45 votes

Michael Steele Thinks Medicare is Not Redistribution of Wealth.

Michael Steele, former RNC chairman, now a TV, commentator for MSNBC thinks Medicare is not redistribution of wealth. Why did he come to this absurd conclusion? Because instead of focusing on the facts and applying a proper principle to them, he starts out with the policy that he supports and tries to justify it. This is why what he says does not make sense and is contradictory. As was pointed out by jeffmoppi, first he says "it's not redistribution of wealth". later "it is redistribution of wealth, but it's good". later "it's maybe not good, but it's only a small amount"..

http://youtu.be/eYXqWespOu8

Michael Steele deserves credit for sitting down and having his views examined. Unfortunately, he is hopelessly inconsistent because he does not start from principle.
Don't miss part three where he argues that people are not forced to pay taxes and claims that taxes are voluntary!

- - - - -

Jan Helfeld is a unique TV interviewer who uses the Socratic interviewing technique to reveal contradictions in our politicians' thinking. Watch Jan Helfeld nail the politician or journalist of your choice. Enjoy watching politicians and journalists go crazy as the result of rational, legitimate questions and thus, with no excuse to be upset.

Unbelievable, dramatic, explosive interviews



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I remember

when this guy was running for office. However, I would think a better answer to appease the likes of socialists like Michael Steele would be that a local government approach to welfare is better. If the citizens decide its necessary for their community, than so be it, but not from a federal level..it cripples the rights of the minority.

wow talk about being dense...

wow talk about being dense...

Redistribution

It depends on if the money is coming out of their own SS account, which might have still been solvent if they hadn't been raiding it for decades. In that case, no, it's their own money. But if they're taking away other people's money to pay it, then it's a redistribution of stolen money.

When I was applying for early SS, I started to get worried after about a couple of months of not hearing anything, so I called the local office and asked the person there, "Is there a chance I might get turned down?" She said, "Of course not. It's your own money."

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Welcome Jan

We admire and appreciate your great work, and are pleased to have you among us.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and praise.

Thank you for your support and praise.

Jan Helfeld

Yet another example of Image over Substance

This guy Steele is yet another example of the kind of intellectual lightweight that dominates American public life.

This kind of person is all image over substance.

They pick a group and a label that fits the 'image' they want to ego identify with ("I am a conservative / a Republican / a liberal / a Democrat / a whatever") - and then they try and behave what they think it means to be that thing.

But when they're actual actions over time are examined, when their beliefs are put to the test it turns out that they are really something else entirely.

This is how a phony like Sanatorium can live their whole political life playing "Mr All-American conservative GOP Christian family values Sunday football watchin' military backin' patriotic example of virtue" ...

And his voting record is pure big government liberal distribution.

And the Corporate Media hardly notices.

And neither do most of the intellectual lightweight base.

Because they're just like he is.

Phony as a three dollar bill man.

Headline should be, "Steele

Headline should be, "Steele knows Medicare is wealth redistribution, but is alright with it"

I signed no contract or agreement to be deprived of my income

If anybody else took money from me with a (now empty) promise to pay my medical bills later in life, that would be stealing right?

Actually forget the excuses. If anyone but the government took money from me without my consent, its stealing right?

Then, does it follow that stealing is OK so long as only the government is doing it?

Our Federal Reserve steals from us every day by printing more dollars, the same ones we use for savings. Is it OK for the government to steal and counterfeit money? Is it really something other than theft when the government is doing it?

"Redistribution of wealth" is too politically correct. Its theft. Armed robbery if you will. Even when goods and services are promised in return. That's what it is when there is no consent. That's what Medicare is, just like any government program, its an excuse to steal from you and fence the stolen property to someone else.

I've always have been bother with the idea that one generation

can enslave the next by a simple majority vote and the presidents signature. How can people 50 years ago allow the government to forcibly take my property without my permission? Same goes for any other theft from government (income taxes, social security, etc.)

medicare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

that's all that needs to be said about it.

nr

"Don't miss part three"

Where is part 3? I found 1 and this is part 2, but where is 3? Link, please...

CHECK OUT MY VIDEO! The views stopped overnight when for 'copyright' reasons, mobile viewing was disabled. I want to get to 8,000 - HELP by watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pTvjzHN3I

Pt 1 here....Pt 3 still to come

Pt 1:
http://youtu.be/FNA9_j6XtHw

Pt 3 is still in the works.

LIKE SOME COMMENTS, STEELE HAS A POINT

Steele has a good point. I think Hatfield or Hetfield (sp) lost me when he cited Ron Paul's personal experience of helping neighbors - A VERY WEAK ARGUMENT. In all honesty, some people are not that charitable and may not live in neighborhoods that are altruistic.

first of all

theorizing about who would pay for what without medicare/caid, is putting the cart before the horse.

everyone needs transportation. if the federal government created a program to give everyone a car, and a driver if you cannot drive yourself, then it is redistribution. period.

before debating whether or not it's a good idea to have a federal program to provide cars for everyone...

before debating whether or not that program could be cost effective

before debating whether or not people would help each other in the absence of a federal car-for-everyone program

EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND

WHAT
IT
IS

it's redistribution.

plain and simple.

period.

Regardless of whether or not the program merits discussion, we must first speak truth.

it is redistribution.

And if so called conservatives, can't speak truth, then who will?

You? Apparently not.

Steele has no point to stand on, he avoided it completely.

I'm not a conservative, or a liberal, or a republican or a democrat AND I HAVE THE FRIGGIN GAUL TO AT LEAST ADMIT THAT I ENJOY MANY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES, THAT ARE A RESULT OF CAPITAL

redistribution.

How can we even have honest discussion, if we cannot even call things by what they really are.

Not admitting that medicare and social security are redistribution, while saying Obama is a socialist (which he is), is hypocrisy without bounds.

But if "The People" really understood the "System"

it would be an easy thing to fund any charity whatsoever. Your acting as if this system has a "collateral factor"
IT DOESN'T EXIST...Can you redeem the money you've received
in the form of a check to exchange for some collateral ?
NOPE...What has Dr Paul been saying for 30 years or more ??
The banks extend credit, this is where it stops...THEY TAKE NO RISK....This voids contract...it's actually pretty simple.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

If people are not charitable, should government have the power

to force them to be so?

Sprout's picture

Steele's made the point that

we should be fooled into voting for "anyone but Obama." Even the interviewer agreed that any other candidate would do less harm than Obama. That's how RINOs keep getting elected: namely they are the lesser of two evils. I totally disagree. Taking poison one sip at a time has the same end result as drinking it all at once.

Cdp

I'm surprised that Jan...

...did't bring up the simple point made by Bastiat, paraphrased (haven't read it for years, but it's here's the gist):

That as soon as you introduce into society the idea that you can take from one and give to another, you've started the slippery slide down to tyranny.

There can be NO MORE INSIDIOUS practice adopted by a government than LEGALIZED PLUNDER.

Such legal plunder will invariably begin with a innocent, good-sounding reason, "to help the handicapped" or "to help the less fortunate".

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Bastiat's work is very very

Bastiat's work is very very good.

Unfortunately the "slippery slope" device/argument has been so overused and abused, by FOX News and MSNBC talking heads, it is worthless.

Jan was trying to get to the root.

First of all, speak or find truth. What is medicare?

Until one admits the true nature of any societal program based off non voluntary contributions, then there can be no meaningful discussion.

Where Jan was going, was absolutely right. Steele was modestly successful in blathering through a dodge.

America is dodging most of the discussion.

It's going to take another wallop, and we'll be brought to our economic knees, before people are ready to Come To Jesus.

Only then, will Steele proudly and quickly answer the question, and ask a follow up:

"YES, IT IS REDISTRIBUTION. How do we fix it?"

Till that time, 90% of Americans will dodge the hard questions. Just like Steele.

Steele is right on one thing.

The American people, collectively (not including the educated and awakened ones like DP readers), actually WANT social programs like Medicaid/Medicare.

THAT is the problem.

THAT is why we dumbarse Americans keep electing reps that are for redistribution of the wealth.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

The Law vs. Mob Rule

It's a good thing we're a constitutional republic; not a democracy.

Well, he is kind of right and

Well, he is kind of right and kind of wrong.

It is just like an insurance program. Those who use it will get more out of it than those who don't. But that is the nature of insurance. EVERYONE gets the coverage.

In terms of real dollars, if you retired past the 70s or will retire in the next few years, then you've paid less into Medicare then you get out of it. So it isn't wealth redistribution; on average you are getting what you paid into it. But if you are in your 30s and in the workforce, you will be likely paying very less than what it will cost to take care of you. This is because healthcare prices are soaring.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The point is I don't get to chose my coverage.

It is just like an insurance program. Those who use it will get more out of it than those who don't. But that is the nature of insurance. EVERYONE gets the coverage.

If you're cool with it that ---^ than you should be cool with mandatory health insurance. They're just a hop, skip, and a jump apart.

As long as we have mandated

As long as we have mandated care in this country, forcing doctors to take care of people without performing a credit/insurance check, yes, I am OK with it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Funny, I don't read anywhere

Funny, I don't read anywhere in the Constitution that says I have buy insurance for myself, or be taxed to provide it for others.

You sure you're a RP supporter?

Taxing you would be covered

Taxing you would be covered under the taxing and spending clause as well as the 16th amendment (arguably).

Forcing you to buy insurance would be covered under the commerce clause. That is how the health insurance mandate of 1793 was passed.

Ultimately, this country has decided that hospitals will be forced to treat patients in critical condition. No patient dumping, no credit check, etc. This is now federal law, and before it was Federal law, it was the law in the vast majority of states.

As long as you require providers to give care, we should also make sure people can pay for that care.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Doubling down on dumb, is dumb.

Forcing you to buy insurance would be covered under the commerce clause.

Me NOT buying insurance would have absolutely nothing to do with interstate commerce. Unless you are arguing that my lack of participation in the market place impacts prices and therefore counts as participation in the market place. (Which is some super sweet Orwellian double talk bullshit.) If the latter is the case, then why bother enumerating the powers of government in the first place?

They could've saved a lot of paper and ink by just putting 'We the people here by grant the government the power to say FUCK YOU as often as it wants.'

As long as you require providers to give care, we should also make sure people can pay for that care.

YES. What a bold idea. If two wrongs make a right... then lets just keep the dumb idea train goin ooh ooh here's one:

As long as you require providers to give care.....

we should also make sure people don't make dumb decisions which make it more costly to treat them. You know things like drink soda, not exercise on a daily basis, smoke, drink etc. Now we need a bunch of shiny new laws to effect all that... probably a few new bureaus.... maybe a new cabinet level position.

Oh another one!

As long as you require providers to give care.....

People shouldn't be allowed to do dangerous thinks. We should imprison parents who let their kids climb trees or ride bikes without helmets. Young adults who sky dive, rock climb, and swim without water wings should be fined... maybe even summarily executed.

Insurance programs don't rely

Insurance programs don't rely on forced taxation. The money you pay for Medicare doesn't go into an account, which I'm sure you know. Medicare works by transferring wealth from those working today, and giving to retirees, with the promise that the current workers will be taken care of by future workers when they retire.

Medicare

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me. If they kept their hands out of the trust fund, it just might work, as it was intended

If they kept their hands out

If they kept their hands out of the trust fund, it just might work, as it was intended...

Actually not at all. We live in an inflationary environment. Federal fiscal policy, and federal reserve policy dictates that. They have to do SOMETHING with the money or it will wither away to nothing.

They have to collect more than they pay out or the system will collapse. What do you want them to do with the money?

Pick winners and losers in the stock market, or build bombs and bridges to nowhere and write IOUs? Those are really the only options on how to spend it.

On a side note, Ponzi actually had a good idea (he was exploiting pricing disparities caused by government regulations on stamps). HE only failed because too many folks invested, and he didn't realize the world wide market wasn't large enough for him to give the returns he promised to everyone.

The BAD part of Ponzi's scheme was he tried to cover it and buy himself time to address the problem by using the money of later investors to pay off earlier ones. THE BAD PART of ponzi's scheme is precisely what medicaid, medicare, and social security are. They took the inexcusable part of his idea and made participation mandatory.

The money that people paid

The money that people paid into Medicare has been used to pay for general government. That doesn't mean it isn't owed to those who paid it in. Defaulting on such payments would be like defaulting on T-bills....

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

See 1960 Flemming v. Nestor for what "rights" you have based on

your "contributions". This specific case refers to SSA, but the principle is the same for Medicare. Once the government has your money, it can do whatever it can get away with politically.

From SSA.gov website:

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

So it appears that "default" (by denying payments to those who have contributed) is already allowed.

No, no, of course you can do

No, no, of course you can do it in a legal basis.

It is the moral basis that I question.

The government can also 100% legally tax you at 90%. It can go to war with every country in the world, etc.

It would be one thing cutting Social Security if promises were unreasonable, if they weren't paid in full, etc. But when everyone sticks by the plan, and it is a fair plan, reneging on it is very dangerous.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Actuarially speaking, the SS promises are unreasonable.

It's just gotten worse over time, as SSI, COLA, and an aging workforce compounded the financial problems. Patching it like Reagan did by jacking up taxes and the retirement age just delays the inevitable.

Continuing the plan is even more dangerous than phasing it out.

So let me repeat, that with

So let me repeat, that with just baseline monetary reserves, there is about 2.5 trillion in surplus, which, if the economy DID NOT recover by 2019, and if promises were not altered to factor in that lack of recovery, we would have issues in 2037 (or 2032; can't remember).

Assuming that the money had been kept in the accounts and allowed to grow at a reasonable interest rate, we'd have anywhere from 5 to 9 trillion in the accounts; future problems wouldn't be an issue.

Now of course, that money does not exist since its been spent on general government. But the point remains that the program itself takes care of itself.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

If the program took care of itself, the money would still exist.

Of course, since politicians were running it, the money has already been spent on other goodies.

The cupboard is bare, leaving future taxpayers on the hook.

The problem is not limited to the public sector - there are plenty examples of public and private pension plans that make unreasonable promises up front, but later find there isn't enough money to meet their obligations. By the time that happens, the people who set up the plan are long gone - leaving those who are left holding the bag.

That's probably why many private businesses have shifted from defined benefit plans (pensions) to defined contribution plans (401k).

Individual ownership and control of retirement money is the wave of the future - deciding how to phase out the failed current system remains to be decided.

Assuming that the money had

Assuming that the money had been kept in the accounts and allowed to grow at a reasonable interest rate.

To accrue interest, money has to be invested. Do you really want Uncle Sam to pick winners and losers (even more than it currently does) in the private sector?

A good chunk of that change probably would've been 'invested' in manufacturing... which as we all know would've panned out well over the last 30 years.

The problem is when you collect that much money, you have to do something with it or it'll waste away due to the inflation built into our currency, and bureaucrats are TERRIBLE at figuring out how to best spend money.

They chose to 'invest' it in what are effectively t-bills aka federal IOUs. Apparantly they chose poorly by your standards... which is why you DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT A LOT OF MONEY AND HAVE A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS INVEST IT FOR YOU.

So that is why I gave a RANGE

So that is why I gave a RANGE of investments. If they invested in corporate bonds, it would be around 9 trillion. If they invested only in risk-free (or very low-risk) assets (like CDs) it would be a little above 5 trillion. If they invested in T-bills but paid all the interst on it it would be similar.

What the government currently does in invest in T-bills, which at times have yields well above inflation (over 5% just a couple of years ago IIRC). However, the US government does not give all the interest back to the fund. For example, in I think 68 the trust had about 11% interest, but only gave 2.8% to the trust and took the rest as government revnue. Since, technically, they don't owe you anything, they are free to take the interest as their own. In the past couple of years, since about 2003, they are doing a better job of returning all the interest back...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Michael Steele ain't a bad guy

Personally, I really like the guy.

Saw him on Hardball once, where one Mathhews hounds was reciting the usual "Ron Paul is unelectable spiel" and writing him off, but Steele waded right in and disagreed.

One of the few Republican commentators that is not entirely dismissive of Dr. Paul.

By far the most intelligent Republican commentator on Rachel Maddow's show, and he is a frequent guest.

Now that MSNBC jettisoned Pat Buchanan, Michael Steele is the only Republican commentator on MSNBC that is not Neo-Conservative.

Just my opinion.

Ya, now if he could just

tell the CFR (of which he is a member) to go screw themselves, he'd be a real peach...

The RNC Fired Him For Speaking Against The War In Afghanastan

Ron Paul came to his defense on CNN.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

And this...

the former RNC chairman? SCARY!!! Dude, read some Hayek or Bastiat.

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” - Ron Paul

You do know that Hayek conceeded that...

some social programs were a necessity / or could be beneficial right?

He simply pointed out that they'd be inefficient, should be minimized as MUCH as possible, and could end up sending a country down the slippery slope to serfdom.

davidinliberty's picture

Bravo!

Very well done! Without attacking him or his positions, you gave him a rope with which to hang himself. I am quite envious of your ability!

David in Liberty

David Burns
Simi Valley, CA

do neocons attend a class in pseudologic ?

you can appear to be making a case for ANYTHING if you selectively leave out certain relevant facts from your argument.

nr

I love when Jan does these

I love when Jan does these type of interviews. However, watch the debate he had against Stefan Molyneux. Jan takes the role of Michael Steele in that one. :)

Former RNC chairman

sounds more like a DNC chairman.
It's not democrat vs. republican anymore, it's Them vs. US.

Welcome to reality 401

It's been this way for decades, the 6% of separation is in the forms of socialist governance the Progressive and the NeoCon represent.
The Progressive, Fabian, or Westernized Socialism.
The NeoCon, Fascism
Two side to one very unAmerican coin.

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

Not surprising

There are the type of people we have running the country.

Unqualified...very connected politically so they advance, but hapless when confronted. But they probably think they are actually qualified and doing a good job.

It's freaking sad!

Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest. - Ben Franklin

When asked they go all " Clinton"

And want the definition of " doing".
To you or I, or any individual in this Republic they are " doing" an abysmal job.
But to them or any Globalist they are " doing" a grand job.
Gnostic thinking, the end justifies the means,( and everyone thought Saul Alyinski came up with that.)

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington