Old-T I'm curious WTF you think of this Greenfield blog post?

[IIFFOFRDB]

or anyone else... http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015...ovement-i.html

Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 10 Comments

The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that.

There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy.

The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure.

A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies.

But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride.

Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state.

And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything.

The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due.

You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad.

Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other.

We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America.

People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down.

The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way.

Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war.

Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy.

That's the hard truth.

There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing.

You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican.

The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones.

There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out.

A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues.

You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all.

The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms.

The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything.

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in.

The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island.

Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward.

To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide.[/QUOTE]

[DSK]

Absolutely spot on. As I have said before: 1. Old-T can be reasonable. 2. I hope they kill the other white liberals first - that would be some measure of justice once the hordes of white haters take their revenge and kill us all.

[IIFFOFRDB]

and this one Old-T? http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2605...iel-greenfield

MOVE TO THE RIGHT TO WIN MINORITY VOTES

Instead of moving left to win minority votes, Republicans should move to the right.
October 23, 2015 Daniel Greenfield

Republicans court the minority vote by making two major mistakes.

The first mistake is assuming that a minority group is a single collective whose members all think the same. Yes, they may vote the same way, but that’s the outcome of a process combining everything from community organizing to media control which created a Democratic political identity for that group.

The second mistake is then aiming outreach at the organizations that form that political identity. That is like Coke trying to get Pepsi executives to drink Coke. It sounds stupid, but Republican outreach that involves the NAACP or Univision appearances are just as stupid. Those are arms of the Democratic Party. The only thing that outreach to them accomplishes is to reinforce their communal power while letting them set the narrative. The outreach ends with Republicans being told about the importance of embracing Democratic policies. And some Republicans are even stupid enough to fall for it.

Republicans are not going to win a majority of their votes any time soon, but they can win a minority of theirs votes without compromising their principles.

And they can do it while weakening the Democratic political identity within that group.

Democrats consistently lose the white vote, but combine high percentages of the minority vote with a minority of the white vote. The Republican model should focus on increasing its share of the white vote, increasing white voter turnout and adding enough minority votes to weaken the Democratic coalition.

Instead of imitating the Democratic Party’s broad spectrum targeting of minorities, Republicans should look at subgroups where they do better than the average within that group. For example, among Asian voters, Republicans perform better with Japanese and Vietnamese Americans than with Chinese or Indian voters. Among Jews, Republicans do better with religious Jews rather than secular Jews.

Bloomberg split the Latino vote in 2001. When he faced a Latino candidate in the New York City mayoral election four years later, he didn’t panic. His opponent was Puerto Rican and so his campaign aimed at the city’s growing Mexican population who felt overlooked and he won a third of Latino voters.

Instead of writing off an entire group as one collective whole, he drilled down to a subgroup.

Republicans make the mistake of looking for a policy popular with most voters in a group. It’s an approach that is statistically sensible, but politically stupid. Worse still, they often sabotage themselves by embracing liberal policies that they think a minority group wants, like amnesty or going easy on drug dealers, when there’s actually a good deal of support within those groups for law enforcement.

The first step in marketing a product is to find out who your customers are and what they want.

Romney won 42% of the Hispanic vote in Ohio. He won 33% of the Hispanic vote in Virginia. While 3/4rs of Hispanics in Ohio were born in America, 47% of Hispanics in Virginia are foreign born. The median income for Hispanics in Virginia is $24,000. It’s $37,500 in Ohio.

Republicans tend to do better with Hispanic voters with a college education and a higher income. They also tend to do better with native born voters.

Statistical breakdowns like these are more than curiosities. They help Republicans narrowly target the types of voters they are likely to do better with, mobilizing them and increasing their turnout.

For example, 60 percent of Jews who attend weekly religious services disapprove of Obama. 58 percent of Jews who rarely attend approve of him.

Romney won 39% of the Vietnamese vote and 37% of the Filipino vote, but only 16% of the Indian vote.

Most voters are still focused on the economy. But where there are single issue concerns, the Republicans would be wiser to keep their principles and split the vote, instead of pandering on issues where Democrats already enjoy an advantage. That means being opposed to amnesty, rather than for it.

Republicans try to win Jewish voters over by combining support for Israel with support for a Two State Solution. But the Two State Solution is killing Israel. It’s most popular with liberal Jews who won’t vote Republican anyway and least popular with the religious Jewish voters who actually lean Republican.

Likewise, instead of pandering to #BlackLivesMatters, Republicans should address black voters worried about crime and gang violence. They’re not going to get the #BlackLivesMatter vote anyway, but they might make some inroads among black voters looking to clean up their neighborhoods.

Instead of liberalizing their positions to appeal to minority voters, Republicans should target conservative issues within segments of minority groups concerned about those issues.

Instead of competing to be better Democrats, they should distinguish themselves as Republicans.

Instead of another consultant class program to rebrand to appeal to some broad construct of the minority vote, Republicans should get to know communities, particularly overlooked ones, and look for areas where local needs and conservative political principles overlap.

Republicans would find more success if they spent less time with Washington insiders who claim to represent minority interests, but who are actually just Democratic community organizers, and instead looked for communities and community leaders that feel unrecognized and unrepresented.

This will require some of the community organizing that allowed the left to build its coalition. But it’s doable. It just means thinking about the Vietnamese vote, instead of the Asian vote. It means doing the hard work of building a political infrastructure that rewards local conservative minority group leaders.

Obama’s coalition wasn’t just a minority coalition, but a coalition of enthusiastic supporters from minority groups who would turn out in aggressive numbers. This is a model that Republicans can and should adopt. The “inoffensive Republican” candidate is a failed legacy of another era that should not have survived the Reagan years.

Being inoffensive does not win elections. Engaging the base by focusing on the compelling issues that they care about does.

Republicans should not back amnesty. That’s stupid and suicidal. Neither should they completely write off the Hispanic vote. They should not endorse pro-crime policies, but neither should they completely write off the black vote. Those are false choices manufactured by the left to push the GOP against a wall.

The smart choice is to maximize voter turnout across racial lines in support of principled policies.

These tactics aren’t likely to win a majority of the minority vote. But no amount of Republican rebranding will do that anyway because much of the minority vote runs through a funnel of community organizations controlled by fundamentally unfriendly groups like ACORN. And fighting crime and opposing illegal immigration actually resonates with some Hispanic and black voters.

When Giuliani first became mayor, he won only 5 percent of the black vote. In his next election, he won 20 percent. His share of the Hispanic vote went from 37 percent to 43 percent.

The media still spent most of its time calling him a racist, but minority voters responded to results.

Giuliani wasn’t able to significantly increase his share of the white vote. For a Republican, 77 percent is already a ridiculously high number in a Democratic city. But he made enough inroads in the non-white vote to achieve a landslide and a political mandate. The first time around, he lost Manhattan and Brooklyn. The second time around, he won both.

The first time, Giuliani won by increasing white voter turnout. The second time, he turned out a larger number of minority voters who were willing to support him while maintaining his existing white support.

This will be the key to the Republican Party increasing its already high lead in statewide offices and competing in unfriendly states and national elections. Its candidates must retain their base and then chip away at the base of the other side. Instead Republicans splintered their own base in frantic efforts to redraw the electoral maps and threw the 2016 election into the frenzy that it is today.

Like Giuliani, Republicans should start by maximizing turnout for their base. And that means standing strong and delivering results on the issues that they care about. Only then they can they use wedge issues to peel away enough of the minority vote that their Democratic opponents can’t afford to lose.

Instead of moving left to win minority votes, Republicans should move to the right.

The Republicans can’t compete on pro-crime policies, amnesty or the welfare state with the left anyway. When they try, they lose their own base. But there are plenty of Asian voters angry about affirmative action, black voters angry about crack dealers in their neighborhoods and middle class Hispanic small business owners who are angry about the welfare state. Instead of chasing minority voters that the GOP can’t get, it should connect on traditional conservative issues with those it can get.

[The_Waco_Kid]

'Instead of moving left to win minority votes, Republicans should move to the right."

exactly right, the republicans need to double down on the core values of the party in order to save the foundation of the republic.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Do you like this opinion, Old-T?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2606...iel-greenfield

CNBC'S BIAS LOSES THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE
Republican candidates team up against CNBC's biased moderators.
October 29, 2015 Daniel Greenfield

There’s no consensus on who won the latest Republican debate, but there was no question that CNBC was the big loser.

The Republican debate on CNBC was supposed to be about the economy; instead it became a debate about media bias as candidates fought moderators over dishonest questions and cynical attacks.

Instead of discussing the economic worries of a nation impoverished by two terms of the Obama Economy, Republican candidates struggled to talk about the concerns of working Americans while CNBC moderators dug up old discredited attacks from the CNN debate and fired gotcha questions at them.

Most observers would have said that there wasn’t much that could bring the Republican field together, but media bias did it. Candidate after candidate struck back at the moderators to thunderous applause from the audience. Instead of a debate between the candidates, the CNBC debate quickly became a pitched battle between the Republican contenders and the outnumbered Democratic moderators.

And by the end of the debate, CNBC moderators Becky Quick, John Harwood, and Carl Quintanilla had been outmaneuvered, beaten and humiliated by the Republican candidates in every round.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were the first to make media bias into the issue. Rubio responded to the attacks on him for missing votes by pointing out that John Kerry had missed 60 percent of his votes when running for office with no objection from the media.

But it was Ted Cruz who really connected by blasting Carl Quintanilla and the rest of the CNBC panel for their attacks.

“The questions that were asked in this debate illustrate why Americans don't trust the media,” Senator Cruz said, to thunderous applause from the audience. “To Trump, are you a comic book villain, Ben Carson, can you do math,” he said, mimicking the ridiculous questions that had been put by the panel.

Cruz contrasted that with the Democratic debate asking the candidates, “Which of you is more handsome and wise?”

“Nobody believes a democratic moderator has any intention of voting in a Republican primary,” he added.

And it was all downhill for the moderators from there. Despite attempts to punish Ted Cruz on time, he ended up getting the time to answer his question anyway. The balance of power had shifted.

Before the debate was over, Christie would ridicule the moderators for talking about fantasy football, Rand Paul would slam accusations of “Know-Nothingism,” Rubio would successfully fact-check a discredited attack from CNBC’s John Harwood, that even Harwood had originally admitted was wrong, and Fiorina would gracefully parry Becky Quick’s gotcha question about Tom Perkins.

“Those people who are trying to divide us, are our enemies,” Ben Carson said, and that became the theme for the night.

“This debate needs to be about the Americans struggling to provide for their families,” Marco Rubio had insisted. And if the media wasn’t willing to talk about struggling Americans, the candidates would challenge the media’s agenda instead.

“John do you want me to answer or do you want to answer? Even in New Jersey, what you're doing would be considered rude,” Christie berated a sniveling Harwood.

In one of the more famous lines of the night, Rubio called out the mainstream media as “The ultimate Super PAC.” Pivoting to Benghazi, he said that the reason most Americans didn’t know that this was the week that Hillary had been exposed for lying about the attack was that “Hillary has her Super PAC, the mainstream media, helping her out.”

Each of the CNBC moderators had their own plan of attack on debate night. John Harwood asked ridiculously insulting and biased questions with the grave mien of a confused undertaker. Becky Quick tried to play chess, asking mild questions that set up her target for a follow-up gotcha attack.

Carl Quintanilla tried a little of both, but never recovered from Ted Cruz’s populist beating. John Harwood was fact-checked hard by multiple candidates on his lies. Becky Quick’s complicated traps never seemed to go off the way she expected them to as the candidates just brushed her off.

The moderators lost control of the debate as the audience lustily booed their worst questions like Harwood’s Trump challenge to Huckabee and Quintanilla’s ugly attempt at hurling an accusation of bad judgment at Ben Carson even after the CNBC hack had clearly lost the exchange to the mild-mannered neurosurgeon.

The audience wanted a united field and for the first time, in the face of a ridiculously hostile panel of moderators, they got it as candidates supported each other and cheered each other on.

With the exception of John Kasich, they had finally found a common leftist foe to fight.

With the audience on their side, not to mention apparently the crew, Republican candidates casually talked over moderators. Becky Quick’s revealing response to Rand Paul about which candidates get time, “It was at the moderator’s discretion,” destroyed the last shreds of CNBC moderator credibility.

And out of the ashes of the debate, freed from the restrictive leading questions of the moderators, they began to actually talk about the economic issues that mattered. Despite the best efforts of CNBC, this became a debate about the economy, about tax policy, government spending and social security.

Most of the candidates refrained from taking cheap shots at each other. Instead they respectfully differed and quoted numbers and talked details as the debate became what it was meant to be.

Ted Cruz talked about the effect of loose money on the 40 percent rise in hamburger prices. Marco Rubio discussed cracking down on H-1B visa abuses. Christie called out a “political justice department” that failed to prosecute improprieties at companies tied to Obama.

Ben Carson told the audience that class warfare wouldn’t work. “You can take everything from rich people and it wouldn't even make a dent.”

Ted Cruz pointed out that under Obama, “3.7 million working women have fallen into poverty.” Carly Fiorina reminded us that 90 percent of the jobs lost under Obama's first term belonged to women.

Speaking of government spending, Mike Huckabee asked whether you would trust a 400lb man who said, “I'm going to go on a diet, but I'm going to eat a sack of Krispy Kremes first.” Christie said of Hillary, “If someone has already stolen from you, would you trust him with more money?”

Ted Cruz blasted the budget deal as the perfect example of how Washington, D.C. is broken. “The Republican leadership joined with every Democrat to add to our debt.”

Carly Fiorina explained to the audience that companies consolidate to become big and powerful to use a big and powerful government to their advantage. She pointed out that there were a handful of huge banks and few little banks because of the system of financial regulation advocated by Democrats.

And so, in between the CNBC moderators interrupting the candidates and each other to throw in questions about gun control and global warming, old discredited attacks about Trump and Rubio’s finances, commercials desperately trying to make the likes of Chuck Todd seem cool, and weather updates from Milan and Minsk, the candidates were able to make their case for America.

Ted Cruz said that the Democratic debate was between the “Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.” By contrast, the Republican debate evolved into an actual discussion of economics and practical policies. There were setbacks and gaffes, and not every candidate got with the program, but the majority of the men and women on that stage talked about the real issues facing working Americans.

They did it despite the obstructionism of the media. They won the debate in a real way, not against each other, but against the left, its media operation and its narrative. They pushed back against it and they won. And perhaps, they will have all learned a valuable lesson about the kind of victories that are truly worth winning if they are to change this country.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer......
You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy.
Ok i know everyone just reads their own crap in here but I've said in here time and time again that the rich dims use government for the passing out of goodies as a buffer to keep the goths and visigoths and vandals at bay so they can remain safe in their compounds and park avenue apartments

Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. honesty and hard work is social conservatism as well.


You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all.

The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing.

The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island.

Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward.

the left doesn't quit, even when the berlin wall came down, did they quit? nope they persevered, they didn't let that bit of liberty halt them

[/QUOTE]

[IIFFOFRDB]

The End, Old-T...

Friday, October 30, 2015
The Death of the American Welfare State

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

In 1935, the year that FDR signed the Social Security Act into law, the birth rate was 18.7 per 1,000. In 1940, when the first monthly check was issued, it had gone up to 19.4. By 1954, when Disability had been added, the birth rate at the heart of the Baby Boom stood at 25.3.

In a nation of 163 million people, 4 million babies were being born each year.

By 1965, when Medicare was plugged in, the birth rate had fallen back to 19.4. For the first time in ten years fewer than 4 million babies had been born in a country of 195 million. Medicare had been added in the same year that saw the single biggest drop in birth rates since the Great Depression.

There could not have been a worse time for Medicare than the end of the Baby Boom.

Today in a nation of 319 million, 4.1 million babies are being born each year for a birth rate of 13.0 per 1,000. 40.7% of those births are to unmarried mothers meaning that it will be a long time, if ever, before those single families put back into the system, and most will never put back in as much as they are taking out. Those children will cost more to educate, be more likely to be involved in crime and less likely to succeed economically. But even if they weren't, the system would still be unsustainable.

Liberals act as if the crisis facing us can be fixed if we take more from the "wealthy elderly" or give them less. And the topic even came up at the CNBC Republican debate in a Social Security debate.

But the problem is not the amount of money being spent at the top on the elderly, but the diminishing prospects for paying in money at the bottom. Youth unemployment is high and job prospects are low. And the birth rate is skewed toward populations that are the least likely to be educated, the least likely to have good jobs and the least likely to pay more into the system than that they take out of it.

At the CNBC Debate, Senator Rand Paul said, "It’s not Republicans’ fault, it’s not Democrats’ fault, it’s your grandparents’ fault for having too many damn kids." But it's the other way around. Your grandparents didn't have enough kids. Neither did your parents. Neither do you.

Ron Paul had five kids. He had four brothers. That's a stable generational expansion. Without that, there's no one to pay for an older population that is living longer.

The crisis is born of demographics. It can't be fixed by targeting the elderly because they haven't been the problem in some time. It's the same crisis being faced by countries as diverse as Russia and Japan. The difference is that Russia is autocratic and has little concern for its people while Japan shuns immigration and has a political system dominated by the elderly.

Bernie Sanders admires Europe. But Europe's welfare state is imploding because of low birth rates. And so it adopted the American solution of expecting immigrants to make up the difference. But the immigrants have high rates of unemployment and low rates of productivity. Instead of funding the welfare state, they're bankrupting it even faster.

The United States takes in a million immigrants a year, many of whom also take out more than they put in. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Barack Obama praised Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Haitian woman who moved to the United States at the age of 79 and doesn't speak English, but did spend hours waiting in line in Florida to vote for Obama.

Between 1990 and 2010, the number of immigrants over 65 doubled from 2.7 million to 5 million. 25 percent of these senior immigrants were over 80. Desiline Victor wasn't an outlier. Elderly immigrants are also much more likely to become citizens, in part because the requirements for them are lower. Many, like Victor, don't even have to learn English to be able to stand in line and vote.

15 percent of senior immigrants come from Mexico largely as a result of family unification programs. If amnesty for illegal aliens goes through, before long the country will be on the hook not just for twelve million illegal aliens, but also for their grandparents.

The welfare state has been spending more money with an unsustainable demographic imbalance. There are fewer working families supporting more elderly, immigrants and broken families. The Russians invest money into increasing the native birth rate. Instead we fund Planned Parenthood because liberal economic eugenics dictates that we should extract "full value" from working women as a tax base to subsidize the welfare state while discarding the next generation.

The "modern" system that we have adopted with its low birth rates, late marriages, working parents, high social spending and retirement benefits is at odds with itself. We can have low birth rates, deficit spending or Social Security; but there is no possible way that we can have all three.

And yet we have all three.


Instead of forming a comprehensive picture, our approach is to tackle each problem as if were wholly separate from everything else. Working parents are applauded because they swell out the tax base in the short term. Young immigrants are applauded because they are supposed to swell out the lower part of the demographic imbalance. Manufacturing jobs are cast aside for modern jobs. The long term consequences of each step is ignored.

In the European model that we have adopted, men and women are supposed to spend their twenties being educated and their thirties having two children. These Johns and Julias will work in some appropriately "modern" field building apps, designing environmentally sustainable cribs for the few children being born or teaching new immigrants to speak enough English to vote. Then they plan to retire on money that doesn't actually exist because they are still paying off their student loans.

The reality is that John and Julia begin their marriage with tens of thousands in debts, only one of them will work full time, while the other balances part time work, and they will do all this while being expected to support social services for new immigrants and a native working class displaced by the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, not to mention the elderly and the entire bureaucracy that has grown around them. If John and Julia are lucky, they will find work in a technology field that is still growing, or, more likely they will pry their way into the social services bureaucracy which will keep on paying them and cover their benefits until the national bankruptcy finally arrives.

John and Julia are Obama voters. They have two children. They don't worry about the future. The future to them seems to be a bright and modern thing overseen by experts and meticulously planned out in every detail. The only dark clouds on their horizon are the Republicans and the Great Unwashed in the Red States who are resisting the future by clinging to their guns and bibles.

In this post-work and post-poverty economy, those most likely to have children are also least likely to work or to be able to afford to have those children.

Birth rates for women on welfare are three times higher than for those who are not on welfare. Within a single year, the census survey found that unmarried women had twice as high a birth rate as married women. These demographics help perpetuate poverty and feed a welfare death spiral in which more money has to be spent on social services for a less productive tax base.

Children raised on welfare are far more likely to end up on welfare than the children of working families.

Fertility rates fall sharply above the $50,000 income line and with a graduate degree; that has ominous implications in a country whose socio-economic mobility rates continue to fall. There are a number of factors responsible, but one simple factor is that work ethics and skills are no longer being passed down to a growing percentage of the population.

Liberal activists still talk as if we can afford any level of social service expenditures if we raise taxes on the rich, but workers can't be created by raising taxes. The issue isn't "investing more in education" which is the liberal solution for everything including the imminent heat death of the universe.

It's liberalism.

Everything that the left has done, from breaking up the family to driving out manufacturing industries to promoting Third World immigration has made its own spending completely unsustainable. On a social level alone, we don't have the people we need to pay the bills. And at the rate we are going, we will only run up more bills that our demographics and our culture can no longer cash.

By 2031, nearly a century after the Social Security Act, an estimated 75 million baby boomers will have retired. Aside from the demographic disparity in worker ages is a subtler disparity in worker productivity and independence as senior citizens are left chasing social spending dollars that are increasingly going to a younger population. ObamaCare with its Medicare Advantage cuts was a bellwether of the shift in health care spending from seniors to the welfare population.

14 million people are now on Disability. That means that there are more people on Disability than there were people in the country during the War of 1812. Half of those on Disability are claiming back problems or mental problems. There are over a million children on Disability and the program is packed with younger recipients who are substituting it for welfare.

Increasing welfare is only a form of Death Panel economic triage that doesn't compensate for the lack
of productive workers. It's easy to model Obamerica as Detroit, a country with a huge indigent welfare population and a small wealthy tax base. The model doesn't work in Detroit and it's flailing in New York, California and every city and state where it's been tried.

After a century of misery, the left still hasn’t learned that there is no substitute for the middle class. It’s not just running out of money, it’s running out of people.

The welfare state is bankrupt and doesn't know it yet. Reality hasn't caught up with the numbers. Instead the welfare state is floating on loans based on past productivity, old infrastructure and a diminishing productive population whose technological industries employ fewer people and don't require their physical presence in the United States.

The welfare state has no future. It is only a question of what terms it will implode on and what will happen to the social welfare political infrastructure when it does. The violence in Venezuela and the slow death of Detroit give us insights into the coming collapse of the welfare state.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015...are-state.html