Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the trouble with the "shared sacrifice" call is that it's a euphemism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 05:53 AM
Original message
the trouble with the "shared sacrifice" call is that it's a euphemism
for stripping away the social safety net. It's a call to diminish or do away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that help the poor survive and the middle class to not sink into poverty.

And we all know this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. We get to sacrifice while the rich get the shares
Shared - sacrifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. lately I've been wondering what the politicians mean when they say "people"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. That one seems easy..."people are corporations" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. They mean "people worth speaking of"
From The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams:

Far back in the mists of ancient time, in the great and glorious days of the former Galactic Empire, life was wild, rich, and on the whole, tax-free. In those days, spirits were brave; the stakes were high; men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors to do mighty deeds to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before. And thus was the Empire forged. Many men, of course, became extremely rich. But this was perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of, because no one was really poor - at least no one worth speaking of. And for these extremely rich merchants life eventually became rather dull and it seemed that none of the worlds they settled on was entirely satisfactory: either the climate wasn’t quite right in the later part of the afternoon, or the day was half an hour too long, or the sea was just the wrong shade of pink. And thus were created the conditions for a staggering new form of industry: custom-made luxury planet building. The home of this industry was the planet Magrathea, where vast hyperspatial engineering works were constructed to suck matter through white holes in space and form it into dream planets, lovingly made to meet the exacting standards of the galaxy’s richest men. And so successful was this venture that very soon Magrathea itself became the richest planet of all time, and the rest of the galaxy was reduced to abject poverty. And so the system broke down, the empire collapsed, and a long, sullen silence settled over the galaxy, disturbed only by the pen-scratchings of scholars as they laboured into the night over smug little treatises on the value of a planned political economy. In these enlightened days, of course, no one believes a word of it. Meanwhile, on Zaphod Beeblebrox’s ship, deep in the darkness of the Horsehead Nebula…


If you have to ask "How much for just the planet?", you don't count.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. Giving up something you don't need is not a sacrifice.
Taking $100 from a person who has another billion in the bank is NOT asking them to sacrifice. Taking $100 from a guy who only has $200 is a huge sacrifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. I know people who talk in terms of "shared sacrifice" want me to hear
'we are all in this together....let's pull together as Americans for America...blah, blah, blah'.....yet...

If we were all in this together, would labor be under constant attack? Would teachers? Would decent health care for all be a struggle to achieve? Would regulating corporations and industry be framed as a bad thing? I mean, if we were all in this together, then corporations and industry (to include government - which has become a business and not the people's business either) would want to have safe work environments, would want to put Americans to work, would want to pay a decent living wage, would want a healthy population, would want strong banking/investment regulations and oversight (and a host of other things). Instead of fighting against such things at every turn.

If we were all in this together, the bottom-line wouldn't be profits.

There is no such thing as "shared sacrifice" in a country with such a disparity of circumstances (wealth/poverty) and goals (profits over people).














Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. owned and owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. It's also a lie.
The only people "sharing" the sacrifice are those who have already sacrificed. I'm waiting to see what the top 2% and the millionaires in the WH and Congress are going to sacrifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alc Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. they aren't talking about people or corporations sacrificing
They are talking about the parties and politicians. They don't care about people or corporations. They care about elections. PERIOD. (I'm talking about party leadership who have complete control of what legislation has a chance, not some of the great individual congressmen)

Democrats need to "sacrifice" votes to allow cuts in social programs. Republicans need to "sacrifice" votes to increase taxes, stop wars, etc. There's no way in hell either party would do one of those unilaterally. But if they can work it out so they both piss off their constituents equally there will be no change in the balance of power. Both parties will do everything they can to "win" and tip the balance towards them. But they know there is a problem, and they know the other party isn't going to give them much if anything - so they need to make the party sacrifices even out.

If you look at the CBO and administration 10 year projections, there IS a problem. We cannot continue the current wars, tax structure, SS, and Medicare with the likely GDP growth. We may be so far down the path Greece took in 10 years that there is no way out unless some miracle happens with our GDP. A miracle is possible, but I prefer they plan for the likely scenario. SS will have to redeem bonds with payments from the general budgets, so even though it shouldn't be part of this, it is because of the way they set it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The duopoly rings true.
Democrats need to "sacrifice" votes to allow cuts in social programs. Republicans need to "sacrifice" votes to increase taxes, stop wars, etc. There's no way in hell either party would do one of those unilaterally. But if they can work it out so they both piss off their constituents equally there will be no change in the balance of power. Both parties will do everything they can to "win" and tip the balance towards them. But they know there is a problem, and they know the other party isn't going to give them much if anything - so they need to make the party sacrifices even out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
12. I thought "shared sacrifice" meant the rich have to sacrifice too
not just the rest of us.

Currently we are sacrificing, the rich are being coddled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC