The Coming Collapse of the Welfare State

BabyBoomersAgedIn 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 317 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 so that it will be a long time, if ever, before they pay back into the system, and most will never put back in as much as they are taking out.

Liberals and libertarians both act as if the crisis facing us can be fixed if we take more from the “wealthy elderly” or give them less. 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.

The United States however takes in a million immigrants a year. 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 never learned to 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. Twenty-five percent of these senior immigrants were over 80. Elderly immigrants are also much more likely to become citizens, in part because the requirements for them are lower. Many, like Desiline 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, 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.

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.

John and Julia began 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.

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.

Progressive 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. 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 social welfare spending completely unsustainable.

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.

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 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.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Steeloak

    I don’t know what will happen when the government runs out of money, but like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, it ain’t going to be pretty. You might want to stock up on essentials, just sayin.

    • Disapp

      What about the Executive Order-National Defense Resources Preparedness- giving the president of the United States the right to seize all food, water, etc.?

      • Chiron_Venizelos

        Sadly, there are too few people who are aware of how this works. I would imagine the government would sieze the sales records of survival food vendors and go confiscate all they needed but I very seriously doubt that the redistribution of food (and other essentials) would assuage the anger of the “entidamit” crowd. There WILL be a riot!

    • Silver Garcia

      Currency governments have in abundance. The Federal Reserve that is not a government agency and only has reserves of managers managing managers, is rich in ink, ink reservoirs, paper and printing presses. But as far as money is concerned, i.e, gold, silver, deliverable barrels of oil, copper, palladium, zinc, lead it legally sell, the West is beyond broke!!

      • blert

        The Federal Reserve IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.

        It’s half-in/ half-out. This delightfully confuses the proles — which includes a vast number of paranoid posters who still have not glommed on to its deliberately confusing economic structure.

        The best term of art is Fedsury. These two are fused at the hip.

        While publically portrayed as a private institution — with the commercial banks stumping up the common share equity in the bank — such is an illusion. Those ‘common’ shares are structured to ENTIRELY replicate the form and function of Preferred Stock Shares — as was the norm a century ago. THEY were the high yield bonds of their era. Remember, there was no income tax. So the corporation — any corporation — favored issuing preferreds as against debt. It’s what the market wanted and accepted back then.

        The typical preferred share paid a flat 6% dividend — against its Par Value. That quaint figure was a share’s residual value should the firm go belly-up. Until then, the shares were perpetual. They also had limited and specific voting rights — typically overriding the common when the firm became insolvent — of if too many preferred dividends were skipped.

        The TRUE equity holder in the Federal Reserve Bank is Congress. It’s not on the ledger at all — it just has total economic control of the institution. This ‘structure’ entirely replicates that used by the Mafia when owning casinos in Vegas. They made all of the rules, took the profits as ‘skim’ and then let the front man bear the ‘face time.’

        The profits of the Federal Reserve are skimmed back to Congress each year. Yes, they’re published. These figures make the 6% dividend to the bankers look like the joke it is.

        BTW, the 6% is paid on UNLEVERAGED monies. It functions as a penalty rate for the banks. (!) The same equity would earn many, many, times as much backing ordinary loans.

        The fusion aspect is that the Fed is massively cronyist. Which is to say that the bankers take their true economic dividend by way of Fed policy. Whenever they get in a pinch, the Fed greases them with liquidity.

        This is exactly why no one re-states the Cross of Gold Speach.
        (Google it.) The Fed is giving/ has given the farmers of America all of the inflation/ easy money that Bryan was howling about. This now goes completely unremarked. It’s a TOTAL reversal of the dynamics of the 19th Century.

    • Bamaguje

      Government has already run out of money. That’s why they go borrowing, whine about the debt ceiling and print more money a.k.a. Quantitative easing.

      • mezcukor

        It is more like China is coming to America. They owe our huge national debt and they they now have a huge reserve of bonds to cash in. America has sold itself to China. That is a very dangerous path.

        • Shmalkandik

          Might that be a good argument in favor of default?
          Not ony would it injure China, but it would ensure the US could not borrow again at least for some decades.

          • hktony

            why injure anyone? You sold your debt so pay up!! You expect others to pay up so do it yourself!

          • Mike

            You obviously do not understand the Nation’s monetary system very well, for if we all pay our debts, there would not be one single penny left in existence.

  • blert


  • UCSPanther

    The future does not augur well for Progressive ideology and those who follow it.

    Progressives have an almost child-like faith in the inevitability of their ideology, but the truth is being laid bare. They are running out of money, and no amount of “taxing the rich” will save their worthless hides.

    • aldisiij367

      My Uncle Isaac just got a nice 12 month old
      Jeep from only workin on a pc at home… Read Full Article F­i­s­c­a­l­P­o­s­t­.­ℂ­o­m

    • Bamaguje

      Unfortunately it’s not just ‘progressives’ (I resent the term because they are actually inimical to societal progress) that are adversely affected.
      Unless the Red states secede, leftards are taking down the rest of America with them.

      • William_Bradford

        Dr. Ben Carson at a dinner speech some years ago in Dallas made the following comment, and I am paraphrasing: let not those in the back of the boat cheer when those in the front of the boat start to sink, for there is but one boat, and what happens to one happens to all, we’re all in the boat together.

        Carson is just a brilliant man – a man to be emulated, and admired. Read his book: Gifted Hands; it’s the quintessential Horatio Alger story –

    • Diogenes13

      just print it …. look how well the DJIA is doing with it’s newly minted billions every month… Why work? Just go down town and sign up for your share of obamabucks! … worthless money for worthless drones. but not to worry … worthless money and nothing to buy is right around the corner. GO “O”!!! GO “O”!!! Keep them presses humming!

  • truebearing

    Very well delineated. It is like watching a train approaching at a high rate of speed…while sitting in a car, stalled on the tracks.

  • Bamaguje

    “…census survey found that unmarried women had twice as high a birth rate as married women… Children raised on welfare are far more likely to end up on welfare than the children of working families” – Daniel Greenfield.

    And you have a problem when these unproductive economic parasites opt for abortion.
    It’s not just that these parasites are a huge economic burden on society, they are also a menace to society. Badly brought up Black kids from dysfunctional single parent homes running amok in flash mobs knocking out White people.

    • chuckie2u

      Unfortunately you have missed the benefits of the poverty crowd creating wealth. As I understand the liberals mantra, those who receive financial aid create Government jobs at all levels. There is a need to manage these poor ignorant souls at all levels,thus creating jobs. All the money placed in their hands isn’t kept but spent at retail operations like Wal-Mart. Then there is all the untaxed revenue used to buy drugs and keeping the underground economy alive and well.
      In the end unlike prostitution which kept money circulating in the old West folks in poverty help to keep money circulating in our socialist economy and help keep liberal politicians in a job.

      • Bamaguje

        “As I understand the liberals mantra, those who receive financial aid create Government jobs at all levels” – Chuckie2u.

        Exactly!! Bureaucrats are themselves mostly parasites. For the most part they do not add value to society, but are part of the cogs in the wheels of progress.
        This is what I meant when I insisted on people having “meaningful productive jobs.”

  • Kevin O’Kelley

    Heh. As PM Thatcher observed: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

    • Richard J. Garfunkel

      Her record was no bargain and as in America, the beneficiaries were the top 1%. If you are in that group good luck! Just read the new GOP House tax plan. Two brackets 25 and 10% with a 10% surcharge on some income categories, but no changes for the top earners who make most of their money from deferred income, and capital gains. In fact, few people will see their taxes go down. But for sure deficits will rise and the only cuts can come in three categories: military (they should, the wars are over and the world has changed) Medicare and Social Security, which will hurt you, your parents, the elderly and the sick. It’s got no chance!

      • Richard Fontaine

        You are one of those idiots that the Progressives hire to just spew nonsense into the online discussions to confuse people with complete claptrap and BS. Do you really think anyone bothers to read your horse manure?

        • Seek

          Why is it that only the Left “spews?” And people like you don’t “spew” when faced with a contrarian opinion? Look into the mirror.

      • fistdeyuma

        As the great lady said, “progressives would rather none do well than everyone do well, if some do better”

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The beneficiaries of every regime are the elite. That is truer of totalitarians like Obama.

      • LibertarianToo

        I have always thought there was something a little askew about a lower tax rate on money that one’s money earns while one is golfing or sailing, than on the money one earns cleaning toilets or mining coal. It is not as if “investors” wouldn’t invest their money if it were taxed at the same rate as earned income -they aren’t investing as an act of charity after all, but to make a return.

        • NAHALKIDES

          There is a fairness argument to be made that if we’re to have an income tax (a big “if”), all income should be taxed at the same rate – indeed, I consider a progressive tax to be a great evil and would insist that all people be taxed at the same rate, regardless of income level. But your other statement is completely wrong: if capital gains were taxed as ordinary income, there would be less capital investment (no one knows how much less). Taxes do influence behavior, always, and how the wealthy invest their money makes a great deal of difference to the rest of us. A wealthy man who invests in a new factory does a lot more good than one who buys government bonds.

          It is for this reason that even Democratically-controlled Congresses have never raised the capital gains rate to that used for ordinary income. I would suggest lowering the income tax rate down to capital gains levels, which would be fair but also require massive social welfare spending cuts. I’m o.k. with that, but I suspect you’re not.

          • LibertarianToo

            “A wealthy man who invests in a new factory does a lot more good than one who buys government bonds.”

            “Doing good” aside, investment isn’t charity. Investors are motivated by a desire to make money, and it is not within the legitimate purview of government to use the tax code to reward them. The workings of the market do that -or don’t. Manipulating the tax code throws what should be an irrelevant factor into the equation, and provides a temptation for the gov’t to pick winners and losers.The investor expects a return on investment, and a greater potential for that return is to be had by investing, as you say, in a factory rather than in gov’t bonds. Does he need a tax break as well?

            “I would suggest lowering the income tax rate down to capital gains levels, which would be fair but also require massive social welfare spending cuts. I’m o.k. with that, but I suspect you’re not.”

            And I suspect you don’t know what a Libertarian is.

          • davarino

            And I suggest that lowering the income tax rate down to capital gains levels would bring in more revenue, and restart the economy like a wild fire. But “progressives” wouldnt go for that because it would make their hearts cry.

          • NAHALKIDES

            It isn’t a question of using the tax code to reward investors, it’s a question of not punishing investors with high taxes to the point that the economy is crushed. Taxes on investment lead to less investment – period. I’m sorry if you can’t cope with this basic fact of economics.

            And alas, I know all too well what a Libertarian is – an intellectual parasite stealing the political ideas of classical liberalism (which means stealing from Conservativism) or Ayn Rand’s Objectivism while denying the importance of culture and values. Libertarians basically run a debating society while having no effect on American politics other than to help elect a few Democratic statists. I detailed the movement’s failings in Libertarianism Minus Conservatism = Zero if you’re interested.

          • blehtastic

            All investment accounts should be taxed similarly to IRAs. If you leave your money invested, no taxes, but when you take it out and put it into an account where you can buy goods or services, or take it out as cash, your capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income.

      • A Z

        The wars are over.

        You call Daniel Greenfield piece moronic and yet you stumble over the truth and do not realize it. Are you blind?

        There are a few dozen wars every year.

        The number of wars x breaking out in a given year is
        e^-0.69 * ((0.60)^x) / x!,

        where x is 0,1, 2 ,3 , …

        Unless human nature has changed, this is still true. Just because your arguments are moronic does change the fact that wars are breaking out all over all the time.

        For example Nigeria is at War. the Boko Haram for example has killed enough people for it to be considered a war. You can ignore it in your best liberal/progressive fashion but ti is still a fact.

        • A Z

          Source: An introduction to Mathematic Statistics and Application page 203

          I found a better book but due to morals I didn’t swipe it from the library where no one read it. I also lost the name of the book.

          It was eye bleeding stats. They used the chi square distribution. the author discussed what was considered war of something lesser. He discussed the people of Papua New Guinea and opined that those skirmishes were not war. You need a certain critical mass of people and deaths to be considered war and for war to begin.

          Maybe Garfinkel should study psychology and statistics, but he won’t . He is a prog. He cannot betray his DNA

      • iamguarino

        Yes lets cut the military benefits because we all know now that the world is changing no country would dare to attack the mighty U.S of A. Oh that’s right you cut the military, good luck defending yourself. I’ll bet you wouldn’t know how to defend yourself but I will bet you will be the loudest to cry out for someone to defend you.

      • Drakken

        The wars are over you say? Well history would beg to differ and useful idiots of the left like you are always in denial, right up until someone lines you up against a wall or a ditch. I used to feel sorry for you regressives, I am now all out of any type of sympathy or empathy, you and folks of your leftist ilk richly deserve what is coming.


    The collapse will come soon. There is no stopping it. The dollar is worthless and soon we will see hyper-inflation. Stock your freezers and pantries for the long haul!

    • Richard J. Garfunkel

      The collapse is in your mind!

      • hateprogs

        U r stupid. U will be on the list

      • Daniel Greenfield

        And in your mind, we’re in the middle of a grand economic recovery.

        • A Z

          Tactically, I hope Richard Garfunkel is or was a decent financial planner.

          Operationally or strategically he is economically illiterate.

 & tell what a lie the economic recovery is.

      • UCSPanther

        You can call us paranoid, but we have one thing you don’t: Foresight.

      • Drakken

        I really want the drugs your on, because no one with two brain cells to rub together cannot fail to see that the current economic policies are a train wreck.

        • AL1A

          After 54yrs of being alive; conditions are going to change and it won’t be for the better. Can this county turn around? Do you think it will? Evidently the functions of this country are ass backwards and the functions of this county are not going to change unless we vote for someone that don’t have his or her head up their ass.

  • Richard J. Garfunkel

    Boy that’s a moronic piece filled with half-truths, moronic conclusions and misinformation. The birth rate is down all over the world, in most countries. There are still a few that are up, but in America, all groups are down. The high cost of living, driven by the high cost of services has forced families to limit the amount of their children. If birth control had existed in earlier generations, the planet would be less crowed and we would assuredly less people in America. He should read the book, “The Graying of the great Powers.” As to his model regarding population trends, it is also laughable. He’s cherry picking, as usual. His idea that Obama is picking on seniors is also a joke. Seniors are doing quite well in this country because the Democrats created and sustain Social Security and Medicare, plain and simple. Ayn Rand Paul and his libertarian plutocrats would end those programs in a heart beat. Population trends and our demographics can’t be engineered by right-wing ideologues who wish to have more births to expand the poor, lower the price of labor and make the lives of the 1% even happier.

    • alericKong

      Birth control exists now but we have high birth rates with broken families because we pay for it, because Democrats want to hold office.

      We have no money left and more baby boomers will retire. Social Security and Medicare will be gone soon on their own. Politicians who care about something else than their own selfish power want to address it now when they can.

      I never heard of a conservative wanting to expand the poor.

      Do you there is no waste in the $3 trillion a year debt, $75 billion printing a month federal budget?

      Do you think food stamp recruiters and medicare beneficiaries are doing everything they can to improve their lives?

      Rand Paul wants to end a lot of corruption at the federal level. He said he will do this incrementally and make sure private charities, which do a better job with less fraud, are in place first.

      • Richard J. Garfunkel

        But of course, the Republicans are brought up on two
        distinct mantras; “survival of the fittest (Social Darwinism) and that any one who varies from this line is either a socialist or even worse, a communist. Often I hear from my Republican colleagues, “You believe in re-distribution of
        income,” meaning I must be a commie rat. “No,” I answer, “I believe in hightaxes on the rich.”

        So what has the recent economic history shown all of us? Well unemployment has always increased under Republicans and basically decreased under Democrats.

        On a year by year basis- Clinton, Carter, Reagan, LBJ, Truman, Nixon and JFK lead Ford, Bush I and II and
        Eisenhower by a wide margin. In 28 years the Democrats created 57 million jobs to the GOP’s 36 million in 36 years. Those are the facts. Look it up in the Wall Street Journal.

        While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars-
        and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

        The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday
        (February 22, 2012.).

        That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

        • Richard J. Garfunkel

          America is not a welfare state by any definition, the Democrats want to lift people from poverty and have over the decades, employment and the markets have
          done better by far under Democrats, deficits have been steep under Republic administrations (Reagan-Bush I quadrupled the debt without a war) every society that has ignored its people by creating two distinct classes; rich and poor, without a vibrant middle class have collapsed.

          So, what have we seen since the late 1970s and the onset of Ronald Reagan? From 1970 through 2000, Fortune 500 employee compensation barely moved up in real dollars by 10%. Conversely the CEOs of these same companies, who had earned a
          ratio of 35 to 1 over their employees, saw their tax brackets cut by 70% to a 75 year low of 28% and their salary soar to 1000 to 1 or a raise of 3500%. In
          conclusion, in the high tax environment from the end of the 2nd World War until Reagan, productivity and wages went up together. Since Reagan, productivity went up a similar 90+%, but wages, barely moved the needle. It’s all in Pulitzer Prize winner, Hedrick Smith’s
          remarkable book, “Who Stole the American Dream.”

          As Smith writes, “The top 1% super-rich people with incomes over $352,000 a year, made $1.35 trillion in 2007 – more money than countries like France, Italy
          or Canada. As we’ve seen, the top 1% garnered two-thirds of the gains of US national income growth from 2002 to 2007, twice as much as the other 99% of American combined. And this tiny group reaped 93% of the nation’s gains in 2010, the first full year of economic recovery and the financial collapse of 2008.”

          Every American should read Smith’s book and throw in Jeff Madrick’s “The Age of Greed.” These folks aren’t socialist or commies, but keen observers reflecting on the inbred iniquities of our society,
          which are leading us to inevitable social upheaval or economic chaos.

          The facts are incontrovertible no matter what the revisionists write, no matter what the RINOs bleat, and no matter what confused, inconsistent and
          irrational the Tea Party, libertarian, flat-earth thinkers try to formulate.

          In fact, since World War II the economy has suffered, by far, more recessions under republicans than Democrats. Reagan may have inherited a lack-luster economy from Carter, in which, by the way, 8 million jobs were created in 4 years, which was primary caused by the 2nd oil embargo. There
          would have not been an effective 1st oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War and Nixon, if he would have broken it by demanding ceiled bids on oil and
          forcing OPEC to bid against each other. Also, in Nixon’s time we were far less dependent on foreign oil than in the next 15-20 years. Under Reagan we had
          almost two years (starting 2 years into his first administration) of over 10% unemployment, which started with the Volcker Federal Reserve tightening. In
          fact, under Reagan unemployment averaged 8% or more for the first seven years of his administration and he tripled the National Debt, primarily on his Star
          Wars silliness and his ill-fated 600 ship navy. But quickly disappeared once he was gone. By the time his successor left office, the debt had quadrupled and
          unemployment, which Reagan inherited at 7.5%, wound up at the end of George HW Bush’s only term, at 7.3%. So what was the result after 12 years? Tax cuts for the rich, jobs exported to China,
          the blue collar middle class hurting, huge deficits and three recessions. Fast forward to Clinton: unemployment drops, tax increases on the highest bracket from the Reagan lows of 28% to 39.5%, and three years of tremendous surpluses, the lowering of the National Debt, and the greatest job creation since the Depression. That is what GW Bush inherited and squandered. The GOP has been anti-worker, anti-middle class, anti-immigrant, anti-minorities and for sure anti-women. They have opposed social safety nets since their inception. They would do away today, with; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, wages and
          hours, the minimum war, the FDIC, the SEC, all the Blue Sky laws within, OSHA, FEMA, and if they could, the Federal Reserve. This has been, and is, their

          The Rockefeller Republicans or RINOs can pretend that they don’t oppose all what I have listed, but any general review of their history in Congressional
          subcommittees, tells a different tale. All of this doesn’t cast the Democrats or the Democratic Party with a halo or in a perfect light. The Democrats have
          had their Jim Crow Dixiecrats, their protectionists and their criminals. No doubt. But, considering the reality, they are the only viable alternative to something much, much worse.

          The facts are the facts, and as the late Senator Pat
          Moynihan stated, “One isn’t entitled to their own facts.” The fact is; twice as many jobs were created under Democrats, the DJIA did much, much better under Democrats, and debt increased dramatically under Reagan and Bush I and II. Reagan did not come into office with a damaged economy which had lost over 3 million jobs in a very short time and was losing 800, 000 per month when he was inaugurated. This economic period has been universally accepted by every one with a wit about them, as the worst economic and market meltdown since 1929.
          That is why the Siena Presidential Poll of the top 200 American Studies historians rated George W. Bush, number 39 among 43 Presidents. In 20 categories, these historians, from every proclivity, rated Bush just above Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce. This poll included six categories regarding personal attributes, five forms of ability and eight areas of accomplishments. Now frankly, how bad can one (GW Bush) get, and look at what President Obama inherited.

          • Richard Fontaine

            Wow, a complete Commie Kook.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Seconded. He’s gone so far off his nut that there’s no point in exposing all his logical fallacies and methodological errors.

          • fistdeyuma

            You write a lot of words but save very little. I’ll sum it up for you. Democrats are good, Republicans are bad Obama’s failure is because of Bush.

          • Sight2behold

            Oh my, you are lost. Never mind, continue your life in la-la land, happy Kumba-Ya to you.

          • Guest

            What do you do for a living?

          • A Z

            Mr Garfunkel supports Planned Parenthood and likes Think Progress.

            Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

            Be careful with this guy. Maybe he came here to push buttons and set people off so he could sue them



            – Registered Representative and Financial Planner at Financial Services
            – COO at Amrose Art Linens

            Education: Boston University


          • bigjulie

            Your opening sentence is a huge lie! We already know the prosperity Obama inherited, and in his “fundamental change” he not only pi$$ed it away he has Cloward and Pivened America into a decline that may take decades to escape from. Nice try, but there are so many errors of fact and omission in your screed that it is useless to try to correct you.
            We already know what you people are trying to do! Your intent is to turn America into some kind of 3rd world backwater that Pwogs will be able to run indefinitely by simply importing all the Democrats you need to perpetuate power. You have no intention of “lifting people out of poverty”. Your policies CREATE poverty and in fact, you NEED poverty to sustain the vast wealth your leaders enjoy while the huge majority of the masses remain dirt poor, no different than Venezuela or Cuba, because you destroy the incentive to get ahead on one’s own, the basic ethic that brought America from 13 disparate and often quarreling colonies to the most powerful, wealthiest and most free country on the Planet, in a mere 235 years! You are indulging in the old “Baffle ‘em with Bull$hit” techniques used regularly by professional Con artists.
            And if you succeed in your quest for 3rd World status for America, succeeding dictators from your party will always have “Bush to blame!”

          • Drakken

            You smoke a lot of weed don’t you? Because only someone higher than a kite could come up with those completed fabricated numbers. Another Obummmer worshiper, you cannot be helped, I say let Darwin have his due.

        • Sight2behold

          You are letting your feelings get in the way of reality. Utopia, unicorns and money trees only exist in feelings.

        • LibertarianToo

          Um, maybe you could run the numbers again, and this time with Reagan in the REPUBLICAN column where he belongs.

        • reader

          “You believe in re-distribution of
          income,” meaning I must be a commie rat. “No,” I answer, “I believe in hightaxes on the rich.”

          Doesn’t this phrase reveal you being an idiot? Yes, it does. Even marx did not hide the fact that progressive taxation is meant to redistribute wealth.

        • A Z

          “survival of the fittest (Social Darwinism)”

          Where does social Darwinism fit with church going conservatives?. Alms for the poor is part of the Bible. Although the Bible did not say it was to be state directed.

          You set up a strawman because you have a weak argument.

        • bigjulie

          “Figures don’t lie, but liars are constantly figuring”. You are an able twister of numerical facts. I assume you are working in the Obama Administration.

          • A Z

            He is or was a financial planner. He is part of the 1% and he is of the Left.

            He is clueless.

    • Richard Fontaine

      Well “Richard J. Garfunkel” lots of blather but few refutations. Care to be more specific about the “moronic conclusions and misinformation” that you claim? Or are you just another liberal blowhard?

    • chuckie2u

      Please don’t leave out the left wing idealogues and multi-millionaire party policy makers who in their utopian fantasies created the nightmare by encouraging single parenthood,multiple births for free stuff and creating an education system that does not prepare kids for a global economy. Where are jobs for these kids ?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      All birth rates are falling, but not equally. The discrepancies in birth rates remain high.

    • Jack

      “Boy that’s a moronic piece filled with half-truths, moronic conclusions and misinformation”

      You are the moron. Raising taxes raises the cost of living and you just start a death spiral.

      ” The high cost of living, driven by the high cost of services has forced families to limit the amount of their children.”
      I remember of big city daily covering a Labor Day get together in Portland Oregon. A couple was interviewed and they said the cost of living was to high so they could not afford more kids. They only had one. They thought the answers were more taxes etc. It makes life even tougher. It raise the cost of living more.

    • Jack

      ” Ayn Rand Paul and his libertarian plutocrats ”
      Ayn Rand was a female.

      • Seek

        Judging from her deep voice, I’d say Rand was a male. Anecdote: Ludwig von Mises personally called her “the bravest man ever met.” If I were her, I would have taken that remark badly.

      • Debbie G

        He is mixing Ayn Rand with Rand Paul.

    • Jack

      “Population trends and our demographics can’t be engineered by right-wing ideologues who wish to have more births to expand the poor,”
      What I wish is to expand the yeomanry (freemen of means) and rich.

    • Jack

      I seen your analysis of presidential job creation. I would not hire you. You are incapable of multivariate analysis. If you had to do a multivariable linear regression or a Design of experiments you would ____ it up.

    • reader

      “right-wing ideologues who wish to have more births to expand the poor”

      Really? I sense a fascist eugenics proponent here. An innocent slip of tongue. Apparently, supporting abortions on demenad has nothing to do with women’s choice, but it has everything to do with Garfunkel’s “doing quite well”, or so he thinks. What a tool.

    • A Z

      You are not an economist or if you are, you are not a very good one.

      • Americans against TeaBillies

        And you are ?

        • A Z

          Enough of one to know that he has nothing.I have had economics, calculus courses enough other mathematics to know that Mr Garfunkel is not that wise.

    • Canadave

      Richard J. Garfunkel … You seem to think that because the same demographic disaster is happening all over the world that things will be just hunkey dorey. I was speaking to an old friend recently who I hadn’t seen or spoken to in 30 years. We were part of a large group of people who walked our dogs together every day for many years. She mentioned that almost almost all of them thought I was nuts because of how I saw the future but as she also mentioned it turned out that I was 100% correct. Working at the time in demographics, it was a no-brainer as it is today to Daniel Greenfield. Today we have a higher standard of living than anytime in history even though it is now being more and more financed by borrowing against the future. If you can afford jetting around the world for vacations, buying expensive SUVs and 5,000 square foot houses with enough bathrooms for all of your neighbours, 70 inch TVs and keeping up with the flavour of the month clothing designs, you can afford to have a family large enough to be a part of your retirement which has been the realistic pension plan for all of history. The world is not crowded and starvation is caused by politics which is why it appears that half of Americans are obese and most of the staving people live in countries with the most fertile soil and excellent climates for agriculture. Obama IS picking on seniors because they’re the ones who have worked hard for their entire lives and now have a lot of equity that Obama conveniently interprets as wealth that should be redistributed to finance his Marxist delusions. Grow up Richard. you’re still stuck in the 60s. In the words of my hero Winston Churchill … ” Anyone who isn’t a socialist when they’re 20 and still is when they’re 30 is a fool”.

    • Americans against TeaBillies

      You can’t tell the truth on these rightwing Looney tune sites .. you confuse the minions.

      • UCSPanther

        Get lost you parasite.
        Go set up another filth infested OWS camp.

    • UCSPanther

      You are living in a dream world. One that will soon come to an end and you will wake up to your nightmare…

      • A Z

        He looks to be a seagull. He made a couple of strafing runs to vent some anger or get his jollies off and then he flew off.

        Just like a seagull. Crap & scoot.

        • UCSPanther

          Those leftist losers are cowards.

    • UCSPanther

      That’s right: Keep sacrificing your future on the altar to Moloch.
      He who has no children has no future – fundamental natural law.

    • laura r

      ann rand lived off soc sec & medical during her old age.

      • OldNHMan

        Which she had paid into for ~35 years. Did she receive as much money from SS as she had paid in? Considering she received SS benefits for ~11 years, maybe. Maybe not.

  • redheart

    If we hadn’t aborted 50 million + babies we would have more citizens.

    • Sight2behold

      55 million, but who’s counting!

      • SurfaceUnits

        Wendy Davis in Texas. She doesn’t think it is enough.

        • Sight2behold

          Well, she needs to lead by example!

    • LibertarianToo

      But as Daniel pointed out in the article, it is the low-education, low-income women with the high fertility numbers. The overwhelming majority of abortions are provided to women who cannot afford to raise a child and are not married. Getting an abortion in those circumstances is the responsible thing to do. We have far, far too many people in this country who are living off their children -i.e. the public assistance each child “entitles” them to.

      • Rob Hobart

        Nope. Human beings are ends, not means. Murdering a child is always evil, and only a demented moral cretin would call it “responsible.”

        • Bamaguje

          An insentient clump of cells in a woman’s womb that is incapable of independent existence, is not a human being.
          Just as an egg is not a chicken, and a seed is not a tree.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And a baby at birth is capable of independent existence?

          • Bamaguje

            By “Independent existence’, I mean a baby at birth can survive as a separate being, no longer dependent on continuous physical attachment to its mother..

            If you want to stretch further your misconstruing of what I mean by “independent existence”; even adult humans can hardly survive independently.
            This is why we’ve always lived in communities… even when our prehistoric ancestors lived in caves.

            In any case “independent existence” is just one of the criteria I mentioned. A baby is a fully formed human being, not just a clump of cells in early pregnancy (preferably first 10 weeks).
            This is why most of us pro-choice protagonists are actually opposed to the nonsense called “late term abortion.”
            Terminating pregnancy in late pregnancy is delivery, not abortion.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No a baby can’t survive as a separate being. You seem rather unfamiliar with babies.

            An adult human with basic life skills can find food and construct shelter. An infant at birth will not survive a day without constant care.

            And no a baby is not a fully formed human being. Do you even understand what a baby is?

          • george

            At 10 weeks the baby has a working heart and brain activity. Some people in nursing homes don’t have much more than that. Would you kill them too, for convenience ? After all, they are past their prime and to use your analogy, are like a old frail tree.

        • raptor45

          Or as Ted Nugent so aptly put it….a subhuman mongrel. He was of course referring to that fool in the WH, but the moniker applies well across the board to all of the communist progressives.

          My great hope is if the SHTF and this nation goes into a civil war mode or type of existence, that all of the obama voters will receive their just due from the physical hands of citizens who knew what he was about and who have been abused and criticized for speaking against him on any level.

          At that point the great question for society will be “what to do about the Liberal problem”. If anyone is to blame for obama and the mess we are in, they are, and they should have to pay for it with whatever it takes for Americans to extract revenge.

      • veritaseequitas

        Think again. There is NOTHING moral or responsible about murdering a child.

        • DownTurn

          No “child” is being “murdered”.

          An amorphous, formless, non-viable bunch of cells is being removed to prevent them from _becoming_ a child.

          If you kept religion out of the abortion debate you maybe could make a valid point somehow.

          • JDinSTL

            If it’s “her body, her choice”, how do you explain test tube conception?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The phrase you’re looking for is Life Unworthy of Life.

          • Flowerknife_us

            like postings unworthy of posting?

          • LibertarianToo

            No, Daniel, it isn’t.

          • OldNHMan

            I wonder how many on the Left will actually understand the reference? Not many, I bet.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Few will admit to it.

          • Wis

            Only a scientifically-ignorant simpleton calls a fetus a “non-viable bunch of cells.” I fail to see how wanting to defend a human’s life – no matter their stage of development – is solely a “religious” sentiment. You yourself have failed to make any valid points – or any point whatsoever.

          • NAHALKIDES

            No religion is needed to observe that that “bunch of cells” you refer to contains all the information needed to develop into a newborn infant, and is exactly what you and I once were at an early stage of development.

          • Bamaguje

            When you pee, bleed, sneeze or scrub your skin while bathing, you also get rid off millions of a “bunch of cells” that “contain.all the information needed to develop into a newborn infant.”

          • Carlos_Perera

            Except they don’t, because they lack the pluripotency of embryonic and fetal tissue, as well as the requisite environment–the mother’s womb–in which to develop. I believe logicians term what you wrote above a _category error_. A human being is a work in progress from conception to death.

          • Bamaguje

            Ever heard of cloning? Theoretically, you can create a fully formed human being from any diploid cell in the body.

          • NAHALKIDES

            True. I should have added that the embryo not only has all the information needed to develop into an infant, it will do so unless killed. That makes abortion murder in my view, and nothing you can say is going to change that.

          • bigjulie

            At what point in the process does this “amorphous, formless, non-viable bunch of cells” magically become a child?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            When the leftists want it to. But you can’t pin them down on an answer, naturally.

          • george

            Obviously even at the moment of birth, the leftists do not believe it is a person, since they endorse life birth abortions.

          • Bingeman

            Melissa Harris-Perry said last year that it’s when the parents “feel” it’s a life…that’s the answer she pinned down…naturally.And she said it without tampons hanging from her head so she must have been serious.

          • Carlos_Perera

            If you read some embryology, you might learn that the human being in the womb is indeed made up of cells–as are all living things above the level of a virus–but he or she is neither amorphous nor formless, and is–quite self-evidently, as he or she is alive–quite viable.

          • iluvisrael

            Abortion cheapens life.

          • Bingeman

            Back in the late 70s,I watched a talk show(maybe Donohue…can’t remember)..and the guest was some type of philosopher who said,that though he agreed with a woman’s right to choose in principal,his concern was that if abortion became a routine thing,it would alter peoples’ position on humanity and gradually produce a viciousness in society and an increase in violent crimes.
            At the time,I gave his words minor consideration but three and half decades later,I’m thinking he already knew what was coming.

          • Seek

            Violent crime rates have lowered since then, except for blacks, who are congenitally violent.

          • Bingeman

            I have no idea what you have experienced but I think it’s going overboard to refer to all blacks that way(at least,it seems you are making a collective call).
            I know there are violent blacks and I know there are violent whites,yellows,browns,reds and purple people with green polka dots…one of the down sides of humanity is that some humans are animals.
            The blacks I know are all decent,hard-working and truly nice people and are appalled by uncivilized behaviour committed by any race.

          • Debbie G

            Stay in denial. It works well for many people.

      • Steedy357

        Not getting pregnant is the responsible thing to do. Getting an abortion is the murder of a human being.

        • Americans against TeaBillies

          You can’t murder a fetus;

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Lebensunwertes Leben when translated from the original German

          • LibertarianToo

            Do you seriously equate getting an abortion with murdering 6,000,000 Jews? Really? Do you really think getting an abortion makes someone a Nazi?

          • OldNHMan

            The reference was not to Jews, Gypsies, or homosexuals, but of the physically/mentally disabled and the mentally ill.

          • LibertarianToo

            The reference is to Nazis else there is no point in making it. My question stands.

        • LibertarianToo

          “Not getting pregnant is the responsible thing to do.”
          Indeed. And if someone is pregnant, that ship has sailed.


        No, the responsible things to do if you can’t afford children are

        1. use contraception
        2. if you’re too stupid to manage #1, give your baby up for adoption by a loving couple.

        • Bamaguje

          And if contraception fails, or if sex was not anticipated…?

          If they don’t want to give up their babies for adoption, are you going to force them?

          • Carlos_Perera

            If they don’t want to give up their babies from adoption, then they must bring him or her up as best they can . . . and as myriads of people have done throughout mankind’s time on earth. If their best is not good enough, child welfare laws exist to protect the child.

          • Bamaguje

            Single parent homes with no fathers is not the right place for proper upbringing of children.
            So it’s no surprise many youths from dysfunctional single parent homes are a menace to society… badly brought up Black youths running amok in flash mobs.

        • LibertarianToo

          Women who do not want or cannot afford a child are not obliged to provide children to loving couples.

          • NAHALKIDES

            They are obliged not to murder that child simply for their own convenience, wise guy. You Libertarians are truly the “hippies of the right” that Rand called you many years ago – you want sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and you want them without consequences. You hate moral judgment because you fear it, rightly suspecting that you will come up short.

      • Debbie G

        No. The responsible thing to do is get on birth control.

    • Seek

      Baloney. A lot of the babies that were born wouldn’t have. The notion that perpetual population growth can “save” Social Security in dangerous nonsense.

  • Tradecraft46

    I think we might see people turning on the people who are not contributing to the economy.

  • fistdeyuma

    Democrats will try to ride this to the end, and then blame Republicans for the fall. The current excuse is to take the very low point the Democrat crated crash and compare it to Obama’s numbers today. In their pea brains the US is doing great under Obama, things have never been better. Obama saved us, just like FDR saved us. The fact that both their policies failed never seems to hit home.

  • chuckie2u

    The first surge the Government Policy makers will do in fixing the problem will begin with the determination people over a predetermined age (retirees) will not have the financial resources to provide them with prolonged medical services. The resources(money) will be used for youth,illegal immigrants,government employees and Party Officials associated with Government. In short the death panels will determine who has medical care and who will be told to go home and die.This system works well in cutting back on unnecessary expenses spent keeping folks alive who should naturally die . I am sure the government educated masses will agree to letting grandma slide to cut back on youth carrying the financial burden of old folks health care. It is so logical.

  • james connolly

    The delusional Obamacrats and many unread Americans ignore and deny the facts contained in this article. Our disastrous president’s plan to severely wreck havoc on our nation and transform it into a bankrupt socialist state marches on with greater and greater success. Say goodbye to the Constitution and freedom. Say hello to a Stalinist-like police state where no one is free and the KGB threatens all who dare to challenge the pagan party line. This is what Mr. O. meant by “Hope and Change.” To those who fell for this evil fraud and thug, electing him twice, you reap what you sow.

  • LibertarianToo

    A modest proposal: Eliminate the earnings ceiling on income subject to Social Security tax. As of 2013, I believe the ceiling was $113,000., which means Bill Gates paid the same amount in social security tax as anyone making $113.000 for the year. As did Beyonce, and Miley Cyrus, and George Soros, and Michael Moore. Everyone pays social security on the first dollar earned, no one on the 120,000th dollar earned. We should drop the fiction that we have individual social security accounts that we are funding, call a tax a tax, and levy the tax at the same rate on every dollar earned.
    This would also persuade a lot of rich Democrats that we need to rein in entitlements.

    • A Z

      “We should drop the fiction that we have individual social security accounts that we are funding”


      “call a tax a tax,”


      the courts have rules SS is a tax. Ipso factor there are no individual retirement accounts that the government is obligated to give you. The government can tell you F U!.

      “This would also persuade a lot of rich Democrats that we need to rein in entitlements.”

      True except some are in deep denial and others are idiot-savants.

    • Americans against TeaBillies

      Why do want to abuse those poor 1%er victims ? Haven’t they suffered enough ?

      • Drakken

        You flunked lunch didn’t you? Obviously math wasn’t a useful skill in the re-education camp you attended.

  • v

    The only way Simon Malley would have survived the onslaught on the Jews in Arab countries, is by shedding what he is and conspire against his own people. He is the George Soros of the Middle East. Hitler thought that the Jews , in general, had no moral compass and cannot be trusted because they were treacherous. People like Malley, Soros and other like them gave Jew haters and anti-semites the ammunitions and the reason to commit horrific acts against Jews, not only during Hitler’s era but also in Arab countries.
    I know, I, a Jew, was born and raised in an Arab country until they got rid of us.

    • blert

      Adolf’s teen buddies long ago related that his first crush was a super cute Jewish girl. He stayed stuck on her for FOUR years. Being a total beta — and with an un-descended testicle — he never approached her. At that point in his immaturity he pedestaled her beyond the Madonna.

      His childhood physician was Jewish. This gentleman related much about the psychotic days of Adolf’s childhood — to include setting countless broken bones in the tyke.

      Because of Adolf’s undescended testicle, his father rejected him and devestated his body. This — plus WWI — wherein Adolf pretty much tried to kill himself — killed his soul.

      (As a messenger, he was on a ‘punishment’ detail: only volunteers and screw-ups were so tasked. Adolf had so many near-death experiences that he received the Iron Cross — First Class. For a mere corporal that was tantamount to the Blue Max/ Pour le Mérite. Of the millions of Germans to serve in WWI practically no-one of such a low rank was so awarded. It impressed even Ludendorff and Hindenburg. The first marched with Adolf in 1923. (making Adolf bullet proof!) The second made him chancellor of the national government. It also meant that absolutely none of his commanders could pull the ‘compassion and bravery angle on the despot. And his raw survival gave this madman the chutzpah to think he was on the side of God.)

      He was born-again as a monster without pity. Born of an intensely Catholic mother and healed by a loving Jewish physician: this black-hole of evil spent his adult life destroying both religions. In all of the Shoah, never forget that Adolf was liquidating the Catholic clergy with a vengeance… adults only — and with vigorous torture.

      It’s with this internalized, personal history that Adolf made his decisions. He didn’t take his impulses from deep study.

      Lastly, his personal, private, physicians diagnosed him as suffering from 4th Stage — TERMINAL syphilis. (It’s what killed Lenin — no stroke victim, he.) At the end, syphlitics go completely insane — with bouts of raving paranoia being typical. Lenin’s bouts caused him to be removed from public view and the Communist press to explain his illness away as a stroke. It was not until the 21st Century that Moscow opened the files to admit that Lenin died of syphilis.

      The other famous syphlitic: Napoleon. He contracted syphilis and had a first stage outbreak on June 17, 1815. His strange immobility was noted at the time and for two centuries since. In a tell-all, his private physician’s diary tells us that Nappy was ‘on fire’ and unable to even mount his horse. It cost him the campaign, his political control, and a life sentence, as it turned out.

      The general public is still not aware of the above facts. They’re too embarrassing.

  • Lanna

    You see, Communism doesn’t believe that elderly people are useful and just a drain on government and society, so if they don’t get the proper medical, or life saving care, they feel they aren’t really pulling their weight anyway, let attrition through lack of services take its course….This is how the Progressive mind works, very callously!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Indeed. Everyone, like a slave, has a set value.

      • A Z

        So liberals think people have a set value eh?

        A babushka living during the Great Patriotic War was asked about the Germans. She told the Russian officer questioning her that the Germans cross the river ford with their headlights on. The Russians did the same and suffered no casualties in the river crossing.

        How many lives did she save and what was her worth?

    • laura r

      rev. manning gave a moving sermon about seniors, & how valuable they are. (youtube). the elderly should be looked up too, & respected.

  • Randy Townsend

    Well written. The Dim plan is already clear: Continue to soak “the rich”, even when that well begins to run dry. There really is no other option for these people. More will take from an ever-decreasing number of producers. At some point, the system fails. Then what?

  • Randy Townsend

    Well written. The Dim plan is already clear: Continue to soak “the rich”, even when that well begins to run dry. There really is no other option for these people. More will take from an ever-decreasing number of producers. At some point, the system fails. Then what?

    • De Doc

      That’s when the real ugliness starts.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The National Socialists had to start a war to steal other people’s resources. But I don’t see Obama invading Canada.

    • Americans against TeaBillies

      Why do you give a crap about 1%er ? The only ones you will ever meet is if you clean their toilets.

      • seewithyourowneyes

        If you make more than $30,000 a year, you are a member of the global 1%. If your various government benefits add up to more than $30,000 per year, you are a member of the global 1%.

        Even a casual glance at the various trans-national movements, or at the rhetoric coming out of the UN, should tell you that our liberal Western elites now see loyalty to their electorates as a disposable parochialism. Their loyalties are global, and you, “Americans against TeaBillies,” are squarely within their re-distributionist crosshairs.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Correct. The majority of Americans are part of the “1%” being targeted.

          Of course the liars won’t give you the whole story.

      • Randy Townsend

        I don’t care about them. It’s the idea that the welfare state is never ending with Dims, that there’s never enough. As the % of taxpayers assessed the bill continues to decline, the day will come when it won’t be sufficient to tax the producers to pay the bill. Then what? I pay almost 60% of my income in taxes (fed/st/local) and fees and that’s with the services of an excellent tax accountant, yet I don’t pay enough?!?! Obama got the largest tax increase in 20 years at the beginning of 2013, said “Finally, the rich are paying their fair share”, and now he wants more? I’m tired of paying ever more to a voracious federal government that is the problem, and not the solution, and I’m not alone.

        • Americans against TeaBillies

          move out of Ca you moron.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Most trolls have some positive role in provoking conversation, even when they’re obnoxious. You’re simply a first class idiot.

          • Americans against TeaBillies

            Maybe one of your butt lickers here will man up and sooth your swollen, hurt butt hole.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I simply have a moral duty to inform you that you are useless.

          • Seek

            I have a moral duty to inform you that you need remedial education.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yes comrade. I will report immediately to the camp as directed.

          • UCSPanther

            And this is why the future does not belong to losers like you…

          • Drakken

            I am going to really enjoy the fact that Darwin loves less than useless idiots like you. When you dance to the fiddlers tune, sooner or later you have to pay the fiddler, and the devil always gets his due.

          • Seek

            Most so-called “trolls” are people trying to express a point of view. I suppose no matter how nuanced, that view is “obnoxious” if you can’t refute it in a sentence or two.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I suppose no matter how nuanced, that view is “obnoxious” if you can’t refute it in a sentence or two.”

            I struggled with the issue of “morons” moving out of California and I just couldn’t come up with a rational opposition view. So I got frustrated and slammed the guy.

            I know that morons *should* move out of California, but I don’t like the idea so I called him a troll.

          • Randy Townsend

            Were it that simple…. and I will do so shortly after my children finish high school, but that’s not the solution (although the financial tsunami facing this state will not be delayed by Dim political statements)…. It’s nationwide.

          • Drakken

            Here is something that might help you keep a little more of your hard earned cash, start offshoring it.

          • Randy Townsend

            @ Drakken: Already doing that, mostly with out-of-country investments. My US stock market exposure is less than 15% of my portfolio (not easy to do, BTW).

      • Drakken

        Your too effing ignorant to even reply too, I hope you and your ilk bloody well starve, then who are you going to blame. Dumbazz.

    • Drakken

      You want to know what the rich are doing? Look at France for a prime example, they vote with their wallets and move their wealth out of the reach of the communists. When Obummer and company try the very same thing here, you will hear the sucking sound of people with money leaving and taking their hard earned cash with them, the only thing they are going leave Obummer with is a hearty F88K You.

  • Sam L.

    This kinda reminds me of the C,M, Kornbluth story, “The Marching Morons”.

  • ADM64

    My only point of disagreement concerns the characterization of libertarians: they are not generally in favor of either higher taxes or lower entitlements for the “rich” but want to dismantle the welfare state in total. They are, unfortunately, keen on unlimited immigration, which is not a solution to the problems we face.

    • LibertarianToo

      Only speaking for myself, of course, but this Libertarian doesn’t believe in unlimited immigration. It is the Republicans in the Chamber of Commerce that want to put Americans in direct competition with people who will work for potable water.


        Glad to meet you – you are a welcome departure from most Libertarians, who believe in “the free movement of people” i.e. open borders. You are quite correct in blaming what we Conservatives call the Establishment GOP, which does only care about the Chamber of Commerce.

      • blert

        Tragically, both (D) and (R) — RINOs favor more immigration.
        The (R) RINOs find the H1b visa schtick quite appealing.
        The (D) – ALL find bringing in non-Europeans intensely appealing. By some calculations, Barry would have lost to Mitt in a blow-out worse than 1980 without imported, utterly dependent voters (D).

        Canada is the interesting contrast: she does not permit illegal immigration — but has a pretty liberal policy set — that, none the less excludes utterly dependent aliens. Canada is still following, more or less, the American scheme that existed before Ted Kennedy.

        It’s with no small amount of irony that Ted’s 1964 statute was drafted with Irish Catholics in mind — and now Ireland, itself, is being overrun with Muslims and Black Africans. Like America, Ireland HAD a totally open door. But the recent influx and economic troubles have had even that Catholic land totally reverse policy.

        The Irish Catholics that Ted thought would be coming in to Boston — never really came.

        The open frontier died by 1890… 1900 at the latest.

        Open America — as an idea — is now over. Even Mexicans are fleeing back home — for economic reasons.

        BTW, it’s doubtful if Barry’s heart is really behind making Latinos full citizens. Everywhere they’ve landed, they’ve punished Black gangs and perfected ethnic cleansing.

        Just ask Maxine Waters. Watts is now Mexican. She’s but a legacy — to become the last Black Congressman from that district.

        Any more Latino voters will spell doom for the CBC. Third place is no-place.

    • De Doc

      The immigration issue is where I sharply diverge from today’s Libertarians. Once government hand outs are entrenched in any society they are difficult to remove, so repealing the welfare state is not as simple as it sounds. Allowing more in at this point only makes the problem worse in the short and long term as Greenfield wrote above. Finally when the demographic trend finally starts to rear its ugly head, the game is over. You have generational dependence of these immigrant groups on government coupled with poor to non-existent assimilation – UK and much of Europe reflects this already.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Yes, you can have open borders or small government. You can’t have both.

        • philbest

          Someone else, I wish I could remember (I think it was someone in Britain years ago) said you can have any TWO of Multiculturalism, Democracy, and Open Borders.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I’m just responding to some of the rhetoric that has been drifting around about wealthy seniors taking everything, etc…

      • ADM64

        Fair enough. I thought you’d written a pretty good article overall.

  • Americans against TeaBillies

    These old people just need to die off; They are sucking up my entitlements !
    Retirees are GOP worse nightmare — they suck up too much resources and contribute nothing to the profit making machines.

    I may vote for Ryan if he really cancels these people’s SS and Medicare … maybe they will go back to work.

    • kasandra

      Gee, I didn’t know that Donald Berwick and Ezikiel Emanuel were Republicans. That’s their mantra.

    • seewithyourowneyes

      They are already back to work. Employment for seniors has held steady or increased, while the young Obama voters have had to move back in with mom and dad.
      Perhaps that’s because older people were raised with a work ethic, while young liberals are sought to cherish their resentments.

      • Americans against TeaBillies

        Those people moved back when the Busch recession took 16m jobs and 1m home foreclosures. You can bullsitte your fellow butt lickers here with your version of history but it won’t work outside in the real world.

        • UCSPanther

          Any more immature comments, loser?

        • American1969

          A mess created by the CRA—Community Reinvestment Act. Signed into law by Bill Clinton, forcing banks to grant mortgages to people that couldn’t afford them.

  • bigjulie

    In my disgust with another poster, I forgot to tell you that you have presented the facts extremely well, as usual! Thanks, Daniel!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

  • TylerNull of YouTube

    “How did you go bankrupt?”
    “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

    ― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

  • popseal

    God will surely judge those who have created this mess. We certainly can’t hope the separation of powers will stop the idiocy.

  • JollyRoger61

    The sooner the collapse the sooner we can start over. Until then it’s death by a thousand good, and tyrannical, intentions foisted upon the earners of society by fascist left and their addle brained supporters.

    • seewithyourowneyes

      The Left has engineered the collapse and is arranging (see federal agencies purchasing vast amount of bullets) its takeover after the collapse. We will be moving from bad to worse.

  • Richard J. Garfunkel

    I read all the remarks directed toward my posts and me personally. Most of the remarks were trite, repetitive and without foundation. People on the center left are always called commie rats, pinkos and un-American. What else is new? As to the numbers regarding recessions, the DJIA and job creation, they have not been disputed here, and frankly they cannot be disputed. True, statistics lie and liars quote statistics, but you folks cannot counter these statistics, which are quoted from the Wall Street Journal. The history is the history, no matter how it is spun!

    As to the arguments promulgated on this site and others, one can go back in history to the New Deal and the Hundred Day and read the same remarks from the Liberty League, the RNC and all the other fringe groups of that era.

    You folks can bellow about the virtues of the unrestricted marketplace, but no civilized western government follows that mantra. As for high taxation on the rich, it never hurt growth from the end of WWII to the Reagan Era. The deficits caused by Reagan-Bush I are on the public record. If you folks believe that the 1% deserve to pay no taxes, so be it. Romney paid under 14% for the two years he had reported, and most folks believe that he didn’t reveal the eight earlier years because he paid no taxes. Almost every major presidential nominee has revealed their taxes. As to his famous 47% statement, it was repeated in a number of meetings, including one at the Bronxville Field Club, in Bronxville, NY. I do not covet Romney’s wealth or skills at making money, but I do resent the laws that private equity partners use to avoid the federal income tax of 39.5%. In fact, almost all the national studies reflect that spending by the 1% affects only 20% of the population.

    What Obama inherited is on the public record. All your bleating and rationalizing will not change the history. Like Herbert Hoover and
    Calvin Coolidge, Bush II will never be rehabilitated. With regards to Executive Orders, President Obama is way down on the 20th Century list. His168 EOs pales in comparison to Coolidge’s 1203 in five years. But what is the recent history of Presidential EOs: Bush II -291, Clinton- 364, Reagan -381, Nixon-346, Eisenhower -484, LBJ -325, JFK -214, Truman 968 and FDR -3522. Were they all dictators? I think not!

    As to the name-calling and treatment he receives from the right-wing, most Americans and, for sure most people around the world find it disgusting and demeaning. You folks may think it is cute. But the President has conducted his office, his family and foreign policy with dignity and in the best tradition of the presidency. After his eight years, history will be the judge. Personally, I hope for the sake of America he succeeds.

    Are demographics changing? Of course! The changes are here and the days of the GOP/Tea Party are as limited as they were for the Whigs in the 1840s. Eurocentric hegemony, focused in white males over the age of 55 is ending. Our best hope for the values of our forefathers is how we treat the next generations, who look a lot different than we look. Women are not going
    back to the lives they led. Black Americans are not going back to the tenant
    farm and immigrants have always been the backbone of the work force that built America. You can disagree, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    As for myself, I worked for 40+ years from Wall Street to Main Street and
    finished with Fortune 500 companies. I coached baseball and basketball for
    years, and I ran political campaigns locally, I do not work for President
    Obama, but would be proud to if asked. I am retired, have a family, educated,
    self-sufficient children, and a grandchild. I play a good game of tennis and
    come from a mercantile family who were in business in NYC from before
    1900. I live in Palm Beach County, which new voted Democratic. By the way,
    I know Ayn Rand was a woman, I referred to Ayn Rand Paul. I read her books,
    liked “Atlas Shrugged,” wasn’t appalled that she was an atheist and thought
    that her time had past. These are my last comments! On to dinner!

    • blert

      RNC as a fringe group (1933) — ’tis to laugh at how extreme your reality is.
      You could drop in on Seinfeld — as a dress extra — and even provide your own dialog.
      How campy!
      Your bastardization of economic history — from 1930 onward — is epic.
      I tip my hat.

      Bon appétit.

    • barrycooper

      You disputed none of his core argument. You would at least not be a naked hypocrite if you shared with us you were dining on black babies. You and yours have CLEARLY, beyond any possibility of rational dispute, created the horrors seen in every major American city.

      • reader

        Come on, Barry. Talking to Garfunkel is like talking to a vase. In the old country they joked that chukcha is not a reader, chukcha is a writer. He wrote incoherent nonsense filled with NYT style cliches and fluff and complemented himself on his gigantic intellect that he wrongly perceive as real and his achievements reeking of Seinfeldesque, “look at me – I have a business card.” “Pathetic” is one word that could replace all this waste of space. “Delusional” is another.

        • Alex Live

          I like the word chukcha, we used this word in Russia for people who are stoopid like you know who.

  • Robert A. Hall

    Great column–I couldn’t agree more. For a free PDF of my
    book on this topic, see below. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.

    Robert A. Hall
    USMC 1964-68
    USMCR, 1977-83
    Massachusetts Senate, 1973-83
    Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
    All royalties go to help wounded veterans
    For a free PDF of my 80-page book, write tartanmarine(at)

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Great article. Mr. Greenfield has mobilized facts with an analysis that is impeccable. In short, as a society we are screwed.

  • seewithyourowneyes

    Great article.

  •!/zerses Moirrainefortruth

    Turn a pyramid upside down.

    Understand why babies, murdered by the millions, could have saved this nation.

  • tanstaafl

    Attention 47%! If the country goes down the tubes, you go down with it.

    • Drakken

      Darwin is going to love those 47 %ers, I wish I had some sympathy left, I am all out.

  • dad1927

    With Democrats you can get something for “nothing” Take from Peter to pay Paul, until Peter leaves town. Like Detroit.

    • blert

      Petering out, you say.
      What a wan ending.

  • American1969


  • Olorin

    This isn’t about politics. It’s about ignorance of basic arithmetic. Such as the exponential function of any fixed rate of increase.

    It’s also about being too stupid to understand that if people work all their lives and are productive, and they pay a portion of their wages into a fund to secure themselves (and others) against poverty in their elderhoods, it is wrong to then hand those dollars over to unmarried teenagers so they can grunt out more children who have no parents but the state. Which is to say, no parents but those productive, hard working taxpayers, who never asked for the role but had it forced on them.

    • BonV.Vant

      Well, yes, it is WRONG to hand those dollars over, but it was WRONG to ALLOW the government to do it and to VOTE FOR a party that did it. Clinton magically balanced the budget during his first few years by putting the SS funds in the general fund. Of course it was a total LIE, but people voted for the LIAR. The older generations of the US will get what they deserve. They have voted for liberals and now they will find that at some point the game will be up. At some point, some government will say. LOOK there is NO FUND, it was RAIDED long ago. YOU GET NOTHING and that is JUST TOO DARN BAD! I would not be surprised if private savings and retirement accounts are also raided by the government before we get to that point. Personally, I would recommend setting up geriatric euthanasia stations for the old people who can not deal with a slow lingering death from starvation.
      IT was WRONG to hand the dollars for the SS funds over to welfare mothers, BUT THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN!!! They have no one to blame but themselves. What are they going to say? “But we were told there was a fund! They lied to us!”. HEY! AMERICANS!! YOU KNEW THEY WERE LYING TO YOU! YOU PLAYED GAMES AND NOW THE GAME IS OVER!!!!

  • CaoMoo

    this is precisely why I do not wish to be on disabillity forever and am doing everything I can surgery, lowering job expectations well below my qualifications (Got kicked off security and driver job for health), trying to create new things and ideas to get off of it. Unfortunately no success so far since I’m pretty messed up. but still haven’t given up.

  • Seek

    It would seem Daniel Greenfield is tapping into his inner Mark Steyn. In other words, he’s not much of a demographer or actuary. The way to make Social Security viable for the long term is by raising the minimum age for benefit eligibility until it politically hurts and/or making participation voluntary. As for importing a bailout (e.g., more immigration), forget that one. We’ve been doing that for decades.

    • BonV.Vant

      Go ahead, try to raise the age for benefit eligibility. Do you not understand that when a society is top heavy with elderly people, it is also top heavy with elderly voters? There will be no significant raise in benefit eligibility for as long as we have elections.

  • verneoz

    This is what you get: 95% riding the wagon and 5% pulling the wagon. Sooner or later the 5% get old and retire. Then the system will collapse, which is what the Marxists/Socialists want. Then they can stand up the pure socialist state.

    • BonV.Vant

      how will you have a socialist state when there is a collapse? There will not be enough earned and produced to redistribute. What is redistributed will not be enough to go around, when that happens you will have violence and destruction of the infrastructure. At some point those producing will do everything they can to hold onto what little they get, because they have to survive too.

      • verneoz

        Remember the Bolshevik revolution of 1917? After that collapse of the Czarist regime…the commies went to work on building their communist/socialist state ran by totalitarians. That is the model these idiots in the WH are recreating.

  • BonV.Vant

    I have NO SYMPATHY for the aged who depend on SS!!I think the government should cut them off and set up “senior euthanasia stations”, on a strictly voluntary basis that is. Cut off the benefits and let the old walk in as they please. WE OWE THEM NOTHING!!!! THEY ALLOWED THIS!!!! THEY VOTED FOR THIS!! REPEATEDLY!!!!! End SS and medicare and let the old chips fall where they may!

  • Ellman48

    In the human body when one organ starts to increase in size it impinges on other organs and impedes their proper functioning, resulting in major illness or even death – unless the body itself increases in size to accommodate the organ expansion.

    The growth of the welfare state has the same impact on the nation. It draws to itself more of the nation’s resources, depriving other components of vitality and health. Welfare produces no value to society or the nation. It represents a drain and a burden on national resources.

  • Paul Centro

    You have to live life in the world as it is. As it is, at 51 I know I will not live to collect the social security or medicare that I will have spent a lifetime paying for. Oh, they’ll send a check but they’ll take it back in taxes. Health care as an elder? I foresee travel to a Central American country where I can actually afford to pay cash (and where doctors will actually be accessible.)

    Don’t give me the red state/blue state garbage either. The elderly everywhere grab with both fists benefits for which they only paid in pennies on the dollar all the while believing the ponzi scheme math of their elected leaders.

    For now it is more a matter of preventing my savings from being seized outright although I also foresee confiscation through ruinous inflation. The best I can hope for is that the pile is big enough to get me through to death. Funny thing is, I think I’m an optimist.