The "Gift" Of More Public Social Spending: Less Income Inequality!

[mascale]

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is no real friend of Romney-Ryan. Republican Governors, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker: Also are not really good friends of Romney-Ryan, anymore(?)!

What is Public Social Spending all about? The OECD concludes that a more equal income distribution is the apparent outcome!

This is a chapter, actually cited correctly as follows:

OECD (2011), “Public social spending”, in Society at a Glance 2011:
OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-20-en

So down below then some of the wording, sufficient to show the case, is pasted. Essentially, the sentence below is the substance of the point being made.

"Countries with a more equal income distribution. . .tended to have higher social spending," with basis in data for 2007. The United States is down toward the bottom of the list of percentage-of-GDP-based social spenders. The United States famously cratered the entire financial community: Only about two years later!

Governor Romney has famously derided the "gifts" created by the Democrats in response to the prevailing problem of income inequality. In the United States, that became centralized in a massive failure of mortgage loan repayments.

That was clearly Romney-Ryan-Bush-Cheney-Reagan-Bush caused. Famously, Governor Romney would cite each of those administrations as not entirely supportive of increase of Social Spending!

The Socialist Gift of Financial Integrity, Solvency, and Credit-Worthy business is slowly now being conceded to not be at all the Republican Brand!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Anyone would in fact conclude that the Party of Abraham Lincoln is likely more supportive of Haiti and East Africa in Drought--as preferred economies, to the United States. Likely the more "Liberian Movement," Honest Abe, knew in fact they all had to be shipped back to somewhere--even if it were to be Costa Rica. Famous jungles are where anyone can find them--and anyone knows that they are free market, and laissez-Faire(?). Tony the Tiger(?) likely understand this! Bonzo the Chimpanzee likely understands this(?)! There you have the Romney-Ryan brand, acknowledged in private conversations!)

 

[kwc57]

What the fuck are you babbling about? Oh yeah, your link doesn't work.

 

[mascale]

From Society at A Glance 2011, OECD (2011): "Public Social Spending" in Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing.

Public social spending
Public social spending measures the amount of resources committed by the government in the areas of pensions, benefits (social support) and health. A traditional argument for much social spending is to prevent disadvantage and thus enhance equity. In 2007, public social expenditure averaged 19% of GDP across 34 OECD countries. Country differences in spending levels were wide. Mexico and Korea spent between 6 and 10% of GDP. France and Sweden spent about 20 percentage points more. Public spending is a feature of the continental European countries. Spending shares were lower than average amongst three of the four new member countries – Chile, Estonia, and Israel. Anglophone countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom, fell below the OECD spending average. However, country rankings changed considerably when net social spending (allowing for net taxes) was considered, with the United States, which tends to redistribute through the tax
system, experiencing a big rise. Social spending has grown marginally as a share of GDP across the OECD between 1982 and 2007 . The overall picture was a slight rise, by 2.5 percentage points on average, across the OECD. Especially big increases were found in Portugal, Japan and Turkey. Social spending in the Netherlands fell as a percentage of GDP for several reasons, including low GDP in the base year, relatively rapid GDP growth, and changes in the treatment of pensions, health reform and the approach to benefit indexation. Countries with a more equal income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient, tended to have higher social spending (EQ5.2). Nordic and western European countries, which spend the most, had low income inequality. On the other hand Mexico and Turkey spent little and record high income inequality. Some countries (like Portugal and Italy) had high spending and quite high income inequality, probably reflecting on the types of social spending undertaken. However, bigger rises in social spending experienced over the last generation in some countries do not appear to have contributed to reductions in income inequality (EQ5.2). This lack of a relationship could be because the types of social spending which rose were not income inequality reducing, or that social spending rose in some countries to try and partially offset the rise in inequality
from market or other sources.

(Countries ranked from highest to lowest in percentage of GDP devoted to Public Social Spending)
France
Sweden
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Italy
Hungary
Portugal
Spain
Greece
Norway
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Netherlands
Poland
OECD
Czech Republic
Japan
Switzerland
New Zealand
Canada
Ireland
United States
Australia
Slovak Republic
Israel
Iceland
Estonia
Chile
Turkey
Korea
Mexico
Brazil
Russian Federation
South Africa
China
India

 

[kwc57]

Quit your bellyaching. Obama was elected. Your free shit is coming. You're welcome.

 

[mascale]

Much of the vote in Ohio is credited to the "Gift" of jobs and incomes from the bail-out of Socialist Motors. Nursing Home operators expect the "Gift" of monthly checks from the various welfare distribution agencies. California recently passed Proposition 30 to keep up the paychecks of the various public agency teachers and adminstrators. Shopkeepers thrive from the largesse of Social Security and Welfare payments. Property-owners thrive from the same largesse, and from public housing support. The farmers able to sell food to grocery stores, those then able to collect food stamps: Tend to even be able to get past droughts and floods alike.

In comparison, likely the Romney-Ryan Brand: Mainly Seagulls tend to thrive from locusts, au natural or however that is done. That latter is what "economy" means to the Romney-Ryan, GOP Brand! Everyone else is far more productive, following the great Gifts of modern civilization, of the Socialist brand! Haiti, and Drought-Stricken East Africa, are more into the Seagulls-and-the-Locusts kinds of facts of life(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many White Eyes, Male Over Age 45: Intend instead a more Bureau of Indian Affairs kind of "Gifted" economy for all! "Gifts" is what BIA is all about, or was. Socialist civilization makes progress, of the more dramatic comparison!)