Is "liberalsim" financially sustainable, and does this matter?

[St_Francis]

I think it would be lovely if we could have sharing between the rich and the poor so that no one was ever in need, but what I see is that it is financially unsustainable. In the US, we spend a huge percentage of our federal expenditures on “entitlements.”

The health care program Medicare started on the 1960s to help provide health care for the elderly has blossomed into a huge expense, with more increases to come as the baby boomers retire.

Social Security was set up as a ponzi scheme which will collapse because the number of children in a family went down so precipituously that where there were 13 workers per retired person in 1960, there are now only 3, and that is with the expansion of women’s iemployment.

The state medicaid programs continually have to lift their income levels because the price of health care and insurance rises so much more quickly than people’s incomes.

I see the mess Europe, with much higher taxes than ours, is in, and I see us follwing the same undisciplined road.

How can we justify following the liberal (in its current sense) path if it is going to leave oir nation bankrupt?

 

[Heuchler]

Well, logically, if you give people the option of working hard to make a living or receiving a check of other people’s money each month for no reason, most people would rather get free money and let other people pay for their expenses. But really, I wouldn’t care if liberalism allowed everyone to pick up a check for $1,000 each month, as long as abortion and homosexuality are supported, they will never have my vote.

 

[SmallCcatholic]

The govt. opened a can of worms with entitlements. The govt. is lousy at running programs.
The church was called to minister to the needy around them and if you don’t work you don’t eat. The govt created the the whole entitlement society which provides voters to keep those in power to perpetuate the system. Basically half the people are paying for the other half to live off the system…I had someone in my extended family who was laid off for and extended time…they “miraculously” found a job when their bennies were about to expire. I can see help for those physically unable to work…I myself had to retire early on my SS because of health problems after a work fall. There are loads who abuse the system and the only way to clean
house is to weaning the abusers off…I think the times ahead will do that…

 

[St_Francis]

I agree that being able to receive money “for free” is a lot easier than having to work for it, and that our current system discourages people from getting off government funding.

I also see that before the Protestant recolt, we had convents and monasteries dedicated to helping the poor and needy.

But I guess what I want to know is from those who believe that our current system is social justice, and that rather than cutting back, we should be increasing government aid to the poor, or economically disadvantaged think about how that balances out with economic sustainability? They seem not to grasp that a continual outward flow over and above the incoming flow is a problem, or if they acknowledge that, they say to tax the rich more, when even if we taxed all income above $250K at 1000%, it still wouldn’t be enough.

 

[BobCatholic]

First, be aware that the term “liberal” has been co-opted by the leftists.

Real authentic liberals are libertarians.

Leftism is not financially sustainable. It always leads to ponzi schemes collapsing. Europe is not a financial mess because they are not socialistic enough.

Libertarianism is financially sustainable.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I agree that being able to receive money “for free” is a lot easier than having to work for it, and that our current system discourages people from getting off government funding.

But I guess what I want to know is from those who believe that our current system is social justice, and that rather than cutting back, we should be increasing government aid to the poor, or economically disadvantaged think about how that balances out with economic sustainability? They seem not to grasp that a continual outward flow over and above the incoming flow is a problem, or if they acknowledge that, they say to tax the rich more, when even if we taxed all income above $250K at 1000%, it still wouldn’t be enough.

Well that’s why spending needs to be cut in other places.