Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dracin72 who wrote (7451)	1/22/2017 9:16:09 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 364291

why is it a point of debate when a worker collects it. I didn't think it was a point of debate. I certainly wasn't challenging it. I've posted on this thread before that my dad was a construction laborer who was frequently between jobs. I lived off his unemployment benefit throughout my childhood. ($36/week) But we weren't discussing unemployment. I had questioned koan about his advocacy of the notion of "government as employer of last resort." That's what the discussion was about. Koan wandered off claiming that unemployment was an example of "government as employer of last resort." I challenged his having conflated the two notions. The unemployment program is set up as insurance, not welfare. They are quite different. I never challenged any unemployment benefit program. I think it's an appropriate element of the safety net. It has always been my impression that programs for which we are specifically taxed are very well accepted across the board. The more redistributionist a program is, the less it is supported. Social security is challenged mainly to the extent that the taxes collected are insufficient to provide benefits. As for "government as employer of last resort," that is pure welfare, no participant pay-in. Plus it is framed as work rather than welfare to dignify it. And it would be very expensive and inefficient. I would expect support for that to be low. Which is why I asked koan why he looked favorably on it. As it turns out, he seems to be fuzzy about what it is so the whole colloquy was pointless.

To: Dracin72 who wrote (7451)	1/22/2017 9:18:33 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Respond to of 364291

why is it a point of debate when a worker collects it. I didn't think it was a point of debate. I certainly wasn't challenging it. I've posted on this thread before that my dad was a construction laborer who was frequently between jobs. I lived off his unemployment benefit throughout my childhood. ($36/week) But we weren't discussing unemployment. I had questioned koan about his advocacy of the notion of "government as employer of last resort." That's what the discussion was about. Koan wandered off claiming that unemployment was an example of "government as employer of last resort." I challenged his having conflated the two notions. The unemployment program is set up as insurance, not welfare. They are quite different. I never challenged any unemployment benefit program. I think it's an appropriate element of the safety net. It has always been my impression that programs for which we are specifically taxed are very well accepted across the board. The more redistributionist a program is, the less it is supported. Social security is challenged mainly to the extent that the taxes collected are insufficient to provide benefits, not in principle. As for "government as employer of last resort," that is pure welfare, no participant pay-in. Plus it is framed as work rather than welfare to dignify it. And it would be very expensive and inefficient. I would expect support for that to be low. Which is why I asked koan why he looked favorably on it. As it turns out, he seems to be fuzzy about what it is so the whole colloquy was pointless.