Is America a Welfare State?

[loveisdead]

Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn’t taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement.
Link (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508)

[loveisdead]

I think this should bring up some good point/decent debate. On one hand you have the one of the largest transfers of wealth to the rich the country has ever seen (and a lot of it through taxpayer bailouts). On the other, the government has added or increased a number of safety nets for those who were hit really hard by the recession.

[Love As Arson]

We're a state-capitalist society.Carter, Clinton and Reagan completely devastated the social-welfare system, which was still far behind Europe's, and Obama has continued the trend in cutting safety nets, such as heating assistance. So, no, I do not think we are a welfare state, if you are characterizing it as a society in which the state has greater means to provide for the people.

[caveBEAR]

But...but...people have seen other people...buying things...with money...when they also have food stamps...
:shudder:

[loveisdead]

We're a state-capitalist society.Carter, Clinton and Reagan completely devastated the social-welfare system, which was still far behind Europe's, and Obama has continued the trend in cutting safety nets, such as heating assistance. So, no, I do not think we are a welfare state, if you are characterizing it as a society in which the state has greater means to provide for the people.

Haha, and Dom, I certainly didn't think you would.

[Junction183]

We're a state-capitalist society.Carter, Clinton and Reagan completely devastated the social-welfare system, which was still far behind Europe's, and Obama has continued the trend in cutting safety nets, such as heating assistance. So, no, I do not think we are a welfare state, if you are characterizing it as a society in which the state has greater means to provide for the people.
oh brother

[loveisdead]

Wish the 5 people who voted for "heading that direction" would post why. I find that pretty interesting.

[caveBEAR]

oh brother

Profound. Have anything to say other than that?

[saysmydoctor]

I voted yes.

Just because the US may be attempting to reign in the welfare state doesn't mean it isn't still in place. An inefficient, wasteful one, but a welfare state nonetheless.

[captivewear]

we can start saving some money and time, if we started taxing the top 5% as they should be instead of giving them free money they don't need or deserve.

[loveisdead]

That's weird. One of Sean's posts from 2006 popped up in this thread...

[loveisdead]

Hardly anyone is going to get that reference. Oh well. Sean probably doesn't even get it.

[saysmydoctor]

zing.

The term "welfare state" has basically become a pejorative. I'm not arguing against the welfare state one way or another, just saying it's undeniable that the US is one.

How efficient is it? That's a whole other debate.

[Republicanman]

This is largely subjective on how you define "welfare state". If you believe in wealth redistribution, you're going to want more. If you're against a welfare state in any form, you're going to want less.

Love As Arson defines a welfare state as "a society in which the state has greater means to provide for the people." Greater than what? Clearly we're a welfare state compared to 19th century America, and clearly we don't have a European system either.

I don't think there's any question that our government consists of a significant welfare state (not to mention a massive corporate welfare state to boot). It is not the same welfare state of the 20th century, but with welfare expenditures at nearly 20% of GDP, how can one argue we don't have a welfare state?

[open mind]

i voted no, but if we are it's because of all the money and resources we give to the rich more then it is what we give to the poor.

[Junction183]

we can start saving some money and time, if we started taxing the top 5% as they should be instead of giving them free money they don't need or deserve.
I hear that a lot, but even then we're putting off inevitable growth of interest rates we pay on our debt surpassing our GDP. This is the time in history that we must make major reforms to the tax code and entitlements to ensure that our generation can enjoy retirement and be assured that safety nets exist for those in need. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

[saysmydoctor]

I hear that a lot, but even then we're putting off inevitable growth of interest rates we pay on our debt surpassing our GDP. This is the time in history that we must make major reforms to the tax code and entitlements to ensure that our generation can enjoy retirement and be assured that safety nets exist for those in need. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
So you're proposing something that will only exacerbate the country's fiscal problems?

[loveisdead]

I hear that a lot, but even then we're putting off inevitable growth of interest rates we pay on our debt surpassing our GDP. This is the time in history that we must make major reforms to the tax code and entitlements to ensure that our generation can enjoy retirement and be assured that safety nets exist for those in need. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

I know what a fair tax is. And it is regressive.

[Junction183]

I know what a fair tax is. And it is regressive.
explain?

[Love As Arson]

Love As Arson defines a welfare state as "a society in which the state has greater means to provide for the people." Greater than what? Clearly we're a welfare state compared to 19th century America, and clearly we don't have a European system either.
As in, the government has a freer hand and more resources to provide for people. And it is interesting you reference the nineteenth century, because without any social welfare or regulation, those are the conditions we'd likely revert to.


I don't think there's any question that our government consists of a significant welfare state (not to mention a massive corporate welfare state to boot). It is not the same welfare state of the 20th century, but with welfare expenditures at nearly 20% of GDP, how can one argue we don't have a welfare state?
Because the benefits of national assistance have been so hollowed out as to not even make a dent in the overwhelming tide of poverty. Furthermore, the percent of GDP you've thrown out includes public education, which isn't innately characteristic of welfare states.

[open mind]

explain?

lowers taxes on the rich while raising them for the poor.

[loveisdead]

explain?

Because it's essentially a sales tax. And a sales tax is always regressive.

[Junction183]

lowers taxes on the rich while raising them for the poor.
I disagree, a fair tax taxes you on what you spend not what you earn. In theory rich spend more than the poor. It also curbs lobbyists influence in Washington.

[loveisdead]

I disagree, a fair tax taxes you on what you spend not what you earn. In theory rich spend more than the poor. It also curbs lobbyists influence in Washington.

Right. Say I make a million dollars a year and you make 20k. Both of our sonofabitch kids want a bag of skittles. We cave to shut the bastard up. I'm being taxed at a higher rate for it than you.

[loveisdead]

I disagree, a fair tax taxes you on what you spend not what you earn. In theory rich spend more than the poor. It also curbs lobbyists influence in Washington.

Also, the rich haven't been spending shit. They're literally sitting on record amounts of cash.

[jawstheme]

No.

[Junction183]

And it is interesting you reference the nineteenth century, because without any social welfare or regulation, those are the conditions we'd likely revert to.
In do agree with you that there are people that need to receive welfare for whatever reason do not qualify. I also believe there are people that do receive welfare that abuse it; for example I've been offered $200 of food stamps for $100 cash, which i put little fault on the recipient, rather the faults of the EBT welfare system overall. As Americans we do believe that it is the governments job to provide for the general welfare of the public, interpreted many ways. In the nineteenth century welfare was mainly provided by the churches. I am not naive to think that the churches would be able to lift people out of poverty but I do believe that a greater sense of Faith, whatever your faith may be, brings community together and instills in people the desire to provide for the less fortunate. In the 19th century most Americans reveled in the fact that they lived in a country where their constitution protected them against government infringement in their lives.

[Republicanman]

As in, the government has a freer hand and more resources to provide for people. And it is interesting you reference the nineteenth century, because without any social welfare or regulation, those are the conditions we'd likely revert to.

That straw man argument has been dismantled thoroughly. The "Gilded Age" involved massive government collusion with big business, national banks that were a prelude to the Federal Reserve, and anti-trust laws that merely made it harder for entrepreneurs to enter in to certain sectors of the market.

Because the benefits of national assistance have been so hollowed out as to not even make a dent in the overwhelming tide of poverty. Furthermore, the percent of GDP you've thrown out includes public education, which isn't innately characteristic of welfare states.

If we're relating 19th century poverty to today, there's really no comparison, and it's not thanks to the state. An increase in capital has led to the technological advances that has allowed mass production and unbelievable decreases in the cost of goods such as computers, cell phones, and televisions.

I include public education because, since we're apparently inventing our own definition of the welfare state, it is still funded through wealth redistribution. Add the useless funding of the Department of Education (which has never educated a single student) and it's safe for me to state that funding someone's education using another's money is what welfare is.

[caveBEAR]

In do agree with you that there are people that need to receive welfare for whatever reason do not qualify. I also believe there are people that do receive welfare that abuse it; for example I've been offered $200 of food stamps for $100 cash, which i put little fault on the recipient, rather the faults of the EBT welfare system overall. As Americans we do believe that it is the governments job to provide for the general welfare of the public, interpreted many ways. In the nineteenth century welfare was mainly provided by the churches. I am not naive to think that the churches would be able to lift people out of poverty but I do believe that a greater sense of Faith, whatever your faith may be, brings community together and instills in people the desire to provide for the less fortunate. In the 19th century most Americans reveled in the fact that they lived in a country where their constitution protected them against government infringement in their lives.

Wait, what? Why are you blaming the EBT system because someone tried to game it?

[open mind]

If we're relating 19th century poverty to today, there's really no comparison, and it's not thanks to the state. An increase in capital has led to the technological advances that has allowed mass production and unbelievable decreases in the cost of goods such as computers, cell phones, and televisions.

last i checked the government had a big hand in the development of most of the technologies you just mentioned.

[open mind]

Right. Say I make a million dollars a year and you make 20k. Both of our sonofabitch kids want a bag of skittles. We cave to shut the bastard up. I'm being taxed at a lower rate for it than you.

and i have to spend all my money just to survive meaning every dollar i have is taxed while the rich can just sit on most of their cash.

[loveisdead]

and i have to spend all my money just to survive meaning every dollar i have is taxed while the rich can just sit on most of their cash.

Very good point.

[anamericangod]

No.

[plyb]

I disagree, a fair tax taxes you on what you spend not what you earn. In theory rich spend more than the poor. It also curbs lobbyists influence in Washington.
Sounds like all this will do is discourage spending and lead to excess saving, which is usually negative for an economy

[ramomcferno]

I said that we are heading in that direction. I feel that oversight and more private sector jobs could help the situation out but i know this is so much easier said than done.

[loveisdead]

I said that we are heading in that direction. I feel that oversight and more private sector jobs could help the situation out but i know this is so much easier said than done.

Help me understand a bit more. February saw the largest private sector job growth we've seen in 2 years. So why are we headed in that direction?

If what I said is wrong, correct me. I'm out and on my phone so I'm posting off what I think I read a few days ago.

Edit: I think I am wrong. But there were just under 200k private sector jobs added. So the concept still applies.

[deFobbed14yrs]

we are a mixed economy.......

you need welfare assistance things so the poor don't revolt but we are capitalistic to our core.

[ramomcferno]

Help me understand a bit more. February saw the largest private sector job growth we've seen in 2 years. So why are we headed in that direction?

If what I said is wrong, correct me. I'm out and on my phone so I'm posting off what I think I read a few days ago.

Edit: I think I am wrong. But there were just under 200k private sector jobs added. So the concept still applies.

Fair enough. That was just my suggestion for curbing the issue and preventing us from becoming a full blown welfare state. I am just basing my opinion on the fact that able bodied people are collecting welfare benefits that could be contribute to the economy in the form of taxes.

I am new to the Politics forum and I want to get involved in the discussion in here. On occasion I will read a post or two from here and i just decided to give posting here a shot. I am not the most well versed knowledgeable person in terms of politics but I am pretty open and interested.

[loveisdead]

Fair enough. That was just my suggestion for curbing the issue and preventing us from becoming a full blown welfare state. I am just basing my opinion on the fact that able bodied people are collecting welfare benefits that could be contribute to the economy in the form of taxes.

I am new to the Politics forum and I want to get involved in the discussion in here. On occasion I will read a post or two from here and i just decided to give posting here a shot. I am not the most well versed knowledgeable person in terms of politics but I am pretty open and interested.

Feel free to keep posting man. It's a very well educated sect, and the discussion can be really great.

[ramomcferno]

Feel free to keep posting man. It's a very well educated sect, and the discussion can be really great.

Thanks! That's exactly what I was hoping to hear.

[loveisdead]

Thanks! That's exactly what I was hoping to hear.

Cool. Just try and understand you're a conservative in a very left leaning forum. Things can get rough for you haha.

[ramomcferno]

Cool. Just try and understand you're a conservative in a very left leaning forum. Things can get rough for you haha.

HAHAHAHA wow. I am actually a registered Democrat...Maybe I should rethink that?

[captivewear]

I disagree, a fair tax taxes you on what you spend not what you earn. In theory rich spend more than the poor. It also curbs lobbyists influence in Washington.
in theory yes but in reality most millionaires actually don't put much money into the economy. I really don't know why cause it doesn't make sense but you can't argue with facts. Heck I wish the rich put more money into the economy but then again that is probably how they stay rich is cause they don't spend it!

[boxingwithstars]

If anyone truly believes America is a welfare state right now, or that it ever will be completely, I don't know if you're living in the same country I am...

[mattgoods]

Right. Say I make a million dollars a year and you make 20k. Both of our sonofabitch kids want a bag of skittles. We cave to shut the bastard up. I'm being taxed at a higher rate for it than you.

Actually purchasing a good or service is not analogous to being taxed. In fact it is a transfer of wealth, which assumes that the skittles are worth more to you than the price you pay and vice versa for the seller of the skittles. If I follow your scenario correctly, with the progressive tax, you would pay more for the exact same skittles than someone making 20K.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I hear that a lot, but even then we're putting off inevitable growth of interest rates we pay on our debt surpassing our GDP. This is the time in history that we must make major reforms to the tax code and entitlements to ensure that our generation can enjoy retirement and be assured that safety nets exist for those in need. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Well first off, America's debt to GDP ratio is in the low 60s as of 2011 fiscal year and this is in the middle of a depression, let's face it even though it technically isn't a depression it should be considered one, where counter-cyclical fiscal policy is necessary. I'm really sick of the austerity crowd making these alarmist claims that just exacerbate the problem by falsely causing bond yields to increase. The real budget problems are in the states and municipal budgets.

The FairTax does nothing to achieve a balanced budget, just saying.

[Scrandon]

in theory yes but in reality most millionaires actually don't put much money into the economy. I really don't know why cause it doesn't make sense but you can't argue with facts. Heck I wish the rich put more money into the economy but then again that is probably how they stay rich is cause they don't spend it!
What are you talking about? The rich put all their money back into the economy. They spend a good chunk and invest the rest. The Dow is nearly back to pre-recession levels. It's just not "trickling down".

[Scrandon]

Well first off, America's debt to GDP ratio is in the low 60s as of 2011 fiscal year and this is in the middle of a depression, let's face it even though it technically isn't a depression it should be considered one, where counter-cyclical fiscal policy is necessary. I'm really sick of the austerity crowd making these alarmist claims that just exacerbate the problem by falsely causing bond yields to increase. The real budget problems are in the states and municipal budgets.

The FairTax does nothing to achieve a balanced budget, just saying.
96.8% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)

But you're right about it being not a fair number since it's a recession.

[open mind]

What are you talking about? The rich put all their money back into the economy. They spend a good chunk and invest the rest. The Dow is nearly back to pre-recession levels. It's just not "trickling down".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

[GuitarR0cker1]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html
Relative marginal propensity to consume right there.

[Scrandon]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/rich-americans-save-money-from-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.htmlInvestments are considered savings. The rich are putting money in the economy by buying stocks and providing capital for businesses. If you wouldn't consider that putting money in the economy, I don't know what you would.

From your article:
Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

[Junction183]

last i checked the government had a big hand in the development of most of the technologies you just mentioned.
The government offers grants provided by taxpayers to private companies to develop technology, The government itself does not own NASA, Raytheon, Boeing, College reseach institutes.

[Junction183]

Wait, what? Why are you blaming the EBT system because someone tried to game it?
Well it seems to me that the fact that someone can game it is a problem within the system itself.

[open mind]

The government offers grants provided by taxpayers to private companies to develop technology, The government itself does not own NASA, Raytheon, Boeing, College reseach institutes.

like i said a big hand in the development of the technologies mentioned........and the government does own nasa.

[open mind]

Investments are considered savings. The rich are putting money in the economy by buying stocks and providing capital for businesses. If you wouldn't consider that putting money in the economy, I don't know what you would.

From your article:
Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

valid point i suppose but i think that only long term investments are considered savings.

i think since we've got a small disagreement on what the definition of savings is i take that quote to mean something different then you do.

[caveBEAR]

Well it seems to me that the fact that someone can game it is a problem within the system itself.

So since I can steal from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart is at fault and needs to change, correct? I mean, after all, the fact that I can game Wal-Mart seems less like a problem with me and more like a problem within Wal-Mart itself.

[Junction183]

So since I can steal from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart is at fault and needs to change, correct? I mean, after all, the fact that I can game Wal-Mart seems less like a problem with me and more like a problem within Wal-Mart itself.
if the products that Wal-Mart produced came from taxpayer dollars I suppose you'd have a point.

[ramomcferno]

Investments are considered savings. The rich are putting money in the economy by buying stocks and providing capital for businesses. If you wouldn't consider that putting money in the economy, I don't know what you would.

From your article:
Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

Even with increased cuts they don't seem to be doing that. I wish they were it would help this issue out a ton.

Well it seems to me that the fact that someone can game it is a problem within the system itself.

So since I can steal from Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart is at fault and needs to change, correct? I mean, after all, the fact that I can game Wal-Mart seems less like a problem with me and more like a problem within Wal-Mart itself.

I think the problem is the fault of both EBT and government oversight of it and the people who are abusing it.

[Scrandon]

Even with increased cuts they don't seem to be doing that. I wish they were it would help this issue out a ton.
The Dow is back to the same level it was before the huge crash in Sept. 2008. Which basically means that there is the same amount of money being invested and flowing through the economy as before the recession. The problem is that the companies that have the money are not hiring, which could be explained by any of a number of different factors, such as uncertainty about the future or not enough demand.

Im trying to get away from this picture of the rich hoarding piles of cash. They're using the money, it's moving through the economy, and their benefiting greatly from it, but it's not helping the lower and middle class recover from the recession. I think it's a great illustration of the fact that supply side economics doesn't really work and that the interests of the rich are not necessarily aligned with those of the rest of the nation, especially in a global economy.

[Scrandon]

if the products that Wal-Mart produced came from taxpayer dollars I suppose you'd have a point.
No sense

[Love As Arson]

That straw man argument has been dismantled thoroughly. The "Gilded Age" involved massive government collusion with big business, national banks that were a prelude to the Federal Reserve, and anti-trust laws that merely made it harder for entrepreneurs to enter in to certain sectors of the market.
Well, since we're referring to safety nets, I am going to continue referencing the lack of government intervention on behalf of the population during that period of time and the terrible conditions workers were subjected to.

If we're relating 19th century poverty to today, there's really no comparison, and it's not thanks to the state. An increase in capital has led to the technological advances that has allowed mass production and unbelievable decreases in the cost of goods such as computers, cell phones, and televisions.
Actually, most of the technological advances that exist today are a product of government investment in various technologies or their development for government purposes and subsequently given over to the private sector.


I include public education because, since we're apparently inventing our own definition of the welfare state, it is still funded through wealth redistribution. Add the useless funding of the Department of Education (which has never educated a single student) and it's safe for me to state that funding someone's education using another's money is what welfare is.
Well, I'd say it is pretty much in line with the requirements of state capitalism, insofar as we're prepping most children for the workplace, even if the paradigm no longer works.

[mattgoods]

like i said a big hand in the development of the technologies mentioned........and the government does own nasa.

The private sector is exponentially more suited to innovation than the government. If this wasn't the case, Cuba and North Korea would be the most technologically advanced nations, rather they are literally stuck decades in the past. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, the government is insufficiently equipped to deal with the complexities of the free market and yields much less productive results per dollar spent compared to the free market private sector.

[open mind]

The private sector is exponentially more suited to innovation than the government. If this wasn't the case, Cuba and North Korea would be the most technologically advanced nations, rather they are literally stuck decades in the past. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, the government is insufficiently equipped to deal with the complexities of the free market and yields much less productive results per dollar spent compared to the free market private sector.

no idea why you felt the need to say that as it has nothing to do with the argument i'm making.

the cuba and north korea bit of your argument is horseshit and i'm someone that disagrees with many of friedmans economic theories.

[captivewear]

What are you talking about? The rich put all their money back into the economy. They spend a good chunk and invest the rest. The Dow is nearly back to pre-recession levels. It's just not "trickling down".
You mean the trillions in off shore bank accounts?
You mean the people who have 90% of the US's money yet only account for less then 20% of spending?
They get huge tax breaks and just save the money not spend it.
The only way out of a recession is jobs and people spending not saving.

[speakhandsforme]

Within the scope of politically relevant nations of the world, no, America is not a welfare state.

[ramomcferno]

The Dow is back to the same level it was before the huge crash in Sept. 2008. Which basically means that there is the same amount of money being invested and flowing through the economy as before the recession. The problem is that the companies that have the money are not hiring, which could be explained by any of a number of different factors, such as uncertainty about the future or not enough demand.

Im trying to get away from this picture of the rich hoarding piles of cash. They're using the money, it's moving through the economy, and their benefiting greatly from it, but it's not helping the lower and middle class recover from the recession. I think it's a great illustration of the fact that supply side economics doesn't really work and that the interests of the rich are not necessarily aligned with those of the rest of the nation, especially in a global economy.

Fair enough. My main desire is to the see the country in the best possible shape it can be in. I think tax cuts should be available to people and organizations that are doing just that, in the form of creating jobs. It sucks that so many able bodied people are on welfare when they could be working.

[Scrandon]

You mean the trillions in off shore bank accounts?
You mean the people who have 90% of the US's money yet only account for less then 20% of spending?
They get huge tax breaks and just save the money not spend it.
The only way out of a recession is jobs and people spending not saving.
You don't realize that some people have to save money in order for a business to be able to take out a loan in order to finance new projects and hire new workers.

[loveisdead]

You don't realize that some people have to save money in order for a business to be able to take out a loan in order to finance new projects and hire new workers.

That's a different argument than you were making. He's right, it's not like these people have all their dollars circulating through the stock market.

[Scrandon]

That's a different argument than you were making. He's right, it's not like these people have all their dollars circulating through the stock market.It might be a different point but it was directed at the last line in his post, where he thought that people saving money is useless.

Okay, the stock market has recovered, prices of stocks are back up to the same level they were before the big crash. That means that there is more or less the same amount of money circulating through the system.

[jawstheme]

It might be a different point but it was directed at the last line in his post, where he thought that people saving money is useless.

Okay, the stock market has recovered, prices of stocks are back up to the same level they were before the big crash. That means that there is more or less the same amount of money circulating through the system.

I'm confused about your argument. You don't think the rich are sitting on hoards of money? And you don't think that money not being in the system, and especially not "trickling down" hurts the working class?
I think you've said before that even though people are investing it's not trickling down, it's still staying in the hands of the rich. Actually, I'm not sure if that's what you meant. I'm just kind of confused about what you're trying to say.

[Scrandon]

I'm confused about your argument. You don't think the rich are sitting on hoards of money? And you don't think that money not being in the system, and especially not "trickling down" hurts the working class?
I think you've said before that even though people are investing it's not trickling down, it's still staying in the hands of the rich. Actually, I'm not sure if that's what you meant. I'm just kind of confused about what you're trying to say.
Yes, that's what I meant. The problem is not just 'they're not investing', it's 'they're not investing in what we want them to'.

[Zeran]

I voted yes.

Just because the US may be attempting to reign in the welfare state doesn't mean it isn't still in place. An inefficient, wasteful one, but a welfare state nonetheless.

how i feel.

[loveisdead]

how i feel.

I think that's the best point that's been made in the thread.