[eggaforbreakfast]

the welfare state is essentially a system that gives people money for not doing anything.

the real reason why all western governments are in so much debt is because of the obscene amounts of money they have to borrow every year to service the welfare state.

the charade went on for few decades because of some economic bubbles, but it was always doomed to failure because you simply cannot indefinitely borrow to service a champagne lifestyle you cannot afford.

in fact, its almost as if it was a conspiracy cooked up by the super rich 1% -- after all, what better way for bankers to become rich than by creating a system that guarantees that governments will borrow trillions of pounds every year from them at interest.


of course, the supreme irony of the welfare state was always that capitalism made it possible in the first place.

[Ski Bum]

Or you could say that the economic crisis has proved the need for a welfare state. Look at the economic and social problems that have been caused by the bust in the USA where they have less of a welfare state than us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/fro...00/9694094.stm
you dont see this happening here do you!

[eggaforbreakfast]

(Original post by Ski Bum)
Or you could say that the economic crisis has proved the need for a welfare state. Look at the economic and social problems that have been caused by the bust in the USA where they have less of a welfare state than us.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/fro...00/9694094.stm
you dont see this happening here do you!

america spends $900 billion a year on welfare programmes. thats 25% of GDP.

its clearly not affordable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._United_States

[JCC-MGS]

Yeah, a recession caused by failure to regulate banking and housing markets is a stellar argument against the welfare state

[Hopple]

(Original post by eggaforbreakfast)
the welfare state is essentially a system that gives people money for not doing anything.

the real reason why all western governments are in so much debt is because of the obscene amounts of money they have to borrow every year to service the welfare state.

the charade went on for few decades because of some economic bubbles, but it was always doomed to failure because you simply cannot indefinitely borrow to service a champagne lifestyle you cannot afford.

in fact, its almost as if it was a conspiracy cooked up by the super rich 1% -- after all, what better way for bankers to become rich than by creating a system that guarantees that governments will borrow trillions of pounds every year from them at interest.


of course, the supreme irony of the welfare state was always that capitalism made it possible in the first place.

Giving out benefits is a cheaper and more effective way of cutting rates of theft than employing more cops. It isn't done out of any moral duty, whatever any political party claims, but out of practicality.

[Ski Bum]

(Original post by eggaforbreakfast)
america spends $900 billion a year on welfare programmes. thats 25% of GDP.

its clearly not affordable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._United_States

well surely thats proof that our welfare state has succeeded?
if the US are spending $36,00 per capita on welfare and we are spending $24,100 (admittedly these figures are from 2001 but you get my point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare...re_expenditure)) and we are seeing far lower levels of relative poverty the welfare state must be doing something right.