I can't defend the welfare state any longer

As I assume most of you know I am a Social Democrat (Not Democrat Party), I was not in favor of complete Socialism (i.e. abolition of the state, no private property), but I supported the Nordic Model.

I was running over the numbers and it just doesn't add up to me, it appears to be mathematically impossible to maintain any substantial welfare state and not running up a major deficit and inevitably a long term outstanding debt. Since the welfare state was established during the 1930's our debt has skyrocketed and while it was paid down after the war the income tax was set as high as 91% and I don't think that is a truly acceptable option.

It appeared to me that as the welfare state was established so too was the warfare state, thus leading me to believe that the government had used the need to maintain the welfare state as their excuse to collect more money for the Federal Reserve, warfare state and the new empire. They could not actually go to the people and say we need a 35% income tax to fund the warfare state and our empire because we would tell them hell no, but using the welfare state as a shield has permitted them to create this bloated nanny state.

When the welfare state began few people took advantage of its benefits, but now there are literally tens of millions needing the welfare state while just 53% of the nation actually pays taxes. I am not opposed to redistribution of wealth but when half the nation is supplying the other half that is something I don't see as neither sustainable or moral.

The purpose of the welfare system was to protect people and give them benefits in the event of the unfortunate. But now it has stretched into every part of our lives and while I like the benefits that the Nordic nations receive I do not see it as sustainable. So as sad and humiliated as I am to say this, I do not think we can keep a welfare state.

With the welfare state removed then they could no longer lie about the Congressional Industrial Military Complex because people will be asking where all this money is going with all of the social services benefits gone. They could not actually tell the people so they would have to start cutting.

Why would the Income Tax be necessary anymore? It wouldn't so we could simply abolish it, unless they would like to admit that they are using our money for a giant war machine and CIA.

Why would the Payroll Tax be necessary anymore? It wouldn't so we could simply abolish it, unless they would like to admit that they are using our money for the Federal Reserve and Big Bankers

Why would any taxes even be necessary to levied directly upon the citizens? Their justification would be obsolete. So I have came to the conclusion that to not only save our nation from economic collapse in the near future we would also destroy the warfare state and bailouts for big business.

For everyone out there who supports the welfare state ask yourselves, is it truly sustainable? Thinking long term not just short term, is it really sustainable? I mean hell yeah I would love everyone to receive guaranteed benefits and protection and other universal services, but eventually reality meets up with you and your nation collapses.

So I am sorry my Socialist friends, I must hand you back the red flag as I can no longer waive it. But I shall continue to argue on behalf of works, the poor and the oppressed until I die!

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." ~ Gerald Ford






- God save the Republic!

Good post.

I think the more you learn about the "unintended consquences" of the welfare/warfare state, the more you will come to see that every government program accomplishes the exact opposite of its stated goals.

If the goal of welfare is to eliminate poverty, why has poverty increased as welfare has expanded?

If the goal of the federal reserve cartel is to eliminate inflation and unemployment, why has inflation and unemployment increased since the federal reserve took over?

If the goal of wars on drugs is to eliminate drug use and gang violence, why have drug use and gangs increased since the "war" began?

If the goal of "affordable housing" by issuing government backed loans was to make homes more affordable, why have home prices skyrocketed since the program was created?

EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM EVER CREATED - EVER - IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF ITS STATED PURPOSE.

EVERY ONE OF THEM.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I know mnmeth1, I blame you for this though! If it wasn't for your post with that video 'The New Road to Serfdom' I would continue in my delusional world where I was happy not questioning things and just answered every deficit question with 'Just raise taxes'. But you ruined that.

Oh well, we all have to face reality at some point, better now than later.




- God save the Republic!

reply to post by Misoir


Click the link in my sig and start watching the videos

All of the lecturers in my videos have the same philosophical underpinnings as Mr. Hannan does.

It is vitally important to understand WHAT creates prosperity in a society, and to support that.

If the facts proved that a welfare/warfare state brought prosperity and freedom to a society, I would FULLY SUPPORT such a model. But they don't. The facts are plainly clear that the society who prospers the most is that which is governed the least.

reply to post by Misoir


I agree that the welfare state is not in the best interests of society at large, but I think it is more based off the design; rather than the intention of it. We cannot sustain a jobless society that pays people less than is needed to live off of, no more than we can sustain a social society where those without are given the needs to sustain themselves. The answer is somewhere in the middle. Indeed if the monetary system were different maybe we could sustain a welfare state, but at current we cannot. We cannot deny the person who is unable to secure a way for themselves the opportunity to succeed, nor can we allow those who can succeed to trample and control the existence of another persons well-being.

The middle ground, if we must (and we should) provide monies to support those unable to make a way for themselves, those people should work for the people. Be it picking up litter, doing road work, planting flowers along the highway, or anything else that would contribute to society they should be part of it. There are so many problems with the way our society runs, that I do not think the welfare issue can be snipped with a quick change here or there. There are huge social issues underlying welfare and why people are on it. Maybe we should address those issues first then look at welfare second.

Congratulations to the op for realizing the cold hard fact that at some point you run out of other peoples' money.
This would be quickly followed by chaos and lawlessness.

reply to post by Misoir


It's not delusional to want to do good for your fellow citizens. It is, however, misguided to believe that government would be a good steward of the downtrodden. Democrats are supposed to be the party of the poor guy, but when it comes down to it, poor people have been voting for democrats for 50+ years and they're still poor....

Only hard work, ingenuity, and initiative can determine whether you will succeed or not. And in the same vein, determine whether those you bring with you will succeed. You need a level playing field to do this, not class warfare, which is what, in my opinion, redistribution is all about.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of business and freedom, today we are less free and it is harder than ever to start a business. So you do the math here. What is it that we actually need?

Economic Liberty, and a government that protects rights, enforces contracts and protects the nation from foreign aggression. That's what government in America is supposed to do.

It is not shameful to change your mind on things. I did, and yes people gave me crap about it, some people I thought were smart continued the same path they were on and now they view me as the enemy...It'll happen. But you have to think for yourself first and foremost. This does not mean doing and thinking what we say, this mean doing what you did in the first place, research and learn.

Originally posted by Misoir
I am a Social Democrat (Not Democrat Party),

You should consider becoming a conservative Democrat, they do exist, and may be the only way to salvage that party in the not too distant future.

Fiscal conservatives from both the republican and democratic parties are our only hope of getting this country back on the path we have been so long and far diverted from.

I hate the two party system we have, but it is what it is, and we need fiscal conservatives in both and in large numbers in our government and white house if this nation wants to collectively survive.

We have got to get rid of the progressives, socialists and wasted vote moderates in BOTH parties.

Replace them with fiscal conservatives... or we are doomed!

reply to post by Misoir


That goodness you have come around! We need more people to stop drinking the KoolAid and wake up!

Stay the course and help to influence those who are still believing in the fantasy of long-term Socialism without huge ramifications.

reply to post by Misoir


It has been a genuine pleasure watching you grow intellectually this past year, and a true honor to know you. There is no need to feel humiliated by your intellectual growth, and I think most people who read your threads and posts know that your heart has always been in the right place. You are one of strong heart, and a of a curious mind, only too willing to learn and grow. These are qualities that are rare in people today, and you should proudly hold your head up high.

As to the corruption of the welfare state, I just read this article in the L.A. Times this morning:

$69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state

Las Vegas tops the list with $11.8 million spent at casinos or taken from ATMs, but transactions in Hawaii, Miami, Guam and elsewhere also raise questions. Officials say budget cuts hinder investigations.

(Sigh)

reply to post by projectvxn


I know, but you have to understand that I was a Social Liberal/Democrat ever since I started to take an interest in politics. It's all I ever really knew and it was just shattered.

I guess believing in self-determination and self-preservation and the morality and kindeness of others is all I can really do now, along with an even playing field for all people. But I still consider myself Liberal, just not today's Liberal rather a Classical liberal. Which is between Social liberalism and Libertarianism.

I will never say I am a Libertarian, sorry I just can't. But Liberal sounds good to me, I guess.




- God save the Republic!

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


I can't be a Conservative, ever. But I can be a Classical liberal, like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. But the Conservative label is more than I could handle. I'm an extreme Civil Libertarian, meaning I oppose anyone telling me what to do, hear or watch. So Conservative wouldn't fit.




- God save the Republic!

reply to post by Misoir


Constitutional Liberals exist. They were around when Bush was raping the Constitution. Just like Constitutional Conservatives. The key word here is Constitutional. I was a liberal for a very long time too. By the time I was 24 I was totally done with anything that wasn't Constitutionalism.

I support gay marriage, I want to legalize pot, I would not mind seeing state run health care systems at state levels, I want to end stupid divisive policies like "don't ask don't tell".

You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal or a libertarian, but it would be nice if you were American(know what I mean?). That's all that really matters.

So many people are so willing to scrap everything America has worked for, don't be one of those people. We can't look back and hang on to failed ideas because we perceive failure here at home. America has certainly failed before, but we came out of it without having to abandon the very ideas that made us free and prosperous to begin with.

reply to post by Misoir


Misoir excellent post!

Not excellent because I think you are now guided in the right direction, not excellent because I agree with what you are saying. Excellent because of the very fact that you have allowed yourself to grow and understand. You have allowed your own opinion to be formed by using the facts at hand. To that bravo!

That being said.....welcome to the dark side

In all seriousness though, war is the health of the State. The intended purpose of the State, from what I believe in my readings was to serve, through consent the People, the People. I think we can all agree on that fact. Given that model though, the State has to prove itself needed constantly through the free elections of representatives.

To sidestep this little inconvenience, the State created a perpetual need by instituting the Welfare State. Slowly entangling the populace and lulling the masses like Sirens. But alas, we have not plugged our ears with beeswax!

Thus, with the creation of the Welfare State, people become dependent. Providing that the Government maintains its 'bread and circus' line, all is well for the State. Then, people begin to get antsy. They begin to wiggle free and break free of the destitution which is being a ward of the State. This is where as you call it, the Warfare State comes into play. By placing the populace into a perpetual war, it turns our gaze from the incompetence to that of a wisp, to nothing but fake fears.

I hope you retain some of that compassion that is required to hold the principles you have though. People helping people will always trump the State helping People. We know what our communities need but the Government makes it nearly impossible to do so. They don't want to lose their monopoly.

reply to post by Misoir


I didn't mean a far right conservative.... A (FISCAL) conservative democrat... In short someone who would be fiscally responsible in everything they do, a balanced budget is a top priority, a smaller more efficient government.

It could be argued that Bill Clinton was in many ways (despite his shortcomings) fiscally conservative.

Getting away from the extreme right and left would help. All of your other liberal ideologies can remain in tact... You'd only be a fiscal conservative.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Bill Clinton was a Neoliberal and Neoliberalism focuses on Wall Street and big business, I prefer small business and farmers.

Maybe I should call myself an Liberal Agrarian.

reply to post by Misoir


I can't help it, that post absolutely made my day...

Thank you.

reply to post by Misoir


Hehe.


Just call yourself what you are. A Concerned American looking for solutions to American problems. You don't need a political label for that. And besides, it seems to get in the way of the message. How many people hear the word conservative and tune out the message right or wrong?

It does service to no one.

Projectvxn is correct my friend. Labels just get people all riled up over things that don't matter! I send so much time telling people to stop fussing over whether they are "left" or "right" as all the political parties and politicians currently in power all want the same things. Total power and an elite ruling class with the rest of us as serfs! I see so many people squabbling over the silliest things because of "liberalism" or "conservatism".

In the end almost all of us are still just concerned AMERICANS who want our contry back. And left or right, everybody wants FREEDOM.

The rest is just a divisive tactic, that's working too well...

The problem in the USA is that Corporations do not pay their fair share,introduce a ten percent goods and services tax and they cant escape even if their regular incomes end up in the Cayman Islands with no tax being paid.Like Australia you'll then have all the welfare money and then some to cater for the less fortunate.