News America's aversion to socialism ?

[apeiron]

There is also a theory that because socialism redistributes money from the few to the many, it will inevitably and continuously expand in a democratic society, even if the policies are actually self-destructive in the long term. My fear is that this problem could cause western society to self-destruct and that the current problems in Europe are a harbinger of that.

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see the evidence.

Meanwhile, it does not seem to be an issue in the US as yet.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-household-income

 

[Gokul43201]

Is a right to have a yacht different (in the principle that it necessarily involves a diminishing of someone else's freedoms) from say a right to a living wage, or a right to a retirement fund, or a right to an education?

 

[redsunrise]

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see the evidence.

Meanwhile, it does not seem to be an issue in the US as yet.

http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm"

The solvency trick that Social Security Administration or their equivalents in many countries use is to use half of historical growth in entitlements, and double the historical growth of revenues as base for projection.

This is obviously rubbish, but few people read the small print.

 

[Evo]

Let's keep this to what is happening in the US, the American perspective.

 

[Evo]

redsunrise, read "your notifications".

 

[redsunrise]

The above seems to be a little misleading. This is from the SSA's webpage http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

"Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on January 21, 2005, "There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down."

 

[mheslep]

Is a right to have a yacht different (in the principle that it necessarily involves a diminishing of someone else's freedoms) from say a right to a living wage, or a right to a retirement fund, or a right to an education?

None of those are rights per the American Declaration of Independence; the opportunity to freely pursue all of them is.

 

[turbo]

Source: prof. Allen Smith. I hope our resident moderator will treat it as source, no?

Very inflammatory right-wing site that claims that the SS trust fund has been stolen.

I suggest that you read this.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.
In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

 

[mheslep]

...

Meanwhile, it does not seem to be an issue in the US as yet.

[...]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-household-income

First, non-adjusted household income is a little misleading when tracked over time, as household size has changed significantly over the decades with the increase in single parent families. Second, income brackets over time track a statistical group, not individuals which can and do move from group to group. This means that a country like the US with significant influx of low income immigrants could well show a constant '10th percentile' group over time in comparison to a country like Japan with little or no immigration.

 

[DoggerDan]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

Because when a pot is created into which both government and special interest groups can stick their fingers, they do. The result is these groups clamoring for more and more funds, justifiably, "of course," with the taxpayers, both individual and corporate, picking up the bill. It's called "funding creep," and it's not a theory. Rather, it plagues just about every agency known to man, whether it's the IT or accounting departments of a business, a program at a church, states looking for government funds, governmental agencies, or people in general who want to "get their fair share."

It's easy to identify and prosecute the thieves when they have to break down your doors to get at your hard-earned goods. It's much more difficult, and expensive, when they connivingly gain access to your wealth with the blessing of government programs.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

I doubt it's their track records. I think it's the (false) idea that "if we just had socialized healthcare and a retirement system everything would be ok!" It's the old "grass is greener" syndrome. Those who've learned to make the most of things as they exist aren't clamoring for a new system.

 

[apeiron]

First, non-adjusted household income is a little misleading when tracked over time, as household size has changed significantly over the decades with the increase in single parent families. Second, income brackets over time track a statistical group, not individuals which can and do move from group to group. This means that a country like the US with significant influx of low income immigrants could well show a constant '10th percentile' group over time in comparison to a country like Japan with little or no immigration.

Sure, all sorts of things could be the case. And between us, I'm sure we could conjure up 100s of variables that go either way. But the gross figures don't give much evidence that the US has a "problem" with a socialist redistribution of wealth.

So Russ's "theory" about socialism in democratic countries seems a little unsupported. If its effects are so inevitable and continuous, where is the evidence? In which democracies is socialism successfully gnawing away at wealth or income (or even health and education) inequality?

Apparently this is the story in Europe. On the evidence, which countries are the ones being ravaged by redistributive socialism?

 

[Gokul43201]

None of those are rights per the American Declaration of Independence; the opportunity to freely pursue all of them is.

Exactly. In much the same way that there is no "right" to have a yacht, IMO.

 

[MarcoD]

Welfare state is too expensive to live just on taxes off the rich. Profits in capitalism typically are several percent of GDP. Welfare state is easily like 40%-50% of GDP. If you outright confiscated all the property of the rich, not just taxed them, you could pay for a welfare state for a few weeks in a fiscal year, a few months at best in many countries.

Uh? It isn't that 40%-50% of that GDP is wasted, it is rerouted. In a poor country, you redistribute some of the poverty, in a wealthy country, you redistribute some of the wealth. It seems to work for most of Northern Europe. I believe a billionaire spending a million just generates less economic activity than ten thousand people spending a hundred. You just shouldn't tax the whole system to pieces, of course.

 

[WhoWee]

The above seems to be a little misleading. This is from the SSA's webpage http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

It's not misleading - the funds for someone scheduled to receive benefits in 2020 will receive benefits at that time - the funds are not available now. However, they must continue to address the future solvency issues. (from the same source as your quote)

"Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity."

 

[mheslep]

Exactly. In much the same way that there is no "right" to have a yacht, IMO.

I agree, but I'm guessing we have a different interpretation a right, or its absence. No right by the individual to a yacht means to me one can not demand a yacht be provided by others. Nor does that absence by itself grant others the right to take the yacht away, or even take away the means to get one - without 'due process'.

 

[Gokul43201]

I agree, but I'm guessing we have a different interpretation a right. No right by the individual to a yacht means to me one can not demand a yacht be provided by others. Nor does that absence by itself grant others the right to take the yacht away, or even take away the means to get one.

Same interpretation here.

My post was meant to be in response to the statement: "Saying that leftists demand a right to a yacht is a strawman and disingenuous - I know of no one that has publicly advocated for such nonsense. (by daveb)

I was hoping to point out that while no leftist may have demanded the right to have a yacht, many (IMO) have been demanding a right to education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. And I consider these things similar in principle to the right to a yacht.

 

[Evo]

I was hoping to point out that while no leftist may have demanded the right to have a yacht, many (IMO) have been demanding a right to education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. And I consider these things similar in principle to the right to a yacht.

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

Or am I missing something and you're against that train of thought?

 

[WhoWee]

Same interpretation here.

My post was meant to be in response to the statement: "Saying that leftists demand a right to a yacht is a strawman and disingenuous - I know of no one that has publicly advocated for such nonsense. (by daveb)

I was hoping to point out that while no leftist may have demanded the right to have a yacht, many (IMO) have been demanding a right to education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. And I consider these things similar in principle to the right to a yacht.

I think your comparison is very good. A yacht seems like a ridiculous wish considering it's an expensive luxury item. However, when you consider the aggregate cost of education, healthcare, and subsidies over a lifetime - the costs might be comparable. The main difference is the "timing of the money" - to use a marketing term.

 

[WhoWee]

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

I don't think anyone is suggesting student loan programs be eliminated. IMO - anyone that receives assistance with their education should be required repay their share - and provide the same opportunity to the next generation.

 

[turbo]

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

Most Americans are in similar situations. If there is no basic social safety net, what is there? Around here, most towns have a "town farm" road. Indigent people were given very basic housing and board in return for working on the town farm. It was a place where poor people went to try to survive or die when there was no social network that would keep them from starving or freezing otherwise. I don't want to return to those days.

 

[Evo]

I don't think anyone is suggesting student loan programs be eliminated. IMO - anyone that receives assistance with their education should be required repay their share - and provide the same opportunity to the next generation.

He didn't say student loans, he said a right to education, other people in this thread are opposed to a free k-12 public education, so we need some clarification.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is a right to have a yacht different (in the principle that it necessarily involves a diminishing of someone else's freedoms) from say a right to a living wage, or a right to a retirement fund, or a right to an education?

By a right to a retirement fund, do you mean SS? I've been paying for that right.

As for a living wage, an education, or even the right to a minimum of health care, these are in the public interest - the general welfare and the national interest. An educated workforce is a more productive and competitive workforce. As for a living wage, it becomes a matter of minimum standards. In the interest of the general welfare we define a minimum standard. This does not include luxuries like yachts. The two ideas are not similar.

The same is true for health care. We already accept that we don't leave the dead or seriously injured lying in the streets. And while it did happen for a time in the early 1980s, we don't allow hospitals to turn away the critically ill and injured. We define a minimum standard that serves the general welfare of the people. This is perfectly consistent with the law and the intent of the Constitution.

It is up to the people to determine the acceptable minimum standards.

 

[WhoWee]

Most Americans are in similar situations. If there is no basic social safety net, what is there? Around here, most towns have a "town farm" road. Indigent people were given very basic housing and board in return for working on the town farm. It was a place where poor people went to try to survive or die when there was no social network that would keep them from starving or freezing otherwise. I don't want to return to those days.

What do you think the people that did survive those conditions and managed to feed themselves and their families would think about today's welfare system? Better yet, do you think anyone living on the "town farm" would have considered living there forever - or was it a matter of pride to work themselves free and back into the general economy?

 

[WhoWee]

He didn't say student loans, he said a right to education, other people in this thread are opposed to a free k-12 public education, so we need some clarification.

Fair enough. To clarify my position - anyone that wastes their time and our tax funds in the K-12 system should pay their own way the first year of college or until they've completed remedial classes (in college).

 

[Evo]

Fair enough. To clarify my position - anyone that wastes their time and our tax funds in the K-12 system should pay their own way the first year of college or until they've completed remedial classes (in college).

Care to explain what I bolded?

What do you think the people that did survive those conditions and managed to feed themselves and their families would think about today's welfare system?

I'd think that they would think it is a wonderful idea, so that their loved ones will not have to suffer their fate.

 

[TheCool]

What do you think the people that did survive those conditions and managed to feed themselves and their families would think about today's welfare system? Better yet, do you think anyone living on the "town farm" would have considered living there forever - or was it a matter of pride to work themselves free and back into the general economy?

It's not merely a matter or pride. If people have opportunities to work themselves back into the general economy, they will do so.

 

[WhoWee]

Care to explain what I bolded?

Yes, I'm referring to delinquents and under-achievers. Some students graduate from high school with only the minimum requirements met. Accordingly, they are not adequately prepared for college. This requires the student to take a series of preparation classes - in college - that don't count towards college credit. I'll try to find some info on drop out rates for first year students that needed to take non-credit classes.

 

[WhoWee]

It's not merely a matter or pride. If people have opportunities to work themselves back into the general economy, they will do so.

If that were correct, shouldn't the number of people (under 65) on welfare and receiving Government subsidies be decreasing?

 

[TheCool]

So far no one has mentioned what would seem to be an obvious impediment to a genuine welfare state in the U.S., identity politics.

It is often said that what makes the socialism/capitalism hybrid so successful in Scandinavia is the relative homogeneity of that part of the world. In other words, Scandinavians, by and large, have no major concerns over immigrants or "minorities" taking money away from hard working people. That America, with all it's diversity and set asides for certain groups, turns poor and working class whites away from anything remotely leftist. Is this lack of a national identity and common purpose the real reason that Americans hate hand outs?

 

[WhoWee]

I'd think that they would think it is a wonderful idea, so that their loved ones will not have to suffer their fate.

I'm not certain of that Evo. Today's food stamp programs, subsidized housing and utilities, (in my area - welfare) cars and cell phones, Medicaid, EITC and other tax redistributions might just provide a standard of living higher than the middle class experienced during the Depression.

We'll have to label this IMO, but I've spoken with a great number of persons that survived the Depression and regardless of how difficult - as a matter of pride - they would NEVER accept public assistance unless there was no other choice. I can't imagine they would approve of food stamps paying for $8.00/pound steak or processed foods.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this lack of a national identity and common purpose the real reason that Americans hate hand outs?

IMO - past generations of immigrants have strived to assimilate into an American national identity - it's the new groups of immigrants that have resisted. If I'm wrong, why don't we expect everyone to learn English?

 

[Evo]

We'll have to label this IMO, but I've spoken with a great number of persons that survived the Depression and regardless of how difficult - as a matter of pride - they would NEVER accept public assistance unless there was no other choice. I can't imagine they would approve of food stamps paying for $8.00/pound steak or processed foods.

And my dad was the youngest of 10 children during the great depression, his dad disappeared and their uneducated mother did whatever she could to make money, the oldest kids tried to do work at whatever menial job they could get. His mother lived on Social Security survivor benefits, (his dad eventually turned up dead, I gather, no one would talk about him) then disability, and thankfully medicare helped pays the medical bills, she had rheumatoid arthritis that left her a quadraplegic.

 

[WhoWee]

And my dad was the youngest of 10 children during the great depression, his dad disappeared and their uneducated mother did whatever she could to make money, the oldest kids tried to do work at whatever menial job they could get. His mother lived on Social Security survivor benefits, then disability, and thankfully medicare helped pays the medical bills, she had rheumatoid arthritis that left her a quadraplegic.

Do you think they would approve of waste in the system? IMO - every able bodied person that (chooses not to work and) collects benefits is stealing from someone who needs help.

 

[Evo]

Do you think they would approve of waste in the system? IMO - every able bodied person that collects benefits is stealing from someone who needs help.

So it's only fraud that you are opposed to, not providing social security to valid recipients?

 

[klimatos]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

I think that there are probably two basic reasons.

Firstly, for the last seventy-odd years the term "socialist" has been identified with the bad guys. We associated the term with the Nazis (National Socialism) and with the Commies (Soviet Socialism).

Secondly, most media outlets are owned by people who fear and detest socialism. This attitude rubs off on editors and reporters.

As a passing thought, I have noted that although many of the world's most advanced and prosperous countries have various policies that an objective observer would have to consider to be socialist (government ownership and operation of the avenues of transportation and/or communication, government funding of higher education, government healthcare, etc.) or leaning that way, the US media rarely identifies them as such except as a term of condemnation.

 

[WhoWee]

So it's only fraud that you are opposed to, not providing social security to valid recipients?

I can't imagine not helping people that can't help themselves.

I've disclosed in other threads my professional involvement in the insurance industry. IMO - the level of fraud and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SSDI programs is excessive.

 

[Evo]

I can't imagine not helping people that can't help themselves.

I've disclosed in other threads my professional involvement in the insurance industry. IMO - the level of fraud and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SSDI programs is excessive.

I agree, attack the fraud, not the people that need it. But what I see, (not necessarily from you) is that people don't want money to go to people that truly need it at all. As if by some miracle these people had the opportunity to become independantly wealthy before they became disabled or reached retirement. Most people don't get enough to live on from social security by the time they retire, it's paid out according to what you put in. Maybe they're not the brightest bulb and couldn't get a cushy high paying desk job, instead they worked their butts off in low paying menial jobs all of their life. Medicare is not free, you have to pay premiums that appear to be close to what I pay and very little is covered. People on medicare can have huge out of pocket expenses, they have limited options of doctors and hospitals and often very long waits to be seen.

http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/

http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/medicare-basics/coverage-choices.aspx

 

[Gokul43201]

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

Or am I missing something and you're against that train of thought?

I never stated an opinion on what I think is right or wrong. The only point I was trying to make is that there is a similarity in the principle involved, though there may be a significant difference in degree.

As for a living wage, an education, or even the right to a minimum of health care, these are in the public interest - the general welfare and the national interest. An educated workforce is a more productive and competitive workforce. As for a living wage, it becomes a matter of minimum standards. In the interest of the general welfare we define a minimum standard. This does not include luxuries like yachts. The two ideas are not similar.

I agree that they are dissimilar in that one set can easily be seen to be in the general public interest (education, healthcare, etc.) while the other (yachts) not so much, though something being in the public interest does not make it a right. But despite that, it's completely missing the point which was being made in the reference to yachts - namely that there is no such thing as a positive freedom. Whether or not I agree with that argument (I don't know yet), what I was hoping to express was that this is not a strawman argument, and the idea of positive freedoms (right to healthcare, etc.) has been raised by public officials in contexts other than yacht ownership but with the same basic underlying principle.

 

[mheslep]

Most Americans are in similar situations. ...

If it were truly the case that most Americans can not afford to support themselves when they are ill or older, then it is also the case that the American government can not support them by shaking down the millionaires and billionaires either. Fortunately, the former is not the case, for the moment.

 

[mheslep]

On education: a free education does require a socialist education system. A socialist education system, which the US does have and should not to my mind, means the government plans and owns (or controls) the education system. Simply financing education, as the government (state, local, federal) and private charities commonly do through, e.g., Pell grants, public scholarships, and vouchers are not socialism. Ironically, two European countries (at least), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher#Sweden" have gone quite far in that direction.

In the Netherlands, the "school struggle" (schoolstrijd) concluded in 1917 with public and private schools being given equal financial status under the constitution,[4] leading to a de facto system of school vouchers.[62] For more than 80 years, parents have preferred independent schools. Today, around 70% of primary and secondary pupils attend independent schools

 

[maine75man]

I can't imagine they would approve of food stamps paying for $8.00/pound steak or processed foods.

First in the interest of full disclosure I am currently unemployed as is my wife. We are both attending college full time and are receiving unemployment as part of retraining programs. She, I, and our 18 month old son (she was laid off the day he was born) are receiving Medicare (this is a step up for me my last job didn't offer insurance). We get subsidised day-care, WIC, heating assistance and food stamps as well.

Last week we purchased around $200 worth of groceries including 2 beautiful semi-boneless rib-eyes at 7.99 a lb (sale price normally 9.99 I think) plus a ton of processed food.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Why, well first of all the total amount that went on the EBT card (food stamps) was $48 (about a third of that was the steaks). My wife spends hours every week researching sales and clipping coupons to get that much savings. She is diabetic so even though the coupons are usually just for name brand processed food she focuses on the healthiest stuff available for us.

That amount doesn't include the bag of fresh produce picked up every week from a local farm we have a seasonal share in. That is paid for monthly half from our EBT account and half from a USDA or Extension Office grant.

Before my wife started couponing we didn't buy good steak and our benefits usually only got us half-way through the month. Now the end of the month is when we splurge and get the stuff that's not on sale. We also just cleaned out our cupboards to donate to the food pantry. Since our benefits didn't cover all our groceries, even when we did splurge it just meant more cash out of our pockets at the end of the month.

Furthermore think about this, most people spend a lot more money at the grocery store then they absolutely need to. So when recession hits one of the first places people cut back is on luxury foods and treats. This makes these products a risky investments for food producers, packagers and retailers. Food stamps are guaranteed grocery sales every month. As such they can take a lot of the volatility out of the food industry. This predictable source of cash flow means that companies can invest in riskier products, build capacity, and keep their prices down in general in both good times and bad. Why do you think food stamps are a USDA program?

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but I don't condone purchasing luxury items if you have food stamps. I don't even splurge on such items and I'm not on food stamps.

I buy bulk dry beans, cheap bags of no name rice, I buy hamburger when it's on sale for under $2.00/lb, chicken when it's at 49cents per pound, can't afford fish or seafood, except the 50 cent canned tuna, I buy the generic brands of most foods. I eat a lot of cheep casseroles with rice or pasta, and 10 cent ramen noodle soup. I spend about $25-$30 a week on my food and I eat fairly well. Nothing fancy but healthy. A 99 cent pack of hotdogs made into a casserole with rice will last a week.

 

[turbo]

Sorry, but I don't condone purchasing luxury items if you have food stamps. I don't even splurge on such items and I'm not on food stamps.

I buy bulk dry beans, cheap bags of no name rice, I buy hamburger when it's on sale for under $2.00/lb, chicken when it's at 49cents per pound, can't afford fish or seafood, except the 50 cent canned tuna, I buy the generic brands of most foods. I eat a lot of cheep casseroles with rice or pasta, and 10 cent ramen noodle soup. I spend about $25-$30 a week on my food and I eat fairly well. Nothing fancy but healthy. A 99 cent pack of hotdogs made into a casserole with rice will last a week.

My wife and I budget similarly. We can afford to spend whatever we want (within reason), but since we were married, we have tried to do the best we can with reasonably-priced local foods.

30+ years ago, we were making entire meals out of chicken livers (+a side dish) or chicken gizzards (+a side dish) or really cheap beef roasts and the cheapest vegetables around (potatoes, carrots, onions, cabbage, turnip).

We tend to spend a bit more on the high-end items now, but my wife still bargain-shops on even the cheapest items, and gets better deals on dried beans, peas, rice, flour, etc at a little health-food store than she can get at the nearby supermarket.

 

[ThomasT]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

Maybe this isn't the predominant attitude among Americans. After all the US has had massive social welfare programs for a long time.

My two cents is that social welfare programs such as housing, food and monetary aid actually help the general economy. A good portion of that aid is eventually transferred to housing, food, clothing, transportation and other businesses, which helps the situations of the owners and therefore the workers in those businesses.

It seems reasonable to me to assume that a drastic reduction in social welfare programs would cause a significant increase in the number of unemployed people.

The US already has (in reality), I'm guessing, more than 20% of its potential workforce unemployed.

I have to conclude (tentatively) that there simply aren't enough jobs in the US for people who are willing and able to work. I'm also guessing that this a permanent situation which will continue to worsen.

Thus, IMO, the US is going to, necessarily, continue to have a massive welfare nut. I wouldn't call that socialism (which refers to an economic system which maximizes government ownership of a society's enterprises) though. The US is still, and will remain, essentially capitalist. A mix of two approaches (one based on the ideal of liberty, the other on the ideal of equality) is just something that's inevitable wrt any large complex modern society such as that of the US.

So far no one has mentioned what would seem to be an obvious impediment to a genuine welfare state in the U.S., identity politics.

It is often said that what makes the socialism/capitalism hybrid so successful in Scandinavia is the relative homogeneity of that part of the world. In other words, Scandinavians, by and large, have no major concerns over immigrants or "minorities" taking money away from hard working people. That America, with all it's diversity and set asides for certain groups, turns poor and working class whites away from anything remotely leftist. Is this lack of a national identity and common purpose the real reason that Americans hate hand outs?

You might be on to something here. The national identity has traditionally been in line with European, and primarily English speaking, culture(s). And the US has also traditionally been a pretty racist society.

 

[maine75man]

I spend about $25-$30 a week on my food and I eat fairly well.

Do you feed two adults and a child on that amount because that's more then what we usually spend per person or rather more then what we get and use in food stamps per person and we are really trying to avoid out of poket right now. We eat beans rice and pasta to although my wife has to be careful with the carbs. She won't let me eat ramen or box mac more then a few times a month either. We don't get expensive steak every week but we plan and budget out benefits so that when something goes on sale we can get it without sacrificing somewhere else. Most weeks their is at least one item that we buy that between coupons sales and loyalty cards we are paid to leave the store with. This week I think it's greek yogurt. That would explain the gallon of the stuff in my fridge.

 

[ThomasT]

Sorry, but I don't condone purchasing luxury items if you have food stamps.

They spent $48 dollars on $200 dollars worth of food. That sort of conscientious couponing more than justifies getting a few steaks, imo.

 

[mege]

You might be on to something here. The national identity has traditionally been in line with European, and primarily English speaking, culture(s). And the US has also traditionally been a pretty racist society.

I think more conservatives would be OK with many of the (efficiently ran) social assistance programs if they weren't framed in a wealth redistribution, class-war or other types of 'reverse discrimination'. As it stands the default answer from the Democrats for how to fund these programs is 'Tax the rich'. Not tax everyone, but specifically tax the rich.*

Egalitarian measures are too often put in this 'fight the power' way that indicates an entitlement and puts me off to no end. An egalitarian measure should be blind to race and legitimately be there as a safety net for someone in need - not a way of life or the bearer of some alterior motive such as racial preference.

Are there any countries where there is racial diversity and near-perfect equality? What's the current social status of Muslims in France and Scandinavia?


* The tax system favors those with less income by a wide margin. Per the IRS in 2008: "the top 1 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 23.3 percent; the top 10 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 18.7 percent; and the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers had an average tax rate of 2.6 percent" http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnap.pdf - most get their 'payroll taxes' back as an asset at some point, so that argument becomes mute. How does President Obama's 'the rich need to pay their fair share' and his capping deductions for the highest earners scheme really fit into these numbers?

 

[redsunrise]

Very inflammatory right-wing site that claims that the SS trust fund has been stolen.

I suggest that you read this.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

A "right-wing" site? Man, have you even read the article? With comprehension? Prof. Smith is a Democrat. He lays the blame for spending via govt on Reagan (left-wing??), Greenspan (left-wing??) and both Bushes (left-wing??).

He is right in that, absolutely truthful. Reagan and Greenspan and Bushes have spent the s.s. surplus as part of general govt expenditures. True.

What prof. Smith omits to say is that the first president to use s.s. surplus for spending was LBJ. And that Clinton happily has done that, too. He even admits that Obama now is continuing doing that. All politicians, left or right, have done that.

Prof. Smith wants to save social security by making it buy regular treasury bonds, to make them "as good as gold", those that are sold to Chinese for example. Well, I ask then, what's the actual difference? Compare the following scenarios:

1. Govt gets $100 in payroll tax money, issues a special T-bond located in trust fund, spends $100 as general revenue, future taxpayer pays $100 back with interest.

2. Govt gets $100 in payroll tax money, issues a regular, saleable and redeemable T-bond, puts it in s.s. trust fund, spends $100 as general revenue, future taxpayer pays $100 back with interest.

Honestly, what's the difference, short of debt ceiling that ALL presidents, left and right, have been raising up systematically?

 

[redsunrise]

So far no one has mentioned what would seem to be an obvious impediment to a genuine welfare state in the U.S., identity politics.

It is often said that what makes the socialism/capitalism hybrid so successful in Scandinavia is the relative homogeneity of that part of the world. In other words, Scandinavians, by and large, have no major concerns over immigrants or "minorities" taking money away from hard working people. That America, with all it's diversity and set asides for certain groups, turns poor and working class whites away from anything remotely leftist. Is this lack of a national identity and common purpose the real reason that Americans hate hand outs?

For the life of me I cannot find this paper, where Bradford Delong (a Democrat and staunch "big caring government" supporter) has analyzed political data and came to conclusion that there is no welfare state in USA because ethnic groups simply do not trust each other and do not want each other to benefit from govt spending.

This sentiment has been echoed by Milton Friedman: "You can have either welfare state, or immigrants, but not both".

 

[redsunrise]

So it's only fraud that you are opposed to, not providing social security to valid recipients?

Let's disentangle two things here:

1. Assistance to truly poor and sick. Things like disability benefit.

2. Massive, pay as you go, retirement system that pays retirement to current workers from significant payroll tax put on all labor.

I've read arguments that 1 was not supposed to transmogrify into 2. But it did.

Re sustainability:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_soc_sec_exp_as_of_gdp-economy-social-security-expenditure-gdp"

If this data is any good (they cite "SOURCE: GECD Historical Statistics (CD ROM)"), Sweden has spent 20% of GDP on social security benefits alone. In 1990s.

Now suppose that population ages further and further.

If you think that payroll taxes are not going to be raised, think again: In Italy, equivalent of FICA is 33% of take home pay now. In Poland, it's 35%.