[...]neo-neocon » Blog Archive » A plea to the closet Republicans of Marin: come out, come out, wherever you are[...]…

Again, I call “Bullshit!”

Here

In all cases, EU unemployment is substantially worse than US unemployment.

I quote:
In Europe, a 7.2% jobless rate is celebrated as an historical record low (see chart above).

In the U.S., a 6.0% unemployment rate in 2003 was condemned and criticized as a “jobless recovery” during the economic expansion that started at the end of 2001.

Note: There are complaints in the comments which claim this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Read for yourself and see if even the difference cited by the commenters supports your statement, either way.
Be sure to note that Dr. Perry did an update as a result of the comments showing “adjusted rates” to make it apples-to-apples are *worse*, not better.

Sorry, Mitsu, I call “Bullshit!”

Cite your sources.

I’ve seen the federal budget broken down by areas, and the amount of money going to HEW has been a massive percentage of the federal budget ever since Clinton went into office, and shifted the so-called “Peace Dividend” from the end of the Cold War into Welfare-type wealth transfer programs
(“Cut taxes?!? Yeah, right. What are *you* smokin’!?!?”).

In particular, if you want to deal with the “Bush=stupid” meme, I strongly recommend
Seeing The Unseen
(the “Bush ain’t stupid” part begins with the header “War of the Bumper Stickers”.

In general, the links off to the side:
TRIBES
SANCTUARY (part 1)
SANCTUARY (part 2)
DETERRENCE (part 1)
DETERRENCE (part 2)
STRENGTH (part 1)
STRENGTH (part 2)
POWER
RESPONSIBILITY
TRINITY (part 1)
TRINITY (part 2)
MAGIC
VICTORY
HISTORY
CONFIDENCE
COURAGE
WAR
EMPIRE
FREEDOM
HONOR

Are all worth reading, As well as
FORTY SECOND BOYD AND THE BIG PICTURE (Part 1)

Note that they ARE essays — don’t sit down with them when you want a quick 3 minute read.

Bill’s output is erratic — he sometimes goes for six months and more without putting anything of significance up. But when he does, it’s usually a doozy worth the wait.

First of all, let me say again that I am someone who was and is in favor of welfare reform, limits to benefits, etc., with some exceptions (there are legitimate cases in which some people are unable to work, not because they’re lazy, but due to a disability or some other severe difficulty).

The reason I don’t believe your argument works is simply that, economically, it would not be possible to have 30%-40% level of people subsisting on welfare. The taxation required to support such a level would result in the total destruction of the private economy, which would result in a massive decline in the standard of living for everyone, both those working and those on welfare. Such a decline would become evident far before the number on welfare reached such a high level. Such an imagined society would be one in which everyone existed at near-subsistence levels. Politicians responsible for such an economic debacle would be voted out of office long before such an event occurred.

One thing to keep in mind here is that the United States has *always* had one of the lowest levels of welfare of any industrialized nation — even before welfare reform. The percentage of the national budget spent on full-time, permanent welfare (i.e., AFDC), even at its height, was only 1 percent. Yes, ONE percent. Even if you add in programs like Medicaid, school lunches, pensions of military veterans, etc., the total before welfare reform was only 12 percent. By contrast, 43 percent of the Federal budget goes to the military.

In European countries with far more robust forms of social assistance to the unemployed than we have ever had, unemployment is nevertheless relatively low. Why is that? Why doesn’t everyone just take off from work and live big on state handouts? Because they can live better when working. Sure, you can live off of welfare if you want, but you can live better if you work. That’s still an important incentive and it prevents the sort of economic meltdown you have in mind. Sure, I do buy a lot of conservative criticism of welfare as it was before it was reformed in the 90′s, but it was never in danger of becoming a way of life for anything but a tiny minority of unfortunate people who were hardly living it up on the tiny amounts of money they got from Uncle Sam. Welfare reform, when combined with appropriate training programs, etc., has helped a lot of people to a better, more productive life (though in many cases it has failed because of lack of proper welfare-to-work support — which is quite unfortunate).

I know none in my family, for instance, would be happy to know that my husband and I are conservatives. So, we moved to a state where being one is OK, and where we can find friends who think likewise.

My ten Thanksgivings and Christmases in this state (TX) have been the most peaceful ever! If I wanted to see liberal stupidity on bumper stickers and other places, I’d go to Austin. (But again, why take the chance?)

Our liberal friends have taken their wealth and comfort for granted. They think that everything we have somehow magically manifested itself.. and if we only will ourselves to have such benefits, then they will never go away.

Mitsu is defending modern liberalism well:
So color me a relatively cynical liberal, one who doesn’t believe, for example, that racism is the cause of all the problems minorities face — yet someone who DOES believe racism is ONE factor that still affects minorities. I don’t believe government programs will solve all social problems, but I believe SOME government intervention can help. And…I happen to think most Democrats are more or less in the same general area as I am in this regard.

Let me offer a well-intentioned disagreement on one part of this: I contend that once a majority of pols in a democratic (small D) government decide that gov’t is responsible for ensuring that all its citizens have a certain minimum welfare, the course is set for an inevitable collapse. And I mean that literally, not hyperbolically.

Here’s why: Mitsu wrote in this thread that he likes the idea of citizens being able to vote pols out if they do unpopular things–as do we all. This is indeed a great feature about democracy. The problem is that when pols–presumably acting out of good intentions– decide to get the gov’t into the business of social welfare, the transfer benefits get higher and higher.

This happens because the people who receive welfare vote, and after they reach 30 or 40% of the electorate it’s virtually impossible for a candidate for office to oppose more welfare and win. Similarly, incumbents know opposing more benefits is a path to being thrown out of office.

A strong President could spend his political capital trying to convince Congress to pull things back toward balance, but as Reagan’s experience with Tip O’Neil showed, you can’t trust Congress to honor their agreements to cut spending. And even *nominally* conservative presidents (GWB) don’t necessarily lead in this regard.

Eventually, the weight of welfare costs–plus the staggering cost of debt service on the deficit spending that accompanies this sort of mentality–must cause a reckoning. Whether that takes the form of financial collapse, or a military so weakened by budget cuts as to be unable to prevail against an invasion, or simply an electorate so poorly educated and ignorant of history as to invite in an invading group (as in the U.K.), the outcome will be the same.

The only way to avoid this is to leave all welfare to charity, whether religious or otherwise. Sounds impossible, or horribly harsh, but it seems to me the current alternative is an unavoidable course for disaster.