- This topic has 1 reply, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”sweikert925″]Margaret Thatcher said many silly things over the course of her political career but one of the silliest was “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”
If you define socialist as any government that takes money from one group and gives it to another (which is wrong, but its how many conservatives seem to define it) then socialist governments have been around since governments were first established. The Sumerians, Egyptians, ancient Chinese, Romans – they all had governments that took from some to give to others. The only difference between then and now is that it used to be that money was taken from the poor and given to the rich. Nowadays that still happens, but we also have reversed the flow a bit to give some of it to the poor also.
One of the most strongly “socialist” governments is Germany’s yet they seem to have a very well run economy and don’t seem to be anywhere close to running out of money. In fact, their old age pension system has been around since the 1880s and they have very generous unemployment, health care, education, maternity leave and child care benefits – much more generous than in the US. The current unemployment rate in Germany, by the way, is 5.4%.
So as with almost all political thought that fits on a bumper sticker, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” is wrong.[/quote]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing. Creating an ever expanding culture of entitlement without any effort by those receiving such assistance to contribute is the real problem. Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand. Many receiving it have a sense of entitlement, a mindset that has now become generational, and has now created a political base that is ever demanding in it’s needs. These same folks show little concern when expanding their subculture and bringing more children into the world while unable to support even themselves.
I don’t consider it silly when someone makes a common sense statement stating the obvious that money is a finite object (not that the Federal reserve believes that) that can never quench the needs of a policy/program that will continue to to expand in perpetuity.
[quote=”sweikert925″]Margaret Thatcher said many silly things over the course of her political career but one of the silliest was “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”
If you define socialist as any government that takes money from one group and gives it to another (which is wrong, but its how many conservatives seem to define it) then socialist governments have been around since governments were first established. The Sumerians, Egyptians, ancient Chinese, Romans – they all had governments that took from some to give to others. The only difference between then and now is that it used to be that money was taken from the poor and given to the rich. Nowadays that still happens, but we also have reversed the flow a bit to give some of it to the poor also.
One of the most strongly “socialist” governments is Germany’s yet they seem to have a very well run economy and don’t seem to be anywhere close to running out of money. In fact, their old age pension system has been around since the 1880s and they have very generous unemployment, health care, education, maternity leave and child care benefits – much more generous than in the US. The current unemployment rate in Germany, by the way, is 5.4%.
So as with almost all political thought that fits on a bumper sticker, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” is wrong.[/quote]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing. Creating an ever expanding culture of entitlement without any effort by those receiving such assistance to contribute is the real problem. Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand. Many receiving it have a sense of entitlement, a mindset that has now become generational, and has now created a political base that is ever demanding in it’s needs. These same folks show little concern when expanding their subculture and bringing more children into the world while unable to support even themselves.
I don’t consider it silly when someone makes a common sense statement stating the obvious that money is a finite object (not that the Federal reserve believes that) that can never quench the needs of a policy/program that will continue to to expand in perpetuity.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now). [/quote]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now). [/quote]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
sweikert925
you know everytime I read one of your posts I realize how great things are back in the U.S.
boy do I envy you 😳
I guess this means your staying put in Chicago???
wonderful news.. :):)
Wise decision on your part and you should be acknowledged for your acumen.
Abrazos ( spanish for hugs)
David
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”] c.f.
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now).
It is true that since 2008 the number of people on SNAP (popularly known as food stamps) has gone up but that’s not because the eligibility rules have been relaxed. It is because 8 million people lost their jobs and had no alternative but to claim benefits if they wanted to feed their families. I wonder how many of them used to complain about the users and takers in society and how shameful it was they they were useless dead weight?
[quote=”imxploring”]
….and has now created a political base that is ever demanding in it’s needs.
[/quote]Studies have shown that some of the very people who benefit from things like food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit vote Republican. States with the highest participation in those 2 programs tend to vote Republican. (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana). If you have a reliable source that shows that they all vote Democrat then please feel free to share it.
[quote=”imxploring”]
These same folks show little concern when expanding their subculture and bringing more children into the world while unable to support even themselves.
[/quote]And yet Republicans are deadset against family planning, sex education, abortion and even, now, contraception. Go figure.
[quote=”imxploring”]
I don’t consider it silly when someone makes a common sense statement stating the obvious that money is a finite object
[/quote]Money is an indicator of wealth and wealth is NOT a finite object. There is only so much to go around at any one given moment but that doesn’t mean it is finite.
Is Germany running out of money? Sweden? Denmark? China?[/quote]
I’m sorry.. you’re right… all is well with the world and it’s current direction. No changes needed. No trouble on the horizon.
Welfare isn’t an ever expanding hole we keep throwing money into with no hope of changing it’s current direction. Social security is in great shape. Medicare is well funded and able to meet the future needs of those that were FORCED to participate and PAY into it just like Social Security. The national debt isn’t a problem…. after all we never have any intention or hope of ever paying it back! It’s just a pretend number.
Wake up my friend…. next you’ll be telling us and pointing to references that Illinois (your home state I believe) doesn’t have the WORST funded state pension program in the country and is facing a MAJOR issue that will effect all the taxpayers in the Land of Lincoln. But these’s plenty of money out there to fix that…. we just print it up and poof…. our problem is gone….. right? Wealth after all, according to you, is infinite. But where in that belief does the unwillingness of those with wealth to continue to support those that choose not to contibute to the system come into your equation? It’s not a republican or democrat issue. It’s a common sense issue.
Funny you mention China…. perhaps if we imposed the one child policy on folks in the US including those on welfare…. or even better… a NO child policy if you can’t support another mouth to feed we’ll all be better off!
Let’s try imposing some of the policies in the countries you mentioned and see how the subculture reacts!
[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now). [/quote]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[/quote]Well stated…. guess someone missed that point. Another unfunded mandate. Did anyone really think welfare was ended with the passage of a Federal bill?
imxploring
pay no mind to sweikert925. He participates in this mental masturbation in various forums.
[size=200]ask him about the yankee’s [/size] :lol::lol::lol:
David
PS. you know I know he mentioned working in the private sector but for some reason I cannot help the feeling that he has some sort of government job.
I mean with all the things that have occurred you still have people with this mindset.
[quote=”imxploring”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Socialism for the benefit of those those currently in need is one thing.
[/quote]Does that mean you have no problems with programs aimed at those “currently in need”? What exactly is your definition of “currently in need”?
[quote=”imxploring”] c.f.
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]The only major expansion of social welfare spending over the past 20 years aside from the expansion of Medicaid that is part of the healthcare reform bill was the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. That was passed by a Republican Congress and pushed by a Republican president. It would have been a lot better if there had been the necessary raise in Medicare taxes to pay for it but instead the Republicans insisted that absolutely no additional funding to pay for it be in the bill. So every dollar paid out in benefits is added to the deficit – which is now being blamed on President Obama.
Prior to that, the welfare reform act of the mid 90s cut back on welfare spending and established a limit on how long someone can get assistance – so that the generational dependency you complain about would be eliminated. You can no longer be on traditional welfare assistance forever. Maybe that escaped your attention. (That change by the way is something I approve of both then and now).
It is true that since 2008 the number of people on SNAP (popularly known as food stamps) has gone up but that’s not because the eligibility rules have been relaxed. It is because 8 million people lost their jobs and had no alternative but to claim benefits if they wanted to feed their families. I wonder how many of them used to complain about the users and takers in society and how shameful it was they they were useless dead weight?
[quote=”imxploring”]
….and has now created a political base that is ever demanding in it’s needs.
[/quote]Studies have shown that some of the very people who benefit from things like food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit vote Republican. States with the highest participation in those 2 programs tend to vote Republican. (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana). If you have a reliable source that shows that they all vote Democrat then please feel free to share it.
[quote=”imxploring”]
These same folks show little concern when expanding their subculture and bringing more children into the world while unable to support even themselves.
[/quote]And yet Republicans are deadset against family planning, sex education, abortion and even, now, contraception. Go figure.
[quote=”imxploring”]
I don’t consider it silly when someone makes a common sense statement stating the obvious that money is a finite object
[/quote]Money is an indicator of wealth and wealth is NOT a finite object. There is only so much to go around at any one given moment but that doesn’t mean it is finite.
Is Germany running out of money? Sweden? Denmark? China?[/quote]
I’m sorry.. you’re right… all is well with the world and it’s current direction. No changes needed. No trouble on the horizon.
Welfare isn’t an ever expanding hole we keep throwing money into with no hope of changing it’s current direction. Social security is in great shape. Medicare is well funded and able to meet the future needs of those that were FORCED to participate and PAY into it just like Social Security. The national debt isn’t a problem…. after all we never have any intention or hope of ever paying it back! It’s just a pretend number.
Wake up my friend…. next you’ll be telling us and pointing to references that Illinois (your home state I believe) doesn’t have the WORSE funded state pension program in the country and is facing a MAJOR issue that will effect all the taxpayers in the Land of Lincoln. But these’s plenty of money out there to fix that…. we just print it up and poof…. our problem is gone….. right? Wealth after all, according to you, is infinite. But where in that belief does the unwillingness of those with wealth to continue to support those that choose not to contibute to the system come into your equation? It’s not a republican or democrat issue. It’s a common sense issue.
Funny you mention China…. perhaps if we imposed the one child policy on folks in the US including those on welfare…. or even better… a NO child policy if you can’t support another mouth to feed we’ll all be better off!
Let’s try imposing some of the policies in the countries you mentioned and see how the subculture reacts![/quote]
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
I’m sorry.. you’re right… all is well with the world and it’s current direction. No changes needed. No trouble on the horizon.Welfare isn’t an ever expanding hole we keep throwing money into with no hope of changing it’s current direction. Social security is in great shape. Medicare is well funded and able to meet the future needs of those that were FORCED to participate and PAY into it just like Social Security. The national debt isn’t a problem…. after all we never have any intention or hope of ever paying it back! It’s just a pretend number.
[/quote]I have never said anything even REMOTELY like any of that. I suppose its a measure of progress in our discourse that instead of resorting to insults when you run out reasoned argument you fall back on putting words in my mouth. But it’s still annoying.
[quote=”imxploring”]
Wake up my friend…. next you’ll be telling us and pointing to references that Illinois (your home state I believe) doesn’t have the WORSE funded state pension program in the country and is facing a MAJOR issue that will effect all the taxpayers in the Land of Lincoln.
[/quote]Every public official in Illinois who was responsible for the fiscal mess that Illinois is in should go to jail. They deliberately shorted the pension funds for decades because they refused to either cut spending or raise taxes. (Until last year Illinois had one of the lowest income tax rates in the US, and even after they were raised we are not the highest). But that includes the 3 Republican governors who for 26 years straight held the governors office, from 1977-2003. George Ryan, the last Republican governor, IS in jail but not for that and the other 2 should join him.
Nice deflection on China and the one child policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. So I’ll ask the question again and dare you to answer it: Are Germany, Denmark, Sweden or China running out of money?[/quote]
So the bad choices in running the State Pension system warrant a jail sentence but the choices these same folks have made in state and federal policy (related to welfare spending) is Ok and sustainable? When WORKING people suffer and see their EARNED retirement lost…. then we’ll see some real change. The coming RETIREMENT CRISIS is just the latest nailin the coffin of this grand experiment!
You pointed to other counties and them not running out of money…. perhaps it’s because of the policies they have in place (as in China) that have created that money and preserved wealth? And do you think the US could ever hope to put those same policies in place now? With the portion of society in the US now feeding off the rest of us nothing short of a complete collapse will see that happening!
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[/quote]I can’t comment about what other states do but in Illinois the traditional cash assistance that is generally referred to as welfare is also limited. There is a lifetime limit of 5 years. And to qualify for even that you must participate in a job program and demonstrate progress toward getting a job.[/quote]
Yeah…. that’s working out! Cash assistance, food assistance, housing assistance, medical assistance, heating assistance….etc….. add it all up. Not all end. And what is “demonstrated progress”…. seems rather subjective and proned to abuse. Kind of like “Workfare”….
Tell us about assistance to children? The same work around illegal aliens use to game the system….. sure mom and dad are illegal…. but as soon as they get here they start cranking out kids…. that by virtue of our silly laws are automatically American citizens and entitled to every benefit…. including social service benefits! Welfare works much the same way…. just another game have kids you can’t support and stay on the system.
What about those Yankee’s ???
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
You pointed to other counties and them not running out of money…. perhaps it’s because of the policies they have in place (as in China) that have created that money and preserved wealth? And do you think the US could ever hope to put those same policies in place now? With the portion of society in the US now feeding off the rest of us nothing short of a complete collapse will see that happening![/quote]I would be absolutely thrilled to see the US adopt policies that are more like Germany’s, Denmark’s or Sweden’s. China, not so much. You do realize that all that wealth that China accumulated was due to a complete control of investment in industry by the central government right? That they stifle all dissent – not only political dissent but cultural and economic? Seems an odd choice for you to hold up as an example to follow.
I guess then your answer to my question “Are Germany, Denmark, Sweden or China running out of money?” is no then. And thus Margaret Thatcher’s comment is demonstrably wrong.[/quote]
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
You pointed to other counties and them not running out of money…. perhaps it’s because of the policies they have in place (as in China) that have created that money and preserved wealth? And do you think the US could ever hope to put those same policies in place now? With the portion of society in the US now feeding off the rest of us nothing short of a complete collapse will see that happening![/quote]I would be absolutely thrilled to see the US adopt policies that are more like Germany’s, Denmark’s or Sweden’s. China, not so much. You do realize that all that wealth that China accumulated was due to a complete control of investment in industry by the central government right? That they stifle all dissent – not only political dissent but cultural and economic? Seems an odd choice for you to hold up as an example to follow.
I guess then your answer to my question “Are Germany, Denmark, Sweden or China running out of money?” is no then. And thus Margaret Thatcher’s comment is demonstrably wrong.[/quote]
You pointed to China as an example, not me. As for the rest you can’t use them as examples of sucessful socialist counties (evidenced by your point that they are not running out of money) without acknowledging the difference in their people, social services system, political structure, and tax rates.
You can’t possibly believe that such applies or could be applied in the US without major upheaval on both sides of the givers and takers?
MONEY AND WEALTH are not INFINITE. Therefore socialism with an ever expanding subculture cannot be supported indefinitely! The Iron Lady had it right. And time will be the true test of her statement.
The Myans, Romans, and even the Nazis thought they had it right and that their empires would stand the test of time and go on for 1000 years…. how’d that work out?
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
I’m sorry.. you’re right… all is well with the world and it’s current direction. No changes needed. No trouble on the horizon.Welfare isn’t an ever expanding hole we keep throwing money into with no hope of changing it’s current direction. Social security is in great shape. Medicare is well funded and able to meet the future needs of those that were FORCED to participate and PAY into it just like Social Security. The national debt isn’t a problem…. after all we never have any intention or hope of ever paying it back! It’s just a pretend number.
[/quote]I have never said anything even REMOTELY like any of that. I suppose its a measure of progress in our discourse that instead of resorting to insults when you run out reasoned argument you fall back on putting words in my mouth. But it’s still annoying.
[quote=”imxploring”]
Wake up my friend…. next you’ll be telling us and pointing to references that Illinois (your home state I believe) doesn’t have the WORSE funded state pension program in the country and is facing a MAJOR issue that will effect all the taxpayers in the Land of Lincoln.
[/quote]Every public official in Illinois who was responsible for the fiscal mess that Illinois is in should go to jail. They deliberately shorted the pension funds for decades because they refused to either cut spending or raise taxes. (Until last year Illinois had one of the lowest income tax rates in the US, and even after they were raised we are not the highest). But that includes the 3 Republican governors who for 26 years straight held the governors office, from 1977-2003. George Ryan, the last Republican governor, IS in jail but not for that and the other 2 should join him.
Nice deflection on China and the one child policy but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion. So I’ll ask the question again and dare you to answer it: Are Germany, Denmark, Sweden or China running out of money?[/quote]
And while they shorted the state pension system and the retirements of all those WORKING people for decades what did the total amount they were spending on welfare and social services spending do? Double? Triple? You know without having to look up the numbers that it didn’t go down!
I guess they were spending “other people’s” money and it ran out so they made a choice to not pay one bill to the detriment of others.
I’d say that’s what Thatcher was referring to…..
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
And while they shorted the state pension system and the retirements of all those WORKING people for decades what did the total amount they were spending on welfare and social services spending do? Double? Triple? You know without having to look up the numbers that it didn’t go down!
[/quote]Well it must be that you have the figures to back that up otherwise that would be just wild speculation and I’m sure you would NEVER resort to that right? Mind if I get a source for that statement then? Please tell us how you arrived at that “fact”.
[quote=”imxploring”]
I guess they were spending “other people’s” money and it ran out so they made a choice to not pay one bill to the detriment of others.[/quote]On the contrary, the money was there all along to pay all of the state’s obligations – the gutless leaders in Springfield just chose not to raise the necessary taxes to do that.
[quote=”imxploring”]
I’d say that’s what Thatcher was referring to…..[/quote]Then apparently you have a severe lack of understanding of her comment[/quote]
I’ll stick with my statement that social service spending went WAY up over the SAME period (decades) that Illinois was using OTHER people’s money (pension contributions which were thoseafter all part of each employee’s compensation for WORKING) to fund those increases. No internet references needed.
If money and wealth are from an infinite source they wouldn’t have any value. Something the Federal reserve is currently on the path to proving in the case of the US Dollar. More importantly when it comes to wealth and socialism, at some point the ability of government to tax the people fades and the willingness of those working that are supporting the system meets resistance. That happens long before the money runs out.
Common sense is a wonderful thing. Feel free to point to an an internet resource that trumps it.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Generational Welfare is alive and well. The major accomplishment of the Welform Reform Act you refer to is that it transferred the burden from the Federal government to the individual States.
[/quote]I can’t comment about what other states do but in Illinois the traditional cash assistance that is generally referred to as welfare is also limited. There is a lifetime limit of 5 years. And to qualify for even that you must participate in a job program and demonstrate progress toward getting a job.[/quote]
Nice sound byte … but there are enough exceptions written in to Illinois’ law (and very intentionally written in) that can be manipulated to enable lifetime “membership” in your State’s welfare program. http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
