Cutting the welfare state...

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-18/to-thrive-euro-countries-must-cut-welfare-state.html

NOTE: WARNING: DUNG DO NOT READ THIS... you will simply go into fits and it could lead you to have a heart attack or aneurism or maybe just piss yourself.

For the open minded on the board, I do suggest reading.

Take as an illustration the average Spanish pensioner. Until recently, he or she received a state pension that was more than 80 percent of the average salary of current earners. So when the economy was growing strongly, salaries and therefore pensions did, too. That might not be a problem if wages (and pensions) were to fall again when the economy shrank -- but that doesn’t usually happen. Instead, the pension bill tends to remain at the same elevated levels even as economic growth and government revenue fall, creating an unaffordable ratchet effect.

Europe’s crisis economies will now have to radically reduce their welfare states. State spending in Spain will have to shrink by at least a quarter; Greece should count itself lucky if the cut is less than a half of the pre-crisis expenditure level.

The worse news is that this is likely to be only the first round of welfare-state corrections. The next decade will usher Europe into the age of aging, when inevitably the cost of pensions will rise and providing health care for the elderly will be an even bigger cost driver. This demographic shift will be felt everywhere, including in the Nordic group of countries that has been saved from the worst effects of the sovereign-debt crisis.

Germany, for example, still has an underfunded pension system. One study has projected that on current population- and spending-growth trends, health-care expenditure would account for 15 percent of Germany’s GDP by 2025 and almost 26 percent by 2050 (that last figure would be 33 percent for the U.S.).

Many Danes had to pinch themselves a month ago when their new prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who heads a coalition of leftist parties, launched a strategy document called Denmark 2032. This addressed frankly the need for Denmark to define some tough spending priorities. Its underlying presumption was that the universal welfare state with its generous entitlements would not be able to survive in its current form.

Europe’s social systems will look very different 20 years from now. They will still be around, but benefit programs will be far less generous, and a greater part of social security will be organised privately. Welfare services, like health care, will be exposed to competition and, to a much greater degree, paid for out of pocket or by private insurance.

The big divide in Europe won’t be between North and South or left and right. It will be between countries that diligently manage the transition away from the universal welfare state that has come to define the European social model, and countries that will be forced by events to change the hard way.

The ever nonsensical rambling, of those who have warped Keynesian theory into a 'just keep spending' line of thought (used very loosely) that people like Dung believe in, will obviously continue. They will point and say 'but if we cut spending, it will be painful, therefore we should just spend more'. The problem that they never seem to get is that sooner or later, someone has to feel the pain and pay back the debt. We are responsible for what we use, we should be paying for it. We should not be sticking the bill to future generations. The other problem these warped Keynesians have is that they always forget the second half of the theory. The one where you pay back the debt in the good economic times.

The time has come to pay the piper.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

for america, i don't see why we can't keep most of the current welfare state, revamp it, cut spending in military...also we don't have the same pensioner plan they do.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

for america, i don't see why we can't keep most of the current welfare state, revamp it, cut spending in military...also we don't have the same pensioner plan they do.

I agree. Military spending is our greatest source of financial and political over reach. SS is not a problem and won't be for quite a while and even then it's an easy fix. Lift the payroll tax cap. Medicare costs will be rolled over into health care reform so that to is manageable, assuming a political will to manage the problem. So military spending is where a lot of the pain will start but cutting military spending during a recesion may not be a good idea. Having said that what we spend it rediculous. We could cut spending in half and still outspend the rest of the world combined.

 

[gui1tars]

As pensioners I think the author would be referring to American civil service retirees. NOT welfare by any stretch. And not American Social Security by any stretch. I hate pseudo intellectuals with that kind of shallow and self delusional thought processes. The American problems in the area of welfare are primarily corporate and not individual benefits.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

for america, i don't see why we can't keep most of the current welfare state, revamp it, cut spending in military...also we don't have the same pensioner plan they do.

Yurt what are you doing on here talking sense? Did you smoke something already today?

 

[Rune]

Posted by Superfreak; The one where you pay back the debt in the good economic times.

The time has come to pay the piper.

So these are good times?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt what are you doing on here talking sense? Did you smoke something already today?

i've always had this belief, well not so much cutting military while iraq was in full motion....

but i may have smoked something last night...

 

[Rationalist]

for america, i don't see why we can't keep most of the current welfare state, revamp it, cut spending in military...also we don't have the same pensioner plan they do.

It would make sense to put SS and Medicare under one administrative umbrella, lower the payroll tax rates, and remove the caps altogether. We should also eliminate benefits for people who don't need them (i.e. the super wealthy). These four steps would save both programs for a hundred years. As for Medicaid, it should be block granted to the States.

Military spending should be cut by 33% over eight years. We should have the ability to kick anyone's ass (if they attack us), but we don't need $1 trillion/year to do that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It would make sense to put SS and Medicare under one administrative umbrella, lower the payroll tax rates, and remove the caps altogether. We should also eliminate benefits for people who don't need them (i.e. the super wealthy). These four steps would save both programs for a hundred years. As for Medicaid, it should be block granted to the States.

Military spending should be cut by 33% over eight years. We should have the ability to kick anyone's ass (if they attack us), but we don't need $1 trillion/year to do that.

Dude...block grants? Seriously given some States records? In the case of Texas why not just give Rick Perry the money and cut out the middleman?

 

[Rune]

Dude...block grants? Seriously given some States records? In the case of Texas why not just give Rick Perry the money and cut out the middleman?

Give him credit. He wants to remove the caps, have means testing and cut defense. No one or plan is perfect.

 

[Rationalist]

Dude...block grants? Seriously given some States records? In the case of Texas why not just give Rick Perry the money and cut out the middleman?

Is the Federal government's record any better? Some States will blow it, and their elected officials will be held accountable. But most States will try to find the most efficient way to spend the money and find an approach that works best for them.

This is why I would be in favor of replacing the entire healthcare reform law with a single mandate: by 2024, all States have to guarantee universal healthcare. Some will take a market approach, others will go single-payer. Each State will settle on a system that suits their needs. Don't you think that's what the founders envisioned when they set up a Federalist form of government?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It would make sense to put SS and Medicare under one administrative umbrella, lower the payroll tax rates, and remove the caps altogether. We should also eliminate benefits for people who don't need them (i.e. the super wealthy). These four steps would save both programs for a hundred years. As for Medicaid, it should be block granted to the States.

Military spending should be cut by 33% over eight years. We should have the ability to kick anyone's ass (if they attack us), but we don't need $1 trillion/year to do that.

second...all in favor...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Is the Federal government's record any better? Some States will blow it, and their elected officials will be held accountable. But most States will try to find the most efficient way to spend the money and find an approach that works best for them.

This is why I would be in favor of replacing the entire healthcare reform law with a single mandate: by 2024, all States have to guarantee universal healthcare. Some will take a market approach, others will go single-payer. Each State will settle on a system that suits their needs. Don't you think that's what the founders envisioned when they set up a Federalist form of government?

Sorry dude, that was the same rational used by southern States to justify slavery and some of our founding fathers, obviously, supported slavery. A "State" based plan simply wouldn't work. Americans are to mobile. What happens if your travelling in another State and you get sick or injured? Would your State program be portable? Would it have the same standards? You're also talking about having 50 standards instead of one. No, to be honest it's a horrible idea. He need more standardization in health care management and not less.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

for america, i don't see why we can't keep most of the current welfare state, revamp it, cut spending in military...also we don't have the same pensioner plan they do.

This article was more about what Europe should be doing to clean house, though I do think we can learn from what they are having to go through. I think we can keep the welfare state, so long as we make it for those who need it. Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction. I completely agree with defense spending cuts. But we need to quit promising things that we cannot afford to pay for.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree. Military spending is our greatest source of financial and political over reach. SS is not a problem and won't be for quite a while and even then it's an easy fix. Lift the payroll tax cap. Medicare costs will be rolled over into health care reform so that to is manageable, assuming a political will to manage the problem. So military spending is where a lot of the pain will start but cutting military spending during a recesion may not be a good idea. Having said that what we spend it rediculous. We could cut spending in half and still outspend the rest of the world combined.

SS is a problem, though as you state, it is a fairly easy fix... IF we do it now. The longer we wait, the more painful the solution will have to be. Military cuts will hurt somewhat domestically, but if it is wasteful spending just to maintain the status quo, rip the bandaid off, the slow peel will hurt more. Shutting down foreign bases that we no longer need (especially in Europe) would be a start. Bring them home. Cutting the admin (just as in the DoE) would also drastically reduce costs while not hurting the capability of our armed forces. Definitely need to cut programs that the military itself says we don't need.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Posted by Superfreak; The one where you pay back the debt in the good economic times.

The time has come to pay the piper.

So these are good times?

Now is not the time to reduce debt, but now most certainly is the time to stop deficit spending.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Sorry dude, that was the same rational used by southern States to justify slavery and some of our founding fathers, obviously, supported slavery. A "State" based plan simply wouldn't work. Americans are to mobile. What happens if your travelling in another State and you get sick or injured? Would your State program be portable? Would it have the same standards? You're also talking about having 50 standards instead of one. No, to be honest it's a horrible idea. He need more standardization in health care management and not less.

just because some people use X rational to justify Y, does not mean using X is invalid.

 

[Rationalist]

A "State" based plan simply wouldn't work.

And you know this how exactly? It hasn't even been tried. Nice job injecting slavery into the issue, though. Didn't see that coming.

Americans are to mobile. What happens if your travelling in another State and you get sick or injured? Would your State program be portable? Would it have the same standards? You're also talking about having 50 standards instead of one. No, to be honest it's a horrible idea. He need more standardization in health care management and not less.

As part of the mandate, each State would be required to reimburse other State's for medical expenses incurred in other States. Simple solution.

Why the knee-jerk reaction against anything but a top-down approach? It is much more difficult to reform Federal programs. If medical reform is mandated at the Federal level but enacted by the States, it will be much easier to make adjustments as we go along. Eventually I suspect every State would have more or less the same program anyway, because we'd find out what works best from 50 marketplaces of ideas.

 

[Airstrip One]

Sorry dude, that was the same rational used by southern States to justify slavery and some of our founding fathers, obviously, supported slavery.

How is this a relevant criticism? You either embrace the American principle of federalism, or you do not. Which is it?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And you know this how exactly? It hasn't even been tried. Nice job injecting slavery into the issue, though. Didn't see that coming.

You must be blind then. It is standard MO for Democrats. Shout racist or sexist or compare something to slavery or saying 'you be stealing from the poor/old'. Always always always be on the look out, for one of them will be injected into the 'defense' of 99.9% of Dem positions.