3 ms·

SS is not the entirety of social welfare spending. It's not even the entirety of SS-related spending. There is, as I've just mentioned, SSDI. Total social welf

SS is not the entirety of social welfare spending. It's not even the entirety of SS-related spending. There is, as I've just mentioned, SSDI. Total social welfare spending at all levels of government has increased massively, at a rate that greatly exceeds what can be explained by population aging. >>Heathcare has increased dramatically, then again 80 years ago their was simply fewer things to spend heathcare dollars on. That doesn't change the fact that government is forcibly redistributing a greater portion of economic output toward healthcare spending. >>That stacked bar chart is further designed to hide the recent reduction in one category ‘welfare’ as other categories increased. Real welfare spending per capita has continued to increase. That graph is spending as a percentage of GDP, and GDP is increasing, so a steady ratio means increasing spending. Moreover, welfare spending is vastly greater now, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in 1950 or even 1970. It seems like you're ignoring every piece of evidence suggesting a shift toward social democracy with expanding social welfare spending, to maintain a narrative of social welfare programs being cut.

Retric 8y ago
You are making two arguments one social welfare spending is increasing, and two that represents a shift towards social democracy. I agree that total spending is increasing, but I disagree that nessisarily supports your second point. Which I why each program needs to be considered individually not just stacked together. Deogramics is clearly not the only change, but as it relates to both SS and Medicare as age related programs it is a factor that needs to be considered. SSDI is another story and I agree it’s a huge issue. Again, Medicare dates back to 1965 past your 50 year benchmark. Private insurance faces similar issues with healthcare costs are rising faster than GDP which does not support your second argument. Arguably this is even why it was created in the first pace as costs had been growing even back in the 60’s. Now looking past the pension portion of SS and Medicare the rest of ‘social welfarek spending gets complicated. We pay farmers above market rates for food and then give that food to the poor. How much of that is a social program and how much of that is a farm subsidy? You can bet it was designed to allow for both interpretations. Further, similar issues show up in a huge range of ‘social’ programs. Now back to your point, you can support an argument that we have shifted to social democracy. At the same time, when looking at spending that actually aids just the poor you see cuts over the recent past. Picking a timeframe also shapes this issue as picking 25 vs 50 vs 100 years makes a real difference. Going all the way back to my original point, looking at any single number in the recent past is not enough. You need to define closely how it’s created and what it actually means. Though if you had said 100 years not 50 I would have simply agreed because few government programs existed prior to 1919.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>You are making two arguments one social welfare spending is increasing, and two that represents a shift towards social democracy. I agree that total spending is increasing, but I disagree that nessisarily supports your second point. If the increase hadn't massively exceeded what could be explained by aging, I might agree that we need to look more closely at the specifics to see how much of what is categorized under social welfare spending is truly that, and how much of the increase in social welfare spending was simply a consequence of an aging population, but it has, so the only conclusion one can reasonably draw in my opinion is that there has been a shift toward social democracy, in the sense of society providing aid to low income individuals at the taxpayer's expense. >>Again, Medicare dates back to 1965 past your 50 year benchmark. Medicare spending has ballooned since the program was created in 1965. The Medicare of today is vastly more generous than the Medicare of 1965. I agree that a lot of that is inefficiencies to benefit special interests, but that goes with the territory when you entrust government officials to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that's not theirs. Additions to Medicare, like Medicare D, have majorly expanded the value of essential goods/services that low income individuals can enjoy at the taxpayer's expense. >>We pay farmers above market rates for food and then give that food to the poor. The cost of paying farmers above market rates, aka farm subsidies, is accounted for separately from food stamp costs. In other words the cost of the former is not being disguised as an expense of the latter. The benefits received by low income individuals from foodstamps really do cost what the statistics show. You can of course find individual cases of welfare programs being cut, but with the magnitude of social welfare growth, not just per capita, but as a percentage of GDP, it would be incredible if that was mostly a statistical illusion and misaccounting that didn't reflect a major shift to social democracy, and commensurate increase in assistance received by low income individuals at the taxpayer's expense.

Retric 8y ago

You are making two arguments one social welfare spending is increasing, and two that represents a shift towards social democracy. I agree that total spending is increasing, but I disagree that nessisarily supports your second point. Which I why each program needs to be considered individually not just stacked together. Deogramics is clearly not the only change, but as it relates to both SS and Medicare as age related programs it is a factor that needs to be considered. SSDI is another story and I agree it’s a huge issue. Again, Medicare dates back to 1965 past your 50 year benchmark. Private insurance faces similar issues with healthcare costs are rising faster than GDP which does not support your second argument. Arguably this is even why it was created in the first pace as costs had been growing even back in the 60’s. Now looking past the pension portion of SS and Medicare the rest of ‘social welfarek spending gets complicated. We pay farmers above market rates for food and then give that food to the poor. How much of that is a social program and how much of that is a farm subsidy? You can bet it was designed to allow for both interpretations. Further, similar issues show up in a huge range of ‘social’ programs. Now back to your point, you can support an argument that we have shifted to social democracy. At the same time, when looking at spending that actually aids just the poor you see cuts over the recent past. Picking a timeframe also shapes this issue as picking 25 vs 50 vs 100 years makes a real difference. Going all the way back to my original point, looking at any single number in the recent past is not enough. You need to define closely how it’s created and what it actually means. Though if you had said 100 years not 50 I would have simply agreed because few government programs existed prior to 1919.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>You are making two arguments one social welfare spending is increasing, and two that represents a shift towards social democracy. I agree that total spending is increasing, but I disagree that nessisarily supports your second point. If the increase hadn't massively exceeded what could be explained by aging, I might agree that we need to look more closely at the specifics to see how much of what is categorized under social welfare spending is truly that, and how much of the increase in social welfare spending was simply a consequence of an aging population, but it has, so the only conclusion one can reasonably draw in my opinion is that there has been a shift toward social democracy, in the sense of society providing aid to low income individuals at the taxpayer's expense. >>Again, Medicare dates back to 1965 past your 50 year benchmark. Medicare spending has ballooned since the program was created in 1965. The Medicare of today is vastly more generous than the Medicare of 1965. I agree that a lot of that is inefficiencies to benefit special interests, but that goes with the territory when you entrust government officials to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that's not theirs. Additions to Medicare, like Medicare D, have majorly expanded the value of essential goods/services that low income individuals can enjoy at the taxpayer's expense. >>We pay farmers above market rates for food and then give that food to the poor. The cost of paying farmers above market rates, aka farm subsidies, is accounted for separately from food stamp costs. In other words the cost of the former is not being disguised as an expense of the latter. The benefits received by low income individuals from foodstamps really do cost what the statistics show. You can of course find individual cases of welfare programs being cut, but with the magnitude of social welfare growth, not just per capita, but as a percentage of GDP, it would be incredible if that was mostly a statistical illusion and misaccounting that didn't reflect a major shift to social democracy, and commensurate increase in assistance received by low income individuals at the taxpayer's expense.