I know I am generalizing a bit, but the welfare state seems to be an awesome invention in maintaining the dominance of capitalism. If anything the welfare state seems to be insurance that capitalism continues because it should maintain order and prevent any sort of revolution (though its relevance today is questionable, although it would be interesting to find out) For example, if the national unemployment ever reached 20% and there were no unemployment insurance etc. I feel like we would have a stronger backlash against the capitalist form of government. Even at 10% unemployment and people had no "safety net" there seems like there would be serious trouble brewing in the context of our (american) economic system. I know that the welfare state came out as a safeguard against fascism and communism. So, two questions. 1.) Do you think the welfare state is necessary in maintaining the security of capitalism? 2.) Is it still relevant? 3.) If you are against it, why so?

P.S. I think this economic downturn is actually quite valuable in trying to analyze what the role of a welfare state should do. I also wonder what many boomers would be doing if Social Security had been privatized. I know, I know. Some people will say that a lot of the problem came from the government and rightly so, but if it didn't happen now eventually the debt load on taken on by the average American consumer appears as if it would have eventually led to a recession (Debt outside mortgage debt, it seems spending was outpacing earnings quite significantly)

communist!

You got me.

What about increasing welfare during recession, and decreasing welfare during the good times?

Not my particular view, just a suggestion.

Yeah that's a pretty good suggestion considering that if the government was responsible during the good times a surplus could be created for a "rainy day" of course that's taking a lot of factors into consideration. I am pretty sure that there has never been 0% unemployment (maybe during world war 2?) in our modern american industrial society and even at the lows of 4% I imagine that their would be underemployed bourgeoisie siding for workers rights etc. Not sure though, good suggestion. That is if private charity wasn't taking care of the matter.

Have a look at this. It's not particulary about welfare, but you could fit Keynes' ideas somehow in. (The english wikipedia article is not as good as the german one, but that should do it, if you never heard about Keynes)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

I think that's the problem most people have with Welfare.

Welfare is never decreased and never reformed.

For example I'm pro-universal healthcare... but when really poor universal healthcare plans are being debated.... I'm against them.  Because no universal healthcare is better then a program that's not going to help anyone, cost a lot of money, and not be removed for a system that does work.

Well, the biggest reason why welfare is never taken back is that people feel like they're getting something removed from them. However, if the Government makes it clear that the new measures that they are putting forward is only temporary, then people would have less of a problem with them being removed.

My case in point is the VAT changes in the UK. VAT was reduced in the UK to help increase spending during the recession. Sure, it's not the same as a welfare scheme, but consumers knew from day one that it would be going back up again in a years time, and so they don't get used to it, which means less of a kick off from the electorate.

I don't think there is a way to properly do that for Welfare however.

I mean things we're talking about is things like Medicare and how much people can live on.

Just because the economy is bad it doesn't mean people can live on less...

and if they can... well people will largely see it as people getting extra money they don't deserve.

The "Welfare State" is rarely about improving the welfare of the poor, and is often about making people dependant on the state in order to control them; and the more power the state has the more that achievement in the economy becomes related to political connections than anything else.

Now you may agree with the agenda that the government is trying to push by getting you to drive more fuel efficient cars, get people to cut back on smoking, stop drinking or eating junk food (and you may even support the agenda of the people who had political connections or supported the "Right" causes that the stimulus bill) but eventually the government will use its power against you.

Consider videogames for a moment ... The combination of a media who have heavily misrepresented the content in "Mature" videogames (as they misrepresent all issues) and the widespread misconception that videogames are primarily for school aged children set them up to be used by politicians who need to "Champion a Cause" to introduce taxes or regulations which impact you in a negative way.