CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

Command economics always works, and may even require a work ethic. What doesn't work is your appeals to ignorance and other diversions.

Yeah, command economics has worked perfectly. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Always works. Every single time.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

Command economics always works, and may even require a work ethic. What doesn't work is your appeals to ignorance and other diversions.

Yeah, command economics has worked perfectly. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Always works. Every single time.

It won all of our wars, except those on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror. You really do need a clue and a Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Another dumb post. If you don't have anything to say, just shut up. You are never going to get a meaningful response from anyone, when you say such absolutely moronic statements. Grow up a little. Be more mature. You'll get more mature responses when you do.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

This is both obvious, stupid, and deceptive.

First, I don't care that "bush said it". I don't give a crap what Bush said. He's wrong.

Second, GDP, the very calculation of GDP, includes government spending.

If the government spent $1 Trillion dollars to hire Japanese sumo wrestlers to poop out of helicopters on top of the White House.... The government could honestly, and truthfully conclude that Sumo poop on the White House increased GDP by $1 Trillion dollars.

Go look it up. GDP includes government spending. If they spent $300 Billion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by $300 Billion. If they spent $500 Billion, $700 Billion, or $55 Trillion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by whatever amount they spent.

So that's irrelevant. Because it's not "real" GDP. Real improvements to the economy, do not require government spending to create.


Beyond that, it is absolutely impossible for unemployment insurance to prevent someone from losing their job. It is also false to claim that if those people didn't have unemployment insurance, that they would not have gotten a job. In fact, research for non-government (self-interested) sources, suggest that people act differently (as a normal non-left-wing person would expect), when they have money from the government, verses when they don't. Obviously your incentive to find a job, is higher when you have no more unemployment comp coming.

That isn't to say that everyone sits around until it runs out, only that the incentive is higher when it's running out, than when you have 99 weeks left.

Now, NONE of what I just said, is to suggest there is zero benefit. Of course there is. There is a benefit to all government spending. Increasing military spending would also save jobs, and increase the GDP.

The problem is, we are borrowing money to do it.

If I borrow money to live a better life style, I can safely say that credit cards increased my life style, my happiness, the quality of my health care, and all kinds of things I spent the money on. Until.... I go bankrupt, and I lose everything, including the stuff I had before I went into the debt to boost my life style.

Similarly, Greece's government spending clearly allowed the people of Greece to live a better life style, and increase GDP, and increase social programs and mass transit, and all kinds of stuff.

Yeah.... how's that working for them now? Now they have a worse standard of living than nearly anywhere in Europe.

So short term gain, and long term pain.

Lastly, all of those calculations exclude one key attribute. Specifically what would have been done with the money, if it had not been loaned to the government to fund UI? If the government had not borrowed the money, the people with that money would have been forced to invest it, or spend it somewhere else in the economy. If they used it to buy goods or invest, that would have created jobs in the private sector, then employment would have recovered faster.

Instead it was lent to the government, to pay people to stay at home.

These are not net positives. The claim that there was a "multiplier effect", is crap. Bush's gov-supporters are wrong. I don't care that it's Bush's team, or Obama's Team, or Clinton's team, or whose team it is. The claims about the multiplier effect, are false.

I agree with them; you don't seem to have a valid rebuttal. It really is that simple.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong. You may by all means, remain so.

I don't mind resorting to the fewest fallacies, unlike those of the opposing view.

 

[Andylusion]

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

Command economics always works, and may even require a work ethic. What doesn't work is your appeals to ignorance and other diversions.

Yeah, command economics has worked perfectly. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Always works. Every single time.

It won all of our wars, except those on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror. You really do need a clue and a Cause.

Irrelevant. When you talk about a command economy, you refer to more than simply the military.

Everyone on the right, excepts the necessary evil of a socialized military. It would be impossible to have a national defense otherwise.

If that's all you are in favor of, a government limited to the military, then we are in agreement, and the argument is over.

If you mean something more, then you fail. Your system doesn't work.

 

[Andylusion]

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Another dumb post. If you don't have anything to say, just shut up. You are never going to get a meaningful response from anyone, when you say such absolutely moronic statements. Grow up a little. Be more mature. You'll get more mature responses when you do.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

This is both obvious, stupid, and deceptive.

First, I don't care that "bush said it". I don't give a crap what Bush said. He's wrong.

Second, GDP, the very calculation of GDP, includes government spending.

If the government spent $1 Trillion dollars to hire Japanese sumo wrestlers to poop out of helicopters on top of the White House.... The government could honestly, and truthfully conclude that Sumo poop on the White House increased GDP by $1 Trillion dollars.

Go look it up. GDP includes government spending. If they spent $300 Billion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by $300 Billion. If they spent $500 Billion, $700 Billion, or $55 Trillion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by whatever amount they spent.

So that's irrelevant. Because it's not "real" GDP. Real improvements to the economy, do not require government spending to create.


Beyond that, it is absolutely impossible for unemployment insurance to prevent someone from losing their job. It is also false to claim that if those people didn't have unemployment insurance, that they would not have gotten a job. In fact, research for non-government (self-interested) sources, suggest that people act differently (as a normal non-left-wing person would expect), when they have money from the government, verses when they don't. Obviously your incentive to find a job, is higher when you have no more unemployment comp coming.

That isn't to say that everyone sits around until it runs out, only that the incentive is higher when it's running out, than when you have 99 weeks left.

Now, NONE of what I just said, is to suggest there is zero benefit. Of course there is. There is a benefit to all government spending. Increasing military spending would also save jobs, and increase the GDP.

The problem is, we are borrowing money to do it.

If I borrow money to live a better life style, I can safely say that credit cards increased my life style, my happiness, the quality of my health care, and all kinds of things I spent the money on. Until.... I go bankrupt, and I lose everything, including the stuff I had before I went into the debt to boost my life style.

Similarly, Greece's government spending clearly allowed the people of Greece to live a better life style, and increase GDP, and increase social programs and mass transit, and all kinds of stuff.

Yeah.... how's that working for them now? Now they have a worse standard of living than nearly anywhere in Europe.

So short term gain, and long term pain.

Lastly, all of those calculations exclude one key attribute. Specifically what would have been done with the money, if it had not been loaned to the government to fund UI? If the government had not borrowed the money, the people with that money would have been forced to invest it, or spend it somewhere else in the economy. If they used it to buy goods or invest, that would have created jobs in the private sector, then employment would have recovered faster.

Instead it was lent to the government, to pay people to stay at home.

These are not net positives. The claim that there was a "multiplier effect", is crap. Bush's gov-supporters are wrong. I don't care that it's Bush's team, or Obama's Team, or Clinton's team, or whose team it is. The claims about the multiplier effect, are false.

I agree with them; you don't seem to have a valid rebuttal. It really is that simple.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong. You may by all means, remain so.

I don't mind resorting to the fewest fallacies, unlike those of the opposing view.

By all means, stop referring to fallacies all the time.

 

[there4eyeM]

What many would refer to as socialism has been necessary in situations where scale of economics does not allow for a purely market-based demand to meet a national need. European countries are much smaller than the US, but they require the same industrial and social capacities, often in the interests of national security. These were done collectively. The solution fit the need.
This is the human scale. Ideology alone does not suffice. Personal opinions of what is most effective for developing desirable personality traits is purely subjective.Forcing children to grow up without proper health care, education and hope doesn't statistically result in higher human character. 'Rugged individualism' may look good in a John Ford movie or an Ayn Rand novel. In practice, it isn't a social program.

 

[RKMBrown]

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

And you seem to be missing the point about the concept of getting paid based on the value of work done, vs. being paid based on some lofty goals of city planners.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

ROFL dude what makes you think spoiling children by giving them all the candy they want is going to work this time?

 

[RKMBrown]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

 

[RKMBrown]

What many would refer to as socialism has been necessary in situations where scale of economics does not allow for a purely market-based demand to meet a national need. European countries are much smaller than the US, but they require the same industrial and social capacities, often in the interests of national security. These were done collectively. The solution fit the need.
This is the human scale. Ideology alone does not suffice. Personal opinions of what is most effective for developing desirable personality traits is purely subjective.Forcing children to grow up without proper health care, education and hope doesn't statistically result in higher human character. 'Rugged individualism' may look good in a John Ford movie or an Ayn Rand novel. In practice, it isn't a social program.

ROFL... so if I don't give you all of my income, I'm forcing your children to grow up without proper healthcare and education. HOW ABOUT you grow a pair and pay for your own children, while I pay for mine from my own income that I earned with my own two hands.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

Command economics always works, and may even require a work ethic. What doesn't work is your appeals to ignorance and other diversions.

Yeah, command economics has worked perfectly. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Always works. Every single time.

It won all of our wars, except those on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror. You really do need a clue and a Cause.

Irrelevant. When you talk about a command economy, you refer to more than simply the military.

Everyone on the right, excepts the necessary evil of a socialized military. It would be impossible to have a national defense otherwise.

If that's all you are in favor of, a government limited to the military, then we are in agreement, and the argument is over.

If you mean something more, then you fail. Your system doesn't work.

You are missing the most relevant point about socialism doing all of the heavy lifting when it comes to achieving purely social goals.

 

[danielpalos]

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Another dumb post. If you don't have anything to say, just shut up. You are never going to get a meaningful response from anyone, when you say such absolutely moronic statements. Grow up a little. Be more mature. You'll get more mature responses when you do.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

This is both obvious, stupid, and deceptive.

First, I don't care that "bush said it". I don't give a crap what Bush said. He's wrong.

Second, GDP, the very calculation of GDP, includes government spending.

If the government spent $1 Trillion dollars to hire Japanese sumo wrestlers to poop out of helicopters on top of the White House.... The government could honestly, and truthfully conclude that Sumo poop on the White House increased GDP by $1 Trillion dollars.

Go look it up. GDP includes government spending. If they spent $300 Billion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by $300 Billion. If they spent $500 Billion, $700 Billion, or $55 Trillion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by whatever amount they spent.

So that's irrelevant. Because it's not "real" GDP. Real improvements to the economy, do not require government spending to create.


Beyond that, it is absolutely impossible for unemployment insurance to prevent someone from losing their job. It is also false to claim that if those people didn't have unemployment insurance, that they would not have gotten a job. In fact, research for non-government (self-interested) sources, suggest that people act differently (as a normal non-left-wing person would expect), when they have money from the government, verses when they don't. Obviously your incentive to find a job, is higher when you have no more unemployment comp coming.

That isn't to say that everyone sits around until it runs out, only that the incentive is higher when it's running out, than when you have 99 weeks left.

Now, NONE of what I just said, is to suggest there is zero benefit. Of course there is. There is a benefit to all government spending. Increasing military spending would also save jobs, and increase the GDP.

The problem is, we are borrowing money to do it.

If I borrow money to live a better life style, I can safely say that credit cards increased my life style, my happiness, the quality of my health care, and all kinds of things I spent the money on. Until.... I go bankrupt, and I lose everything, including the stuff I had before I went into the debt to boost my life style.

Similarly, Greece's government spending clearly allowed the people of Greece to live a better life style, and increase GDP, and increase social programs and mass transit, and all kinds of stuff.

Yeah.... how's that working for them now? Now they have a worse standard of living than nearly anywhere in Europe.

So short term gain, and long term pain.

Lastly, all of those calculations exclude one key attribute. Specifically what would have been done with the money, if it had not been loaned to the government to fund UI? If the government had not borrowed the money, the people with that money would have been forced to invest it, or spend it somewhere else in the economy. If they used it to buy goods or invest, that would have created jobs in the private sector, then employment would have recovered faster.

Instead it was lent to the government, to pay people to stay at home.

These are not net positives. The claim that there was a "multiplier effect", is crap. Bush's gov-supporters are wrong. I don't care that it's Bush's team, or Obama's Team, or Clinton's team, or whose team it is. The claims about the multiplier effect, are false.

I agree with them; you don't seem to have a valid rebuttal. It really is that simple.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong. You may by all means, remain so.

I don't mind resorting to the fewest fallacies, unlike those of the opposing view.

By all means, stop referring to fallacies all the time.

I only refer to all of the fallacies of all of those of the opposing view. i can understand why some on the less competent right, would want me to stop as if by repeal, rather than through a better diagnosis of the Body politic.

 

[danielpalos]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

 

[Andylusion]

What many would refer to as socialism has been necessary in situations where scale of economics does not allow for a purely market-based demand to meet a national need. European countries are much smaller than the US, but they require the same industrial and social capacities, often in the interests of national security. These were done collectively. The solution fit the need.
This is the human scale. Ideology alone does not suffice. Personal opinions of what is most effective for developing desirable personality traits is purely subjective.Forcing children to grow up without proper health care, education and hope doesn't statistically result in higher human character. 'Rugged individualism' may look good in a John Ford movie or an Ayn Rand novel. In practice, it isn't a social program.

With the minor problem of that being not true. There are more than a few countries that have non-government run education, and provides better education than we provide our own kids.

And while they do have government run health care, their system provides far worse health care by any valid measurement, than our system does. There's a reason why Canadians routinely come to America to get health care, when they supposedly get it "free" in Canada.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we merely need an "oil pump" for our capital economy to ensure liquidity.

 

[Andylusion]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

 

[Andylusion]

I believe we merely need an "oil pump" for our capital economy to ensure liquidity.

Yeah, we've seen how well that works. I believe you are wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we merely need an "oil pump" for our capital economy to ensure liquidity.

Yeah, we've seen how well that works. I believe you are wrong.

No, you haven't seen how that works; simply because the right cannot muster that much moral of "goodwill toward men", as if by willful Appeal to Ignorance as a form of class warfare.

 

[there4eyeM]

The health care system in France works just fine.