The Theory of the Moocher Class

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/theory-moocher-class

The Theory of the Moocher Class

SEP 18, 2012
Mark Schmitt

The conservative narrative of the "entitlement society" ignores the fact that most Americans are both givers and takers.

As David Brooks points out, Mitt Romney's remarks describing 47 percent of the population as, in effect, moochers who would vote for Obama because they got government benefits were not “off the cuff,” as he described them today. There is a carefully developed theory behind his words, which has seen expression in previous Romney speeches, such as one last December in which he described Obama's vision as an “entitlement society” in which “everyone receives the same rewards,” but in which “we'll all be poor.”

The lab where this theory that we're headed toward a radical egalitarian state is being developed is the American Enterprise Institute, the oldest of the conservative think tanks and one that, much like Romney, has forsaken the traditional business-minded conservatism of, say, the first President Bush, for hard conservatism in which everything is a grand showdown of incompatible worldviews. The two recent books by the current AEI president, Arthur Brooks (The Battle and The Road to Freedom) embody this apocalyptic approach, as does a recent essay-with-graphs by longtime AEI scholar and accomplished demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, called “A Nation of Takers.”

- snip -

This dramatic reorientation of the safety net didn't just happen; most of these initiatives had significant bipartisan and cross-ideological support. Not only do they provide a ladder out of poverty and reward work, they also make possible the relatively low-wage, low-security labor market that gives employers enormous flexibility. Conservatives used to argue, for example, that raising the EITC was a better alternative to raising the minimum wage, and they mostly won that fight. The result is that low-wage employment is essentially subsidized, and businesses are able to hire at very low cost and low commitment, with none of the barriers to either hiring or firing that are common in Europe. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and others in the current wave of conservatism seem to have entirely forgotten the merits of these innovations, and in their promise to protect programs only for the very, very poor, they threaten to restore the hopeless poverty traps of the 1970s and 1980s.

- snip -

It's disappointing that Romney shows no interest in either drawing out the submerged state or in the bipartisan project (of which his health reform in Massachusetts was a part) of smoothing the path to economic success for families. Instead, he just sees half the country as people who can't be convinced “that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” That's a very strange view of this country and a tragic development in modern conservatism.

MORE AT LINK[p]

[2on2u]

1. All the money the government has to blow on weapons of mass destruction, social programs,

infrastructure repair, and what not comes from one place. Yours and mine taxes. Anything we get from the govt. comes from us it is that simple. NONE of the money the government spends was earned by the government therefore the govt. is a moocher of the first degree. Pretty much everything the govt. does and spends money on is funded by people who earned money and paid taxes that fund the govt. in total. Without the public to mooch off of the government would simply cease to exist.

[Turbineguy]

2. I'm going to have to read

Thorstein Veblen again.....

[LeftishBrit]

3. This is one of the things that really bothers me about many right-wingers

They really think that people who are 'victims' are somehow to blame for their position; that people who are poor or in a weak position are beggars at the gate who are not entitled to help; and that harshness toward vulnerable people is basically justified.

There are some right-wingers who do genuinely believe that poor and vulnerable people should be helped, but that the government isn't the best source of such help. But there are too many who are not just against the government helping people, but against people being helped at all. The sneering use of the word 'victim' is a hallmark of such an attitude.

So far in my post, I have been implicitly accepting the division between the 'poor and vulnerable' and everyone else. This is of course not the case. Everyone is vulnerable in certain ways; everyone needs help from others. Rpmney postulates '47%', hardly a tiny minority. And unless you're prepared to spend your life on a desert island, it's really basically 100%, especially when you're a child and if you get to be very elderly.

I am reminded of Thatcher's infamous statement, 'There is no such thing as society'.

Moreover, people should not be divided into spongers off the government and victims of the government. In a democracy, the people are employers of the government. And generally speaking, employers are unlikely to be impressed by an employee or would-be employee who claims that the employers are not entitled to good service. If employers of a government (i.e. voters) are ready to accept such an attitude, then there is something very, very wrong with the prevailing attitude to government and its role.

[regnaD kciN]

4. Forget the AEI -- the theory comes straight from Ayn Rand...

She even used the "moocher" term to label those she deemed unworthy of human existence.

It's alarming how the Republican Party, at every crossroads, seems to transform itself ever closer to the political arm of Objectivism.

[tanyev]

5. You know, the preface to the Constitution doesn't mention moochers or givers and takers.

It does, however, mention a perfect Union, domestic Tranquility, general Welfare and Blessings of Liberty. You'd think all those Constitution-worshipping conservatives would be big supporters of programs that encouraged said goals.