100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Conservatives are socialists too | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Luved this Hornberger piece.
 REMINDER: The Jacob Hornberger Show every Saturday at 7-7:30 pm EST. Listen and watch live on the Internet: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-future-of-freedom-foundation Conservatives Are Socialists Too by Jacob G. Hornberger Conservatives love to accuse President Obama of being a socialist. But as the old adage goes, when they point their finger at Obama, they’ve got three fingers pointing back at themselves. Consider, for example, three of the biggest socialist programs in America: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How many conservatives want to repeal those three programs? Hardly any. Almost all of them say they want to save these programs and simply reform them. Now, that’s not to say that conservatives favor a complete government takeover of all property in the country and total control over economic activity, as, say, socialists did in Cuba and North Korea. But then again neither does Obama, and conservatives nonetheless call him a socialist. We’re talking about socialist programs — those in which the government takes money from one group of people in order to give it to another group of people. That’s what Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid do. They forcibly take money from one group of people through the tax system and give it to another group of people through the welfare system. Yes, I know — conservatives, like liberals, claim that Social Security isn’t really a welfare program but instead a retirement account. But that’s just a rationalization for their support of a socialist program. There isn’t a Social Security fund and there never has been such a fund. Social Security is a straight tax and spend welfare-state program. It is the crown jewel of the welfare state. Liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt brought it into existence. He got the idea from Otto von Bismarck, the so-called Iron Chancellor of Germany, whose bust is on the website of the U.S. Social Security Administration. Bismarck got the idea for Social Security from socialists in Germany. What about the so-called Social Security fund? Suppose a parent has saved $20,000 for his child’s college education. The money is in the form of cash in a home safe. One day, the parent takes the money out and spends it on a new stereo system. But he places a promissory note for $20,000 into the safe. When his kid asks how his college fund is doing, the parent responds, “Don’t worry. It is fully funded.” That’s what the Social Security trust fund is all about. Medicare and Medicaid are no different. They too are socialist programs. The government forcibly takes money from one group of people to pay for the health-care costs of another group of people. The program was enacted during the regime of liberal icon Lyndon Johnson, whose mentor was Franklin Roosevelt. Do conservatives want to repeal Medicare and Medicaid? Are you kidding? They are as committed to those two socialist programs as liberals are. At best, all they want to do is repeal Obamacare and substitute their own reform plan that they’re convinced will finally fix the health-care crisis produced by government intervention into health care (including medical licensure, which conservatives also endorse and which libertarians oppose). Consider the Federal Reserve. Here we have a classic example of the concept of central planning, which is also a feature of socialism. A small group of government officials purports to have the requisite knowledge to plan the monetary affairs of hundreds of millions of people. No wonder there are booms and busts, recessions and depressions, deflation and inflation, and all sorts of monetary crises. But when libertarians call for the Fed be abolished and replaced by a gold standard or a free-market monetary system, conservatives go ballistic, claiming that such an idea is “loony.” I suppose they’d say the same thing about Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, both of whom (here and here) favored the abolition of the Fed, even though, ironically, conservatives often praise them in their speeches and articles. While we’re on the subject of loony, I ask you: What could be loonier than to call yourself a capitalist when you embrace big socialist programs? I mean, if a person came up to you and said, “I believe in God and I believe the atheists have it right,” wouldn’t you think he might be a bit loony? And hey, let’s not forget that it’s not just those three big socialist programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — that conservatives support. They’re also firmly committed to other statist programs, as reflected in the following statement that most conservatives would undoubtedly embrace: As a conservative, I support economic liberty, free markets, and limited government, and I fervently oppose socialism and statism … well, except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate bailouts, education grants, foreign aid, SBA loans, FDIC, food stamps, public works, the Federal Reserve, immigration controls, agricultural subsidies, public (i.e., government schooling), trade restrictions, and drug laws. With all due respect, what could be loonier than that? Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Wed 02/15/12 12:17 PM
|
|
Dude i have been preaching that this country is a Socialist country for a long time.People just seem to think that socialism has to do with old communist Russia and China.They are wrong not all socialism is communism or dictatorship,hell Canada is a socialist coutry,it isn't anything like the Old USSR or China.You can even use Veitnam as an example it's a socialist republic and it's nothing like China or the old USSR either.The US has been the USSR since FDR was president.We are the United States Socialist Republic.It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. And let's look at one capitalist example of the Libertarian alternative: Loss of Safety Net a Blow to Bethlehem Steel Retirees Bankruptcy deal would end benefits long viewed as a reward for loyal service. By David B. Caruso, Los Angeles Times February 10 2003 BETHLEHEM, Pa. -- Some of them went to work in the blast furnaces when they were just 18, then spent half a lifetime handling molten slag and inhaling steel dust in some of the most dangerous jobs on earth. But for the tens of thousands of Bethlehem Steel Corp. workers who stuck it out, retirement promised a rich reward: a hefty pension and a lifetime of almost free health care for themselves and their families. "It was capitalism's version of socialized medicine," said James Van Vliet, a retired Bethlehem Steel vice president. "And it was an implied contract. It was the company and the workers saying, 'We are going to take care of each other.' " It may go down in history as a promise unfulfilled. Only a shadow of its former self, Bethlehem Steel announced Friday that it was seeking Bankruptcy Court approval to terminate health and life insurance benefits for 95,000 retired workers and their dependents March 31. The move, seen as essential to the company's bid to sell its assets to International Steel Group Inc., which was approved by Bethlehem's board Saturday, followed news in December that Bethlehem Steel's pension plan was underfunded by $3.2 billion and would be turned over to a government agency. The sale is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. Both pieces of bad news were expected. The American steel industry has been in decline for decades, and most of its former giants have been trimming pensions and benefits for retirees for years. Moreover, corporate America largely has shifted the responsibility of old-age provisioning to workers, with self-funded plans such as 401(k) accounts. But the one-two punch still is a staggering blow for a generation that had been promised a lifetime of comforts in return for a career spent at one company. Now, some could see their monthly $6 payments for health insurance jump to $200 to $300. "That's a lot to swallow," said Len Christman, 67, who worked 39 years at Bethlehem Steel's sprawling plant in Bethlehem, about 40 miles north of Philadelphia. "It's a very tough position to be in at this stage in life." Nearly all retirees will continue to enjoy some benefits. Pension payments, which are being taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., are expected to continue at about 90% of their former level. For workers older than 65, the federal Medicare program would pick up some health-care costs. But Medicare, which covers hospital visits but doesn't pay for medications, won't come close to covering all the health problems suffered by many retired steelworkers. Joe Pancoe, who worked for Bethlehem Steel for 31 years, said that at 81, he has asthma and a hacking cough and uses a slew of pills and inhalers to soothe his battered lungs. "We, the old-timers, were part of the industrial revolution. And now we are part of the medical revolution. We have the emphysemas, we have the cancers. We have everything," he said. He isn't positive his illnesses were related to his work as a spray painter in the plant's fabrication division, where he said his spit turned red from inhaling fumes, or in the research lab where he regularly handled bags of asbestos. But as he sees it, the country owes him something either way. His labor built propellers for battleships and girders for skyscrapers and bridges. "We helped the country, and the people who helped to build the country should get the benefit of it," Pancoe said. Almost all workers agree that Bethlehem Steel is in little position to help. When it filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2001, the company had about 12,000 employees, down from more than 300,000 during World War II. Most factories have been closed. Bruce Davis, a retired Bethlehem Steel lawyer who serves as legal counsel for the Retired Employees Benefit Coalition, said several labor groups were negotiating to extend the retirees' health-care benefits, at least temporarily. The coalition has asked the company to continue the benefits until May 31 rather than March 31. It also anticipates that it will be able to offer Bethlehem Steel retirees a replacement health insurance package similar to ones offered to retirees at other failed steel companies. The heaviest burden, Davis said, will be borne by retired workers who are under 65 and do not qualify for Medicare coverage. "We need to find a way to get them to age 65 without bankrupting their financial portfolio," Davis said. "If we can do that, the pain of seeing this proud company walk away from them, after so many years, will be considerably lessened." |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 02/15/12 03:48 PM
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. My money is spent long before I ever draw a dollar, and there is no direct relationship between the money I put in and the money I have available, also no guarantee any money paid in will be available, AND no way for me to opt out of the plan of which I want no part. If I had a choice of investing, and a guarantee of the security of my investment, and could manage the funds myself, then I would agree its not a socialist government program. However if I had all that freedom, I sure wouldn't be investing with the US government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. False. The current ratio of "investor" to "recipient" is roughly 3:1. That means every SS recipient's "livelihood" is supported by 3 workers. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html Calling SS a ponzi scheme is an insult to ponzi schemes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. And let's look at one capitalist example of the Libertarian alternative: Loss of Safety Net a Blow to Bethlehem Steel Retirees Bankruptcy deal would end benefits long viewed as a reward for loyal service. By David B. Caruso, Los Angeles Times February 10 2003 BETHLEHEM, Pa. -- Some of them went to work in the blast furnaces when they were just 18, then spent half a lifetime handling molten slag and inhaling steel dust in some of the most dangerous jobs on earth. But for the tens of thousands of Bethlehem Steel Corp. workers who stuck it out, retirement promised a rich reward: a hefty pension and a lifetime of almost free health care for themselves and their families. "It was capitalism's version of socialized medicine," said James Van Vliet, a retired Bethlehem Steel vice president. "And it was an implied contract. It was the company and the workers saying, 'We are going to take care of each other.' " It may go down in history as a promise unfulfilled. Only a shadow of its former self, Bethlehem Steel announced Friday that it was seeking Bankruptcy Court approval to terminate health and life insurance benefits for 95,000 retired workers and their dependents March 31. The move, seen as essential to the company's bid to sell its assets to International Steel Group Inc., which was approved by Bethlehem's board Saturday, followed news in December that Bethlehem Steel's pension plan was underfunded by $3.2 billion and would be turned over to a government agency. The sale is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. Both pieces of bad news were expected. The American steel industry has been in decline for decades, and most of its former giants have been trimming pensions and benefits for retirees for years. Moreover, corporate America largely has shifted the responsibility of old-age provisioning to workers, with self-funded plans such as 401(k) accounts. But the one-two punch still is a staggering blow for a generation that had been promised a lifetime of comforts in return for a career spent at one company. Now, some could see their monthly $6 payments for health insurance jump to $200 to $300. "That's a lot to swallow," said Len Christman, 67, who worked 39 years at Bethlehem Steel's sprawling plant in Bethlehem, about 40 miles north of Philadelphia. "It's a very tough position to be in at this stage in life." Nearly all retirees will continue to enjoy some benefits. Pension payments, which are being taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., are expected to continue at about 90% of their former level. For workers older than 65, the federal Medicare program would pick up some health-care costs. But Medicare, which covers hospital visits but doesn't pay for medications, won't come close to covering all the health problems suffered by many retired steelworkers. Joe Pancoe, who worked for Bethlehem Steel for 31 years, said that at 81, he has asthma and a hacking cough and uses a slew of pills and inhalers to soothe his battered lungs. "We, the old-timers, were part of the industrial revolution. And now we are part of the medical revolution. We have the emphysemas, we have the cancers. We have everything," he said. He isn't positive his illnesses were related to his work as a spray painter in the plant's fabrication division, where he said his spit turned red from inhaling fumes, or in the research lab where he regularly handled bags of asbestos. But as he sees it, the country owes him something either way. His labor built propellers for battleships and girders for skyscrapers and bridges. "We helped the country, and the people who helped to build the country should get the benefit of it," Pancoe said. Almost all workers agree that Bethlehem Steel is in little position to help. When it filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2001, the company had about 12,000 employees, down from more than 300,000 during World War II. Most factories have been closed. Bruce Davis, a retired Bethlehem Steel lawyer who serves as legal counsel for the Retired Employees Benefit Coalition, said several labor groups were negotiating to extend the retirees' health-care benefits, at least temporarily. The coalition has asked the company to continue the benefits until May 31 rather than March 31. It also anticipates that it will be able to offer Bethlehem Steel retirees a replacement health insurance package similar to ones offered to retirees at other failed steel companies. The heaviest burden, Davis said, will be borne by retired workers who are under 65 and do not qualify for Medicare coverage. "We need to find a way to get them to age 65 without bankrupting their financial portfolio," Davis said. "If we can do that, the pain of seeing this proud company walk away from them, after so many years, will be considerably lessened." This is not the "libertarian alternative". This is an example of the failure of welfare and central planning. Before the utopian Great Society folks came along, it was normal for people to save for their own retirement. Now, not only does SS money buy less (price inflation and currency inflation) the burden is shifted ever more to future generations. The libertarian alternative is to let people keep their money (and use whatever they want as money-gold, silver, dollars, euros, etc) and help each other voluntarily. (it used to be commonplace, and let Americans enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, regardless of age) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not the "libertarian alternative". This is an example of the failure of welfare and central planning. Before the utopian Great Society folks came along, it was normal for people to save for their own retirement. Now, not only does SS money buy less (price inflation and currency inflation) the burden is shifted ever more to future generations. The libertarian alternative is to let people keep their money (and use whatever they want as money-gold, silver, dollars, euros, etc) and help each other voluntarily. (it used to be commonplace, and let Americans enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, regardless of age) Sure, and lions will lie down with the lambs in Libertarian Heaven. Hasn't happened yet, and the smart money knows it. It goes more like this cynical saying voiced in one of the 'After The Financial Armegeddon' books of late: If you're in a meeting with a bunch of corporate people and you look around the room and aren't sure you can spot the marks? You're definitely one of 'em. Libertarian financial theory is largely idealistic. It unwittingly falls prey to being the PR folks for the Wolves trying to convince the Sheep to steal Farmer Brown's big 'ol gun and destroy it. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not the "libertarian alternative". This is an example of the failure of welfare and central planning. Before the utopian Great Society folks came along, it was normal for people to save for their own retirement. Now, not only does SS money buy less (price inflation and currency inflation) the burden is shifted ever more to future generations. The libertarian alternative is to let people keep their money (and use whatever they want as money-gold, silver, dollars, euros, etc) and help each other voluntarily. (it used to be commonplace, and let Americans enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, regardless of age) Sure, and lions will lie down with the lambs in Libertarian Heaven. Hasn't happened yet, and the smart money knows it. False. Read Rothbard's "History Of Money and Banking In The United States. The facts therein are well-sourced and not seriously contested by anyone(free here: http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf) Libertarian financial theory is largely idealistic. It unwittingly falls prey to being the PR folks for the Wolves trying to convince the Sheep to steal Farmer Brown's big 'ol gun and destroy it. -Kerry O. Incorrect. You are apparently confusing the Libertarian Party with libertarianism. They're not at all the same. (the LP isn't really libertarian, and was begun primarily as a splinter from the Old Right who had been edged out of the GOP by neo-conservatives) Most libertarian theories of economics are sound and have been proven time and again. Hayek, well-known member of the Austrian school of economics pioneered by Von Mises got his nobel prize in Economics. The Austrian School economists continue to foresee the failures of State programs to this day. The Georgist, anarcho-communists, and other more "out-there" sorts of libertarians don't get much right, but are unfortunately accepted as representative of "libertarianism". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. My money is spent long before I ever draw a dollar, and there is no direct relationship between the money I put in and the money I have available, also no guarantee any money paid in will be available, AND no way for me to opt out of the plan of which I want no part. If I had a choice of investing, and a guarantee of the security of my investment, and could manage the funds myself, then I would agree its not a socialist government program. However if I had all that freedom, I sure wouldn't be investing with the US government. This pay behind system is BECAUSE of the Fed. Goggle ron paul. He will tell you all about it. Been telling you for years. No one would listen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Wed 02/15/12 09:24 PM
|
|
Hornberger makes a valid argurment, with one exception. Social Security is an investment paid for by the people who receive its benefits. It's not a government handlout. My money is spent long before I ever draw a dollar, and there is no direct relationship between the money I put in and the money I have available, also no guarantee any money paid in will be available, AND no way for me to opt out of the plan of which I want no part. If I had a choice of investing, and a guarantee of the security of my investment, and could manage the funds myself, then I would agree its not a socialist government program. However if I had all that freedom, I sure wouldn't be investing with the US government. This pay behind system is BECAUSE of the Fed. Goggle ron paul. He will tell you all about it. Been telling you for years. No one would listen. Also google Murray Rothbard sometime(the first American economist to write about ending the FED, AFAIK). 
|
|
|
|
|
