He admits it!

Guess who says the social welfare state isn't working

  • Follow Editorials

Apparently we’re not all socialists after all.

Remember the infamous 2009 Newsweek cover story claiming we are all socialists, while trumpeting the massive “stimulus” bill and unashamedly ballyhooing the “era of big government”?

It was an internally inconsistent argument to begin with. On the one hand, the article warns of the consequences: “If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy.” In other words, accept socialism and quit trying to demonize it. But later in the article, it says the Obama administration “must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending (emphasis added).”

Well, which is it? Is the era of big government and socialism a good thing? Or did “too much borrowing and spending” create the crisis?

A former Newsweek luminary now admits it’s the latter: Evan Thomas, grandson of six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America Norman Thomas, now has to admit the social welfare state isn’t working.

“It’s Western democracy,” Thomas said recently on the show Inside Washington. “The welfare state is something we can’t pay for any more. It’s demographics. We used to have five workers for every retired person. Now we have three. We’re soon gonna have two. Europe is even ahead of us on these demographics. We cannot afford the benefits we all got accustomed to. And the political system has not figured out how to adjust to that.”

He comes a little late to the party, but welcome him in!

All the experts we’ve talked to, from every point on the ideological spectrum, say the same thing: The numbers just won’t work anymore.

As if to make Thomas’ point, Social Security trustees said April 23 that the program will be depleted by 2033, three years earlier than expected. Medicare is set to exhaust its funds in 2024.

Social Security is a victim of many things, but most recently a reduction in revenues because of the poor economy and the aging population – which already is seeing baby boomers, the largest demographic cohort in history, retire. Nor does it help that our weak-willed leaders in Washington have tried to make themselves look better and us feel better by cutting the amount we send to Social Security. We’re saving now by shorting our future.

We see in Europe what eventually happens when populations get used to benefits and lifestyles their governments have promised but can’t sustain.

One supposes we will soon find out if Newsweek was right – and whether the socialist’s slope is our destiny as well.

Comments (18) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
HighSociety
1842
Points
HighSociety 04/30/12 - 12:05 am
10
5
I have a solution. Cut

I have a solution. Cut welfare in half, stop giving out free cell phones and free minutes, no EBT cards, and do away with section 8 housing. Then take all that money and put it back in the pot.

Seriously, the government went from assisting after 65 to supporting after birth. Im shocked that there's money left at all.

OJP
10596
Points
OJP 04/30/12 - 12:48 am
6
7
Social Security: Remove the

Social Security: Remove the cap and the problem goes away.

Medicaid/Medicare/healthcare: The industry itself needs to be reformed (e.g., ObamaCare). And the efforts over the last few years appear to be working - growth of spending on healthcare is beginning to slow (http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Health-care-spending-growth-begin...).

skeptic griggsy
39
Points
skeptic griggsy 04/30/12 - 02:29 am
0
0
OJP,with the Affordable Care
Unpublished

OJP,with the Affordable Care Act- Obama-cares, the external medical costs will further go down! Were everyone on Medicare-Medicaid for all,except for us on the socialized VA, costs would further diminish with their low overhead.
Even, Gingrich knows the VA is the best! Sure, problems appear but they appear everywhere and less so there.
The VA keeps me alive!

FriedFacts
61
Points
FriedFacts 04/30/12 - 05:04 am
10
2
My problem with eliminating
Unpublished

My problem with eliminating the cap and having those making over $110,000 keep paying their full income is their benefits stop at the $110,000 figure. So you are essentially telling them to pay for the retirement of other people without benefits to themselves in line with what they paid. That doesn't seem fair to me. I guess the whole liberal plan is wealth redistribution by any and all means possible.

Techfan
6464
Points
Techfan 04/30/12 - 05:05 am
4
8
Does the AC really write

Does the AC really write editorials or just rephrase Newsbusters blogs? The editors might want to add a footnote since a previous editor was canned for uncredited editorials.
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2012/04/23/journalist-gr...

Techfan
6464
Points
Techfan 04/30/12 - 05:13 am
4
9
SS is not a retirement plan,

SS is not a retirement plan, it's an insurance plan. If you never get sick annd pay into a health insurance plan, you're supplemented the care of others. Same here. Wealth redistribution has already happened. It's been redistributed to the top.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america...

carcraft
46766
Points
carcraft 04/30/12 - 05:34 am
7
3
Oh! No problem for the

Oh! No problem for the Liberals, tax the Rich- apply the buffet rule and you can take the 47 billion and fix the hole in social security, fix Medicare, fix the deficit fix Obama care, fix the space exploration programs, fix health care, Bomb Syria, feed the poor, cloth the naked and sing "We are the World " while holding hands with Chávez!!!! If only those evil rich would give into the Buffet rule..Now remember you can't cut any spending or we shove granny over a cliff in a wheel chair! Now remember the solution for the liberals is to always spend other peoples money. That is why Obama bet on the green energy revolution with your tax dollars!

carcraft
46766
Points
carcraft 04/30/12 - 05:48 am
5
3
Techfan- Social security is a

Techfan- Social security is a tax plan and you are not entitled to any benefits period! Here is the supreme court ruling in Nestor! “In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right." If the Democrats had only said Obama care is tax they woul have been OK. Then the congress could have manipulated he program to grant more votes by putting in survivor benefits etc and used it to scare people into voting for them by saying, those evil republicans want to send granny off a cliff or let you die of a hang nail in the case of Obama care! That is the problem with Obama care, if they had just called it a tax they would have been OK, congress does have the power to levy taxes!

carcraft
46766
Points
carcraft 04/30/12 - 05:51 am
4
2
What the government has a

What the government has a power to grant it has a power to take, that is why the founding father's of our nation said we are endowed by our creator with our rights, they are not given by the government!

carcraft
46766
Points
carcraft 04/30/12 - 05:50 am
1
3
OH, just for those who

OH, just for those who missed me yesterday ummm ummm umm!

howcanweknow
2307
Points
howcanweknow 04/30/12 - 08:39 am
5
2
Wouldn't true freedom mean

Wouldn't true freedom mean that I should have the option of opting OUT of Soc. Sec. if I so choose, and can invest my money in the way that I deem best for my future?

Soc. Sec. is a great program for those who want to be a part of it, and I support that option 100%. However, to be FORCED to contribute to a monetary fund in which I may not receive any benefits from seems more akin to stealing than "security".

I realize, of course, that now giving folks the option of whether to contribute to Soc. Sec. might destroy the program. It is not fair for those who have been forced to contribute to it for years to not get their entitled benefits. But, I don't see why a 20-something-year-old person just starting out should be forced by law to give up their money to fund a system that will most likely be bankrupt by the time they retire?

This is why socialism / wealth distribution fails. You can't keep giving money away to folks who don't produce, and still expect there to be enough around for everyone later on. We have a prime example of the failure of socialism in the European financial crises. Question is, will we learn from their mistakes, or just keep marching toward our own economic doom?

Sadly, it appears that "social security" is an oxymoron.

TParty
6004
Points
TParty 04/30/12 - 09:36 am
3
2
Carcraft said: "Social

Carcraft said: "Social security is a tax plan and you are not entitled to any benefits period!"

I don't agree with all of this. People are not entitled to it- they have been paying into it. It's theirs. Or it should be. Politicians keep reaching into the SS pot and so the funds are no longer available, so the government sends out checks, which is just borrowed money. It's a total scam which is going to collapse on itself, and if you're under 40 you better just consider that money gone.

howcanweknow
2307
Points
howcanweknow 04/30/12 - 10:56 am
3
0
TP is correct. If you paid

TP is correct. If you paid into SS all your life, then you need to get your money back. That is fair. However, if you are under 40 then it is little more than a scam to take your hard-earned money and give it to others -- with little hope of you ever seeing it again.

Why aren't the socialists protesting against this system? I mean, someone scraping by earning $15,000 a year is being taxed by SS in order to help pay benefits to someone who retired making more than $100,000 a year. Does that seem "fair"? Is this the "wealth distribution" they demand? Could it be that SS actually does more harm to lower wage-earners than top wage-earners?

allhans
25544
Points
allhans 04/30/12 - 09:55 am
4
0
One thing is for sure.

One thing is for sure. Social Security was never meant to pay any one but seniors, and the much longer life span of today was not taken into the equation.
A change must be made to a more realistic age. Millions are drawing today at age 62, which we all know is not considered old age.

howcanweknow
2307
Points
howcanweknow 04/30/12 - 10:50 am
0
0
So, you're saying that you

So, you're saying that you can't fix a bad investment simply by throwing more money into it?

Don't be so logical......

allhans
25544
Points
allhans 04/30/12 - 02:37 pm
0
0
Not with more borrowed

Not with more borrowed money, anyhow.

socks99
250
Points
socks99 04/30/12 - 05:19 pm
0
0
In the grand scheme, the idea

In the grand scheme, the idea of setting aside capital for a "rainy day" or retirement is a recent development. During the boom of 1980-2007, the savings of billions were invested with the intent that future earnings on those monies and contributions would then "take care" of retirees. On the one hand, the "desire for return" necessitated by future payouts caused many of the funds to invest in risky securities; on the other hand, it was this "glut of savings" that helped spawn a massive inflation in credit, worldwide. Another thing to think about is whether or not there is a better way to plan for retirement; large chunks of money to get the things you need is one way. What about those who have family support? What about those who continue work past retirement? By default, literally and figuratively, the task before the public might now be one of learning to manage in retirement without planning to use surplus savings or earning on those savings; or expecting governments to pay for everything.

carcraft
46766
Points
carcraft 04/30/12 - 06:13 pm
1
0
Tparty-I don't care if you

Tparty-I don't care if you agree with me or not, the Supreme Court ruled you have no right to benefits from Social Security in the Nestor decision. Please look it up. Doen't matter if it is fair or not, that is the power the government has!

skeptic griggsy
39
Points
skeptic griggsy 07/01/12 - 07:09 pm
0
0
Truth
Unpublished

Reactionaries, your lies mean nothing. Obama will win by a landslide now thanks to Roberts!

Back to Top
 
loading...
Top headlines
Old Sibley Mill sees cyber future
After 18 months of discussion and due diligence, backers of a proposed data center at Sibley Mill on Wednesday announced they have entered into a long-term lease at the historic property alongside ...
Search Augusta jobs