The Federal Budget. Spending like it's Socialism, taxing like it's Capitalism

Great Debates
1

I see a great rift coming to the United States soon. We can’t decide whether we are a socialist society or a capitalist one.

People insist that they want lower taxes, but those Social Security checks and that Medicare by god better keep coming. Combine these factors with minor inconvieniences like a defense budget and all the other costs of a national government and you’ve got problems. Tax increases and budget cuts are equally loathed and avoided as much as possible by those in power.

So which political party will have the advantage in the coming storm? The Democrats seem to enjoy employing class warfare (Tax cuts for the wealthy, We’ll fight those evil corporations for you, etc.) as they push toward Socialism.

The Republicans push the “You worked for it, you keep it” line as they try to push toward capitalism.

Therefore it would seem a likely result that the haves would side with the Republicans and the have nots with the Democrats.

Hard decisions will have to be made eventually to take care of the baby boomers demands on the Social Security and Medicade systems. What do you think will happen both politically and within society?

Will the growing elderly population be resented by those under 65 if taxes increase?

Will the haves refuse to pay? What would happen if millions of people stopped voluntarily paying taxes?

Will Social Security disappear, betraying at least three generations?

Discuss.

2

Disclaimer: Sorry for the use of quotation marks. The terms enclosed by such punctuation are those for which I lack a more exact word/term. I didn’t want to get too bogged down in semantics, and those words/phrases offer at least a general understanding of what I mean.

That certainly seems to be the logical end to your Democrat/Republican as socialist/capitalist dichotomy, but there is another layer to the puzzle. There are numerous times when a group of “have nots” will side more closely with the “you earned it, you keep it” side of the debate. This is especially true when it is widely felt that movement along the social ladder is easily accomplished, that is when people by the idea of the “self-made man”. Even when no large, easily identifiable groups vote this way, there are always many individuals who will. Likewise, there are those “haves” who feel they have a duty to provide for the “have nots” and that the way they should do this is through government. These people will then tend to support the “class warfare” Democrats.

There are also many other concerns for the electorate including: national defense, religious/moral concerns, civil rights, and the proper balance of national/state governments. These matters cloud the issues even farther, pulling us well away from the view (whether right or wrong) of the split between socialist Democrats and capitalist Republicans. This says nothing of the growing population who see that there is essentially no practical difference between the parties or their main candidates. In other wirds, I don’t think the political debate in the U.S. can so easily be divided.

As for my predictions for the future of society and politics within the U.S., I am a bit concerned.

I, personally, would like to see the ideals and principles of a nineteenth century Liberal state reign supreme. By this, I mean a capitalist society operating as close as possible to the concepts of laizzes-faire governance, in which the full and equal freedom of every person is allowed its run. I would like to see a massive shift away from the welfare state that has been created (I’m sure Euro-Dopers will laugh at that as ours is nowhere near as developed and widespread as theirs). To me, these ideals would also include an “enlightened” view of poverty, charity, and of a “duty” toward helping our fellow man, or at least to those to whom we have some attachment. I am not so naive as to think that there are no problems with a full implementation of any ideology in a practical world, but I think the farther we can go toward a truly free, truly capitalist society the better.

However, I do not see this happening with any effort short of an all-out revolt of the people (which I just do not see happening). Once a set of “entitlements” is created and accepted by the mainstream of society I think it would be an impossibly huge task to remove/revoke it. Our society has developed for at least the last 40 years with an ever-growing entitlement base (one that stretches back about 40 years before that). This kind of precedent and the inertia it builds is hard to overcome. On this basis I see a continual (d)evolution to a more and more socialist state. The only thing, IMO, that would bring us back to a more capitalist state would be a revolt.

With this in mind, I think it is inevitable that the elderly population will grow to be more and more resented by the working population that must, involuntarily, support them. The rates of taxation that will be necessary to provide this support, especially as we see continued growth in the scope of “entitlements” and the elderly population, will reach levels that most Americans would now find unacceptable. This growth in tax rates, however, will be gradual enough that most will not feel the urge to violently oppose the government.

In my view, this attempt to create a stable society will backfire. There will come a point when the burden for the entire social welfare system becomes overwhelming to a population that is raised on the ideology of capitalism and limited government. I see a very real disconnect between the ideas taught to our children and what America is today (and what it may become). If the two are not reconciled in some manner there will be a troublesome trend of dissatisfaction with society and the government which, perhaps, might lead to a destabilization of the very framework of American society.

3

In an era of jaw-dropping deficits, when the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the presidency, isn’t it glib at best and flat-out wrong at worst to generalize the GOP as a “limited government” party?

Yes, they do employ the “you’ve earned it, you keep it” rhetoric. But the Democrats say that, too, to those taxpayers at the lower ends of the income scale. And no matter who is in charge, we can’t seem to reduce government spending.

Perhaps if we remove the partisan labels, we can view the problem as thus: Too many groups have managed to get their fingers in the pie to make it politically possible to remove many entitlements. I’m not talking about Social Security or Medicare; I’m talking about ethanol subsidies or agricultural handouts or the new prescription drug benefit for seniors. And both donkeys and elephants are responsible.

Here’s a little something from the Concord Coalition, from 2001, about entitlements during that short time of budget surpluses. Wait–here’s a better link to an index page of their periodic news alerts.

I’m a partisan Democrat, yet I don’t think either political party escapes blame. This, in turn, means that the American public is the entity really responsible for this mess.

4

The Republicans are a capitalist party. The Democrats are also a capitalist party. Even us Greens are a capitalist party. There are socialist political parties in America but the Democratic Party isn’t one of them. You know there is still time to inform yourself of the basics of the political situation in your country before November.

5

No way! I’d like low taxes, but I think SS should be totally abolished! Hey, its not like I’m getting any money out of it.

6

As 2sense has pointed out, you are confusing political ideologies with economic models. Apples and elephants.

Also:

If your assumptions were to have any validity, even though as has been noted politics and economics are separate beasts, Republicans should be replaced by conservatives. The vast majority of Republicans currently holding federal office are in no way champions of what you claim. While Bush has taken steps to cut taxes (for whom, and to what purpose I’ll leave out this entirely), he and the Congress Critters have shown no inclination to reduce either the size of government, or its expenditures. Given this, it is very difficult to say they are in favor of “you keeping it.”

7

And I should add:

It’s an unhappy awakening to find out we can’t just vote ourselves rich, ain’t it?

8

A social safety net contributes to the stability of a society. Less hardship; fewer acts of desperation. Less urgency to rock the boat. So the federal entitlements do benefit you even if only indirectly. Unless it’s Che Smiling Bandit or something. :wink:

9

UncleBeer, you are correct in pointing out that congress, Republican or Democrat controlled, has shown no interest in cutting spending. I was speaking more toward the representations and constituency courting being done by the major parties.

The distilled version as I see it is that if you are a “have not”, the siren song of the Democrats is designed to appeal to you. “We will tax the rich, who don’t deserve thier ill gotten gains, and give the money to you.”

If you are a “have”, the Republicans woo you with talk of tax cuts and smaller government. “It’s not the governments money, it’s your money.”

Neither party has shown the fortitude to deal with the coming fiscal crisis in any realistic way. Nobody wants to be painted by the other party as either greedy for raising taxes or evil for cutting spending. And if one party gets brave enough to try to deal with the issue, I don’t think the opposite party will be able to resist savaging them for thier own short-term political gain.

You saw what happened when the Republicans were discussing Social Security reform a few years ago. The Democrats told seniors that evil Republicans would be stealing food from thier mouths. And if Democrats propose raising taxes, the Republcans will drop the hammer.

The easiest solution in my mind would be for Republicans to propose tax increases and for Democrats to propose spending cuts. That way, it will reduce political vulnerability. But that would require congress to worry about the future instead of bringing home port for the next election cycle.