This is the myth that is getting pushed as hard as I've ever seen a meme

[cali]

pushed:

"The current welfare state is unsustainable". Which is, of course, bullshit. But expect that to be the refrain you continue hearing and expect it to grow louder and louder and be amplified endlessly by the MSM as 2012 approaches.

[90-percent]

1. Agreed

All CORPORATE WELFARE should be abolished. That would free up a lot of money to help those of us "down on their luck", because we are a generous society that wants a better, happier, longer life for all of us.

-90% Jimmy

Greed is not good. It is merely the law of the jungle.

[notadmblnd]

2. My response to that would be- then stop giving it to corporations!

[HereSince1628]

3. It is if the country remains in depression and keeps lowering taxes

Why don't we see the stupidity? This is the same message that the R's have been selling since Reagan.

[sad sally]

34. Even those in charge of Reagan finally convinced him taxes had to be raised,

that spending cuts alone couldn't make up for the revenue loss of the tax cuts.

Professor DOUGLAS BRINKLEY (Rice University): Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes. He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false.

HORSLEY: Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, explains the 1981 tax cut blew a much bigger hole in the federal budget than expected. So over the next few years, Reagan agreed to raise taxes again and again, ultimately undoing about half the savings of the '81 cut.

Mr. DAVID STOCKMAN (Former Director, Office Management and Budget): He wasn't very happy about it. He did it reluctantly. But at the end of the day, the math was overwhelming.

FLINTOFF: That's because Reagan was never able to match his 1981 tax cuts with a comparable cut in federal spending. A modest reduction in domestic spending was dwarfed by Reagan's big buildup in the Pentagon budget. And, Stockman says, Reagan never made a serious effort to challenge middle class entitlement programs, after an early proposal to curtail Social Security benefits was shot down.

Mr. STOCKMAN: The White House and President Reagan himself retreated within three days when it became clear the enormous political resistance that would occur if you were going to cut entitlements.

FLINTOFF: And without big spending cuts, Reagan faced a choice between raising taxes and an even bigger federal debt. He chose the tax hikes. Today the federal debt's bigger than ever, and policymakers are again staring at painful choices. President Obama's fiscal commission says both deep spending cuts and tax increases will be needed to bring the budget under control. But ever since Reagan, presidents who've tried to raise taxes are confronted with the myth of their tax-cutting predecessor.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-C...?du

[jemelanson]

4. Yes the State of Corporate Welfare and the Upper 5% of the

population is unsustainable. We Can Not continue to allow those who make the most to pay the least while putting that burden on those least able to carry that burden.

[Scuba]

15. +1

[LeftishBrit]

5. What 'current welfare state'?

America hasn't got a welfare state, by the standards of most developed countries.

The equivalent meme of the British Tories is that Labour overspending on public services caused the current economic crisis. Er, no it didn't; it's a GLOBAL economic crisis, stupid Tories.

[baldguy]

22. We do have a welfare state - it's just upside down.

Taxes and fees for essential services are imposed on the middle class & the poor and are used to maintain the wealth & power of people who are already wealthy & powerful.

[raccoon]

27. Great post. This one's a keeper. nt

[robcon]

6. It's not a myth, IMO.

With the imminent retirement of the baby boomer generation (like me), and therefore the ratio of contributors/beneficiaries declining significantly, the current Social Security system has to be refinanced.

As far as Medicare, the costs are growing at too fast a rate, and creates problems.

I think we have to accept that these are not myths.

[cali]

8. only because of our refusal to raise taxes and to cut wars and defense

[robcon]

10. Exactly. It's not a myth. These programs need to be refinanced.

n/t

[Exilednight]

25. There's nothing wrong with social security. It's financed for another 20+ years. n/t

[unblock]

26. horsehockey. reagan doubled payroll taxes in anticipation of this

social security has accumulated a huge surplus in order to handle this wave of retirements.

given that the nature of the program is that current workers finance the retirement of current retirees, there's always the potential for a mismatch one way or the other, and so there may be a need for MINOR adjustments to keep things in line with shifting demographics, but certainly nothing obscene like destroying it entirely.

reagan's doubling of payroll taxes was a radical hike, and no one's really happy about it -- the right hates social security at all, and the left hates that it's such a regressive tax, and doubling it made it noticeably painful to many. but it did make social security solvent and that's how to address the problem -- FUND the program properly, one way or another, not throw it out or turn it into a joke.

[Vinca]

7. They never address what caused the "welfare state."

How about approximately 10 manufacturing plants within a few miles of my house that have closed and had their jobs outsourced over the last decade?

[Motown_Johnny]

9. Supply Side Economics Is Unsustainable! We were fine until they started that shit

and we have been spiraling downward ever since.

[reformist2]

11. Federal Budget is $3.5 trillion, National Wealth is $57 trillion.

That means the federal government just needs 6% of the nation's wealth to cycle through it each year in order to balance the budget. That's right, just 6%. The notion that we're bankrupt is so ludicrous it amazes me it's been taken seriously at all.

[robcon]

12. 6% is unsustainable. Interest rates are far below that.

We would be spending our "seed corn" (reducing our wealth) to cycle 6% through the government.

[reformist2]

16. But the money doesn't get destroyed, it gets recycled.

[robcon]

21. Recommendation: Econ 101.

6% spending in a time of 3-4% interest rates is unsustainable, i.e., it reduces our wealth.

We need to cut back on defense or other programs, or raise FICA or Medicare taxes, before we can sustain the current Social Security and Medicare programs, IMO.

I haven't any idea what you mean by either 'destroyed' or 'recycled.' Does that mean that we can sustain, e.g., 50% spending of our wealth in one year, since it gets 'recycled'????

[reformist2]

23. Money that is redistributed is still money. You don't need an economics lesson to know that.

[Drale]

13. That is partly right, but I would change it slightly

"The current corporate welfare state is unsustainable"

[CoffeeCat]

14. Really, it's the WARFARE state that's unsustainable!

I'm tired of the trillions spent on these meaningless, idiotic,
unnecessary wars--as programs for poor children and seniors are
cut. Those welfare programs are pennies, and the wars are dollar
bills. But our elected officials never talk about that.

I saw a discussion of the Federal budget on CNN yesterday. The
talking head had a pie chart--showing that "entitlements" were
the largest portion of the budget.

Military spending wasn't even ON the pie chart!!!

We are turning into a batshit crazy species--headed for a bad ending.

[n2doc]

24. +1 n/t

[Maraya1969]

17. I would say that for hundreds of years we've been ok and yet all of a sudden

we're unsustainable? That is only a made up talking point for people who want to cater to corporations who support them.

[crikkett]

18. Conducting three simultaneous wars of choice is unsustainable. n/t

[trotsky]

19. But you gotta admit, this is going EXACTLY according to the ultra-right's plan.

Cripple the gov't with massive tax cuts, make sure everyone is programmed to think that ALL taxes, especially the ones for the ultra-wealthy, are bad, and then turn and say you have NO CHOICE but to end all government programs that don't benefit the richest among us.

If I can put my supreme disgust aside for a moment, I really have to stand back and admire the effectiveness of their media machine. They have convinced a hundred million Americans that they get too much, while their ultra-wealthy overlords get too little.

[cali]

20. nail meet hammer.

[999998th word]

37. Shit meet fan.

[raccoon]

28. Great post. nt

[tblue37]

29. The current WARFARE state is what is unsustainable! nt

[Lorien]

30. I'd change that to "The current WARFARE state is unsustainable"

and it's past time that we had Madison style protests at MSM headquarters and stations.

[Mister Ed]

31. The Corporate Welfare State is unsustainable. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

32. The TRUE welfare state is the one the Ritch have built for themselves.

It is unsustainable.

[donheld]

33. It should read "The current warfare state is unsustainable"

[ljm2002]

35. We need to push back with...

..."The current warfare state is unsustainable".

[MasonJar]

36. We need to get tax money from GE and Exxon and those other leeches

who suck us dry and then pay nothing for the state. What is wrong with the dems that they cannot make a case to counter this absurdity that we need to keep tax breaks for the rich and cut the benefits of the needy? Are they all on the corporate dole? Nothing else makes any sense. And why do we as citizens allow it? Throw most of them out and start over. Number one has to be federal funding only for federal elections. Otherwise our country is doomed.

[Rex]

38. I agree the current corporate welfare state is unsustainable.

That is always my retort.