[phaster]

Ever hear the expression "military-industrial complex?" It was a warning that president eisenhower gave the nation about what he described as a threat to democratic government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Sadly I am convinced a bigger problem than "peak oil" (if nothing is done) is that the US "democratic" government will cease to exist because the "political-legal welfare system" will economically implode!

Or said another way, the US economic/political system will fail because social welfare programs like social security, medicare, public employ pensions and healthcare are unsustainable!

thoughts???

[Herr Meier]

Two weeks ago a mother visited who's child is in the same school as my daughter. After a bit of idle talk she started complaining that the $500 monthly food stamps she gets is not enough to feed the family and because of that she is forced to work 4 hours/day 3 days per week.

LOL, don't you love the welfare system? If no good for anything else, at least it's good for a laugh.

[GHung]

phaster said: "Or said another way, the US economic/political system will fail because social welfare programs like social security, medicare, ".

Uh.... these socalled "welfare programs" are programs that Americans paid into their entire working lives, not "welfare". Social Security and Medicare are social contracts that are required by law; not voluntary for the vast majority of working Americans. And, yes, I want those contracts to be honored. That said, we've been warned about 'unfunded liabilities' for years (See Kotlikoff/Burns - "The Coming Generational Storm" - 2005)

So-called 'welfare" programs are in a different category. SNAP ('food stamps') is not only assistance for low income families, but a huge subsidy for the agricultural sector and food distributors. Think Cargill, Monsanto and General Mills want to see this program curtailed or ended?
Having said all of this, of course these programs are reaching their limits to sustainability; goes to the whole 'limits to growth' thingy since they all require infinite growth to continue. Mathematically impossible. Singling out what you call "welfare" is silly when viewed in the context of a much bigger picture of our long list of predicaments.

Too many claims on too few resources. Big reset, dead ahead. That's why I don't take expensive fishing trips, golf vacations, etc.; putting my eggs in the self-sufficiency basket. I'm not 'entitled' to anything; not really. Best get right with that concept and adjust expectations accordingly.

[phaster]

"welfare" defined:

the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

Singling out what you call "welfare" is silly when viewed in the context of a much bigger picture of our long list of predicaments.

Too many claims on too few resources. Big reset, dead ahead.

I don't think I am being "silly" by specifically looking at "welfare" because looking at the problem in terms of "economics" ya said it yourself, the issue no matter how ya look at things it boils down to a simple fact:

DEBTS > CREDITS

Did ya consider looking at the phrase "political-legal welfare system" in terms of keynesian economics? Sadly all too often lawyers/politicians work the system to just enrich themselves at the expense of society as a whole.

In either case, where there is corruption, greed and mismanagement eventually the system crashes!!

[KrellEnergySource]

But the "living-wage job out there for everyone willing to work" system has also already crashed. Such jobs don't exist. And creating market after market for goods and services isn't sustainable in the long term or the near term. So.....what's the social-economic system that we will create that will be closer to sustainable, or is this the last hurrah?


Brian

[Henriksson]

"welfare" defined:

the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

Singling out what you call "welfare" is silly when viewed in the context of a much bigger picture of our long list of predicaments.

Too many claims on too few resources. Big reset, dead ahead.

I don't think I am being "silly" by specifically looking at "welfare" because looking at the problem in terms of "economics" ya said it yourself, the issue no matter how ya look at things it boils down to a simple fact:

DEBTS > CREDITS

Did ya consider looking at the phrase "political-legal welfare system" in terms of keynesian economics? Sadly all too often lawyers/politicians work the system to just enrich themselves at the expense of society as a whole.

In either case, where there is corruption, greed and mismanagement eventually the system crashes!!

Yes, the problem is economics. The current economic system is called capitalism, and it is dependent on economic growth to function (and welfare is dependent on capitalism). Since that will become no longer viable in the face of resource scarcity, of which peak oil is one part, the economic system will inevitably crash - it's really nothing one can prevent.

Working within the system there are two broad options. One is austerity; not only are a lot of people screwed and the possibilities for transitioning is a lot more constrained, but it screws growth over too and brings down the system even faster. The other is something like keynesianism; it could just be another attempt to keep a terminal patient on life-support, but it could also be a Manhattan Project-like attempt to transition to a scarcer world.

[Pops]

GHung addressed the public insurance programs soc sec & medicare, here is some on who's getting welfare:

Americans pay about 10¢ a day for SNAP - $36 a year - and $6 for all the other social programs. The average American taxpayer pays $6,000 /yr for corporate welfare.

Lets not forget the 3 biggest tax giveaways, they add up to about $1.2 trillion (close to twice the current budget deficit):

employer provided health insurance deduction
Mortgage interest deduction
401k exclusion

But hey, doesn't have the visceral effect of "Welfare Queen" does it? Not gonna sell any Preparation H on talk radio with stats like that. Better for Rush to stick to "sluts" wanting free birth control.

[phaster]

pops, etc...

some of those those polices ya mentioned were indeed pointed out as being "craze" by six economist (from all over the political spectrum)

the fact is the "political-legal welfare system" in entrenched in place, producing nothing but gridlock and consuming resources as the clock winds down.

therefore I suggest other problems like finding solutions to peak oil, and having a more equitable and sustainable economy are not being addressed!

Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)

One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses?

Two: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Neither employees nor employers pay taxes on workplace health insurance benefits. That encourages fancier insurance coverage, driving up usage and, therefore, health costs overall. Eliminating the deduction will drive up costs for people with workplace healthcare, but makes the health-care market fairer.

Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.

Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.

Six: Legalize marijuana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of money to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/ ... cians-hate

[Keith_McClary]

Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)

Eliminate income tax deductions (1&2) and then eliminate income tax (3&4)?

[Pops]

therefore I suggest other problems like finding solutions to peak oil, and having a more equitable and sustainable economy are not being addressed!

eliminating government is the solution to PO?

eliminating tax, the one thing that limits wealth accumulation makes the world more equitable?

taxing food and clothing the same as yachts and diamonds is the solution to sustainability?

You've heard the old saw: "outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns"?
Well, here is a new one to chew on
eliminate government and money will govern

The cynic says
"ah but money governs now"
and I say in response:
"exactly.
just imagine if there were not even the pretense of democracy to limit the power of the few?
what if there were no ballot box, no limit to the power of the most powerful?
do you really think your road would be paved, your police paid, your home safe?
your income higher?"


Eliminating taxes and government and democracy is great, if you can afford to buy your own
.

[basil_hayden]

That's right Pops, as you know the US of A has the best government money can buy.

[Pops]

Unfortunately it is the best I can afford, how 'bout you?

[careinke]

Unfortunately it is the best I can afford, how 'bout you?

I could afford a lot less Federal Government.

For example, we could get rid of the Federal A$$holes shutting down seed libraries in Pennsylvania to prevent "Agri-terrorism."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/agri-terrorism-feds-shut-down-seed-library-in-pennsylvania/5394750

Or, how about the DEA funds spent on Marijuana enforcement?

Eliminating the politically motivated IRS would be a good next step.

The only real solution to our problems is to reduce consumption, and reduce reproduction. You do that by taxing them, not by supporting it like our current government does. Of course the libs will cry how "Unfair" that is for the poor. Evidently, fairness takes priority over survival.

It's pretty easy to protect the poor and still have consumption taxes. But that would take away the governments ability to dig into your personal finances and other aspects of your personal life.

Do we really need the Post Office?

Can't the States be responsible for the education of their own students without the help of the Federal Government?

Eliminate all federal grants and subsidies. In addition to a financial issue this is also a moral issue. When the government taxes (Steals by force) from one individual, and gives the money to another as a "Grant", it is no different than someone robbing you at gunpoint and spending the money on whores. Your out the money, and it is being spent on things you do not support.

Wow, where did that rant come from? I guess I'm just fed up after reading the Seed Library crap.

[americandream]

A lot less government is coming. You are enjoying the last days of a system (socialised capitalism) that was designed to keep you contented and fed whilst the Cold War was ongoing (to stop you jumping ship).

[Pops]

Unfortunately it is the best I can afford, how 'bout you?

I could afford a lot less Federal Government.

Says the gentleman living on a government pension.


Of course there are boondogles, fiefdoms, over-reach, dead ends, waste, fraud & abuse. Why is that a surprise?

Government is by definition an oligarchy and the Iron Law of Oligarchy says any organisation will develop a self-perpetuating self referential hierarchy.

That's why they print ballots.

The only way to have the perfect government that does everything exactly like we each would like is to have no government and complete social darwinism. Not surprisingly, humans gave up on that idea way back in favor of compromise. Today that is out of fashion in the US, probably a direct result of the narcissism of the baby boomers who were led to believe we could and should have everything exactly like we want or we are entitled to throw a tantrum. Witness the US congress.


The problem with wanting it all and wanting it now is that there is just so much of it to go around
.

[americandream]

@ Pops

And how do we know what we "like" if not for surrounding social relations. The government does not exist in a vacuum, but like the society at large, merely reflects the forces brought forth by said social relations.

Capitalism with its mores of work and ethics brings forth many contradictions, one of them being that which we see in wealthy as well as working class notions of entitlement and which many rightly find repugnant. These tendencies are not going to disappear no matter how much we tweak the system.

[Pops]

Americans are getting pretty low on social relations. We go to church less (much less than we say we do) we don't go to organized clubs anymore (except Rotary and other such "sales leads" type groups) theater, live music; even malls, the last vestige of the town square are [dying]. We are sorting out geographically, becoming ever more isolated from actual people because we can say whatever we like on "social media" (says the guy with 14,000 posts, lol).

No surprise that socialism is a dirty word and taxes are a burden and the guy on the radio is the only voice we listen to.

[americandream]

Americans are getting pretty low on social relations. We go to church less (much less than we say we do) we don't go to organized clubs anymore (except Rotary and other such "sales leads" type groups) theater, live music; even malls, the last vestige of the town square are dieing. We are sorting out geographically, becoming ever more isolated from actual people because we can say whatever we like on "social media" (says the guy with 14,000 posts, lol).

No surprise that socialism is a dirty word and taxes are a burden and the guy on the radio is the only voice we listen to.

That is pretty much the way the system takes us as we are reduced to units of consumerism so its something we cannot avoid.

[phaster]

Yes, the problem is economics. The current economic system is called capitalism, and it is dependent on economic growth to function (and welfare is dependent on capitalism). Since that will become no longer viable in the face of resource scarcity, of which peak oil is one part, the economic system will inevitably crash - it's really nothing one can prevent.

Working within the system there are two broad options. One is austerity; not only are a lot of people screwed and the possibilities for transitioning is a lot more constrained, but it screws growth over too and brings down the system even faster. The other is something like keynesianism; it could just be another attempt to keep a terminal patient on life-support, but it could also be a Manhattan Project-like attempt to transition to a scarcer world.

Economics, isn't the problem because its just a tool to do analysis.

Of course just like any tool it can be used for either good or bad (all that matters in the end is what we do with it). Give ya an an extreme example that hopefully you'll understand, a "scalpel" in the hands of a surgeon could save a life, a "scalpel" in the hands of a terrorist could take down a building.

By "political-legal welfare system" I specifically was thinking about the tendency of politicians to pander to public employee unions for political support in a bid to get into or retain an office. The "Quid pro quo" in this instance is a literal "sweet heart deal" payoff when it comes time labor talks. FDR long ago recognized the problem when he said "The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... governmen/

Looking at the math, I am sure the system as stands is going implode much sooner than most people expect. In California for example, public pension obligations are estimated to be in the 170+ billion dollar range,

http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_calpers.html

and that figure will basically double if health care costs are placed on the balance sheet. FYI the one political official mentioned at the start of the article linked to above, just plead guilty to a fraud and corruption charge.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

Don't know the history of your neck of the woods, but I am sure political insiders giving sweet heart deals, or looking the other way is sadly repeated at all levels of government and could be modeled using "fractals," because both are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/ ... -fractals/

Capitalism, is also just another tool that can be used for either good or bad! Left unchecked, capitalism will always consume its participants because of human "greed!" In order to use capitalism for good, requires participants with a moral rudder so to speak, in order to steer the ship (said another way, it requires people to exercise "self control").