many economists now conclude that inequality hinders economic growth and may even raise the likelihood of financial crashes like the 2008 collapse. http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/11/elizabeth-warren-third-way-and-the-battle-over-american-liberalism/ and for those of you who are having trouble distinguishing what NeoCons Neolibarals are, here you go - don't blame me if you can't tell them apart from the RATpubliCONs At the national-level, neoliberal ideas have drastically changed how states operate. By heavily promoting market-based economies that highly value competition and efficiency, neoliberalism has moved countries closer to adopting social Darwinism. Under Thatcher and Reagan, for instance, Peters (2001) argues that neoliberalism directly led to the economic liberalization/rationalization of the state, the restructuring of state sectors, and the dismantling of the welfare state. As a consequence of these changes, the U.S. and the U.K. have seen things like the abolishment of subsidies and tariffs, the corporatization and privatization of state trading departments, a sustained attack on unions, and the individualization of health, welfare, and education. Although the idea that markets should fully dictate governments would have seemed ludicrous in prior decades (George 1999), Bourdieu (1999b) contends that neoliberalism as a form of national governance has become a doxa, or an unquestioned and simply accepted worldview. Harvey (2005) is thus not surprised that the ideas of capitalism have been infused into political, social, and cultural institutions at the state-level. By placing a mathematical quality on social life (Bourdieu 1999a), neoliberalism has encouraged formerly autonomous states to regress into penal states that value production, competition, and profit above all else, including social issues. https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/10/02/a-brief-examination-of-neoliberalism-and-its-consequences/ Next thing you know people will be praising Reagan

Post removed Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:10 AM Jul 2016

Post removed

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Post removed (Original Post) Post removed Jul 2016 OP

Nice Strawman DU'er you built there. emulatorloo Jul 2016 #1

We seem to not be allowed to use the term neoliberal. Just like we applegrove Jul 2016 #2

Of course we're allowed to use the terms neo-con and neo-liberals. emulatorloo Jul 2016 #3

+1 KMOD Jul 2016 #5

You know, this is getting damn ridiculous. KMOD Jul 2016 #4

emulatorloo

(46,155 posts)

1. Nice Strawman DU'er you built there.

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:16 AM

Jul 2016

Poster after poster defending neo-cons? I don't think so.

The majority of DU'ers are on the same page about income inequality. Smearing DU'ers as "neoliberal" may help you feel better but it simply isn't true.

applegrove

(133,057 posts)

2. We seem to not be allowed to use the term neoliberal. Just like we

Reply to emulatorloo (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:21 AM

Jul 2016

were not allowed to use the term neocons a decade ago. Seems to me defenders of neoliberals today and defenders of neocons are the same people.

emulatorloo

(46,155 posts)

3. Of course we're allowed to use the terms neo-con and neo-liberals.

Reply to applegrove (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:25 AM

Jul 2016

to describe actual neo-cons and neo-liberals

My problem with the OP is he is making a broadbrush attack on DU'ers.

"I see poster after poster more worried about their 401K then the plight of people suppressed under by Neoliberal Economic policies."

That is a Strawman.

This fad of smearing DU'ers as 'neo-liberals' started the last week of "primary mode." Calling other DU'ers 'neoliberal' as a smear simply because one had an ideological difference with them.

That's bullshit.

KMOD

(7,906 posts)

5. +1

Reply to emulatorloo (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:34 AM

Jul 2016

Enough, already.

KMOD

(7,906 posts)

4. You know, this is getting damn ridiculous.

Reply to Post removed (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:25 AM

Jul 2016

If you are going to make an accusation like this,

Its been a pretty disgusting couple of days here on DU as I see poster after poster more worried about their 401K then the plight of people suppressed under by Neoliberal Economic policies. Pretty much "I got mine and Fuck You for wanting to feed your family" - and for all the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth, our heavily manipulated Stock Market (casino) is almost right back to where it was when this whole thing began

please point it out.

You are upset that Bernie is not the nominee. I get that.

But where you are being ridiculous is in believing that Hillary Clinton is not striving to address it as well. She has laid out actual plans to work on this. In fact, her whole platform is wide ranging and thorough.

She is offering more than just freaking sound bites.

Anger is fine. But at some point you have to let it go and do something about it. Sitting on the sidelines all pissy isn't going to get us anywhere.

Good Grief.

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

General Discussion

Post removed

emulatorloo

applegrove

emulatorloo

KMOD

KMOD

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

Tell me more...