>>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.
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.
reply