for those who want to reduce government services - what country is your model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's go back to Clinton-era welfare reform. It was working until Obama tried to weaken it and get more people dependent on government again.

you're missing the point. my question is: please point to a nation that has thrived under austerity or minimal social spending.

You also asked foe a state example. We have counter examples, like Kansas, where cutting back on services made the Kansas economy worse than neighboring states, to the point that even the Republican legislature balked at further cuts.

Right, that's what I'm wondering about. I posted this question because I was thinking of state governors that are suing to allow pre-existing conditions again in health care plans. I just can't grasp how they think that's good policy - what's their idea for taking care of all the diabetics and hypertensives and cancer survivors in their state?

[Anonymous]

Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

[Anonymous]

On a per capita basis, UK GDP PPP would rank in the bottom ten of US states, right around Kentucky. Is that really the standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

when did a social safety net go bankrupt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Switzerland basically tackled and won the war on opioids by investing in treatment. Not exactly the direction our country is going on solving anything.

Socialists. All headed for hell.

Is that why they try so hard to make sure their citizens love long and healthy lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for people who don't believe government should provide a safety net, health care, etc. What nation is your model for this? Is there a country (or even a U.S. state) where reducing basic services and the social safety net has produced a thriving populace and healthy economy?

You think the United States got to be the most powerful country in the nation by having an abundance of social programs? I support a safety net, but not a cushy one. I don't see why we have to look at any other country since our own past history in this context and regard gives us so much good evidence.

We had several factors in our favor. Social safety net probably did not play a major role either way, but I know some people argue that it does. I really doubt it though. For years the Soviet Union was the second most powerful country in the world despite the huge disadvantages of it's political and economic system. Now China is catching up to us, with yet another type of system.

This is asinine. Soviet Union was only the "second most powerful" in military spending and power. It lagged far behind the US in economic power. This is one of the reason why the USSR imploded, because the economy tanked under the weight of communism and social programs. Russia is economically stronger now than it was as USSR, but at the same time it also offers *LESS* social programs now than it did under USSR. The story is the same with China, which bordered on economic collapse due to the social programs put in place under communism. Only a march towards free market economy (towards, but not free market yet), fast paced privatization, and a significant reduction in social programs has China now become so much stronger than it was before. That said, neither Russia nor China are models for the US to study. I'd hate to see the US move towards the old communist USSR and China while both Russia and China have moved away form it in the past 2-3 decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

when did a social safety net go bankrupt?

Ask the people in USSR and Venezuela.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

when did a social safety net go bankrupt?

Ask the people in USSR and Venezuela.

whole countries went bankrupt, not just social security net. And they weren't great to begin with

next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

when did a social safety net go bankrupt?

Ask the people in USSR and Venezuela.

whole countries went bankrupt, not just social security net. And they weren't great to begin with

next

I don't know... the liberals thought Venezuela's social safety net was pretty great. Bernie Sanders was stumping for it every chance he gets. He also loved USSR enough to honey-moon their in his youth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

Again, why should I as a citizen think that "powerful" is a good proxy for serving my own interests? From my perspective Sweden looks really nice - why should I care about my nation being the most powerful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

when did a social safety net go bankrupt?

Ask the people in USSR and Venezuela.

Ask the people on Obamacare when all the companies pulled out of the exchanges because they were losing money also.

What is the plan exactly? Have half the population working for the other half or have an 80 percent tax rate in the future? At some point, people will throw up their hands and say why bother working?

Would you work if you were at an 80 percent tax rate and bread was $50 a loaf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social safety nets are great until they go bankrupt. Then what.

There needs to be some reality in the numbers.

when did a social safety net go bankrupt?

Ask the people in USSR and Venezuela.

whole countries went bankrupt, not just social security net. And they weren't great to begin with

next

One country is going bankrupt with few social services, but plenty of government handouts to rich folks. That country is now running a $779B annual budget deficit piling debt on debt. At some point, it won’t be able to make payments on the massive debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't need to look to other countries. Read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia outlining minimal, night-watchman state.

Right, were going to undo everything and create the world's first mini-archist state out of a book. And people think liberals have some wild ideas.

It's not creating a state from scratch, from the state of nature like John Rawls. Obviously you didn't read philosophy. Nozick starts from where we are.

Actually, I've read a ton of philosophy including Rawls and Nozick. Rawls uses an updated version of Enlightment social contract theory. It's a philosophical construct, not an actual state of nature from which to create something. When the founding fathers started the United States they used social contract theory, but they based their new society on British and colonial models. Rawls likewise seeks a justification for our present system allowing redistribution of wealth as well as changing it a more equitable direction.

On the other hand, Nozick posits a society that is radically different from the one we have and for which there is no prior model.

Rawls starting point is what he calls the veil of ignorance - something which never, ever, happens in real life. Nozick's starting point, on the other hands, is here and now. Read his Walt Chamberlain example to see he's not far off from the existing system if you live in a capitalist economy. And it's a matter of how big of a government you want. The night-watchman state does not rule out social programs where social programs fix prior injustice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

'


You do realize how much poverty there was in the US through the 1960s, right? Yes, the US became the most powerful nation in the mid-20th century, but a large percentage of its people were living miserable and difficult lives throughout much of the century Squalor, hunger, hardship, discrimination and oppression. And the New Deal sought to lessen that misery, as did the Johnson's Great Society. Poverty in this country wasn't magically erased by an "individual focused system of politics and government." It was greatly reduced by government safety net programs, labor laws, and anti-discrimination judicial decisions.