America's aversion to socialism ?

[maine75man]

This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.

Actually there are a couple programs that are part of unemployment to provide benefits for entrepreneurs. Instead of looking for work they must provide a business plan and work towards it. I honestly don't know exactly how it works but my sister-in-law used the program. I could do that instead of going to college maybe. Since Maine now has legal medical marijuana maybe I could go into that business. My area already looks like it's getting a dispensary though so maybe I'll try a grow operation. I had a lot of luck with tomatoes this year and I hear their pretty similar.

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes.

 

[maine75man]

Because he quit a good job with full benefits to take a risk in a business they were not prepared for - they will now depend upon Medicaid for their sick child. IMO - we the taxpayers don't owe them anything else.

They're almost bankrupt any medical costs they incur will have to be covered by the system Medicaid or no. With Medicaid it's applied to taxes otherwise it's just passed onto people as inflated medical costs.

 

[mege]

They're almost bankrupt any medical costs they incur will have to be covered by the system Medicaid or no. With Medicaid it's applied to taxes otherwise it's just passed onto people as inflated medical costs.

Or, he could have kept his well paying job and has his medical costs would be covered through insurance that he was paying into. If the safety net wasn't there, he maybe wouldn't have taken the risk and passed on all of the costs to society as a whole (in the form of welfare/medicaid/etc).

We as a culture internalize the cost of physical pollution in the form of taxes, why not force the internalization of personal-risk as a cost somehow? What's the difference?

 

[CAC1001]

So how are you measuring "greater good" here? What is it actually?

People pursuing their own self-interest leads to what society wants getting produced.

Your analysis is too simplistic because in reality, societies create frameworks where people are motivated to achieve certain ends. The freedoms they have are the ones they are given (through education, law, religions, all the other varieties of social constraint).

I'd say people are only motivated, for the most part, to advance their own economic self-interest. Whether or not the society will work well depends on how the society is structured and what incentives the people have.

So market capitalism is geared to achieving something. The question then is this what people really want? Or what is good for them in the long run?

I don't know if one could really say market capitalism is "geared" for anything so much as that it is the system that structures the incentives where when people pursue their own self-interest, it generally leads to the improvement of the greater good.

It may be. But I would certainly like to see it being more questioned.

See what questioned? Market capitalism?

I thing that is a conversation stopper. So self-reliant is not intended to strike a chord of quiet pride, nanny state a note of shame and revulsion? If you can't see that you are using loaded language here, I can recommend a few good books on the cultural construction of emotions.

Am not intending for them to be loaded phrases at all, to me they are just descriptive of how a society can lean.

What I said is that local construction and global constraints act synergistically. This interaction would happen across all scales.

What do you mean by "local construction?"

So something like "self reliance" is a complex systems property. If that is what you want to achieve, it would be something you would want to see across all scales from the individual to the state.

If you mean the state should work to emphasize self-reliance, then yes.

Productivity growth has been poor so it is a case of being left behind by others. Radical market liberalisation did not deliver on its promises. However there are plenty of ways to explain this away if you want.

Was the market liberalization really "radical" though? Also, the lack of productivity may not be because of market liberalization, it could be because of other factors. Generally, market liberalization will lead to far better productivity than socialism or socialist-leaning systems, so I think there must be something amiss within the NZ economic system that is not in most other economically liberal countries.

I realize this is a popular view with some folk. So popular that anytime I challenge it with data I get infracted here. I'll just say IMO that high inequality is not a desirable outcome to target. Just like no inequality. The interesting question is what level of inequality strikes an optimal balance.

One can make arguments for problems caused by inequality. The financial economist Raghuram Rajan, of the University of Chicago (definitely not known for being a bastion of economists favoring big-government) in his book https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691146837/?tag=pfamazon01-20 makes just such a case.

That said, IMO if you have a society with zero social safety nets, then high inequality is bad, but once the society can afford to implement sound social safety nets, then I think inequality is just a normal thing that iwll result from economic freedom.

Which has diddly squat to do with the social theory I was talking about. Or in fact, scale and diversity would only make a formal systems approach to forging strong societies even more appropriate.

What do you mean when you say a "formal systems approach" to forging a strong society where there is lots of scale and diversity?

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, having covered the financial crisis myself, there is much evidence to the contrary. You've surely seen the interviews where the regulators confess they did not even understand the financial instruments they were supposed to be regulating.

But that's not a case of a laissez-faire system so much as a case where regulation wasn't able to do what it was supposed to do. Also, you had the role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the crisis. While lack of regulation (or lack of ability of the regulations to work) applied in certain areas, I think government policy applied in others. Banks were making a fortune making mortgage loans that were backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because they thought those were as safe as U.S. Treasuries at the time.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone even try to claim that Goldman Sachs and its like were not the product of market deregulation/slack oversight. I think you might be living on a different planet here.

The European countries never had a regulatory barrier with regards to combining investment banking and commercial banking.

I do not think we would have had this financial crisis occur if it had not been for faulty governmental policy. By making it where banks could give out bad loans and then sell them off, the incentives became completely perverted.

The Wall Street institutions themselves, they thought that the government would always bail them out in the end if worse came to worse, so they didn't act in a free-market manner, they acted more in a quasi-socialist manner.

 

[maine75man]

Does this mean that the social safety net has existed, and can exist, outside of the government? I agree. If it need not use the government, it should not.

Well actually I didn't say that social safety net that existed before the 1930's was outside the government. What I did say is that it was inadequate to deal with a modern financial crises.

Personally I believe that no matter how it worked in the past a modern social safety net can not be managed by solely private concerns. Sure many aspects of the system can benefit from the innovation and efficiency the private sector provides, but I have reservations about handing over full control.

First, while private industry should be interested in protecting innovation, upward mobility and reasonable entrepreneurial risk. I'm afraid some might fail to see how they benefit from these things. Particularly how these things might relate to market share, competition, and Labor relations. I mean business majors do pay attention in ECON 101 when they are told monopolies are a bad thing right. Or eighth grade social studies for that matter.

Meanwhile the government, at least a republican democracy should defiantly be interested in protecting the ideals of upward mobility and self determination. That's just eight grade social studies again so maybe I'm being naive.

 

[CAC1001]

Where did I say that the social safety net was invented in the 1930's. Although now that I think of it I guess you could say that the social safety net was reinvented in the 1930's. When the measure that worked before then proved inadequate to prevent or deal with the fallout of a modern financial market crash. Certainly I wouldn't be the first to say that American Democracy might have failed if the economy hadn't turned around under the new deal.

The economy didn't turn around under the New Deal (if anything, the New Deal only lengthened out the Depression). The economy turned around after WWII.

 

[CAC1001]

One thing that will influence entrepreneurship a lot in a country is the bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy laws have to exist so that you don't end up in debtors prison for going bankrupt. America's bankruptcy laws are very lenient. This is to incentivize business creation, although lots of non-business people abuse them.

European nations tend to have much more stringent bankruptcy laws, which results in more personal financial responsibility among the general populace I believe (because going bankrupt can really ruin you), but it also results in less business creation for the same reason.

I know a corporate pilot that gave up a $150,000 per year package (including health insurance for his sick child) to purchase a struggling restaurant. His wife earns about $18,000/year with no benefits. As far as I know he hasn't done anything to maintain his license and his wife quit her job to help in the restaurant.

They paid $200,000 cash (leaving them $50,000 working capital) for the existing restaurant (business, equipment, and real estate) - then (borrowed against the restaurant and their home) invested an additional $350,000 to bring the facility up to current codes and re-make it into the concept he envisioned. The previous owner enjoyed a breakeven of about $400 per day and averaged about $600 daily. The pilot increased the breakeven to about $1,000 per day and still grosses $600 daily.

He didn't realize the cost of individual health insurance - especially given his child's illness, nor did he understand why nobody else wanted to buy the real estate nor why the previous owner didn't try to remodel the facility (both due to the cost of bringing facility to current codes).

After (about 4 years) they are in the process of losing both the restaurant and their home, all of their cash and retirement funds are gone, they sold their new cars and bought older models, their credit cards are maxed and closed (credit is gone), and they owe a large amount of medical bills. She is trying to find a job and he (apparently?) needs to be re-certified as a pilot.

That's sad Hope they can work it out in the end.

 

[maine75man]

Or, he could have kept his well paying job and has his medical costs would be covered through insurance that he was paying into. If the safety net wasn't there, he maybe wouldn't have taken the risk and passed on all of the costs to society as a whole (in the form of welfare/medicaid/etc).

We as a culture internalize the cost of physical pollution in the form of taxes, why not force the internalization of personal-risk as a cost somehow? What's the difference?

A home, cars, disposable income, an important job respected by the community, that's not enough personal risk? What more should people have to put on the line to get ahead in this world?

It's very easy to see how the system benefits those who roll the dice and crap out. What people can't seem to see is the benefit everyone else gets by the mere presence of a safety net. If the social safety net wasn't there how many other entrepreneurs wouldn't have taken the risks that led them to be successful. How many jobs wouldn't have been created. How much smaller would the tax base be. How many good ideas and good products wouldn't be available in the market.

 

[maine75man]

The economy didn't turn around under the New Deal (if anything, the New Deal only lengthened out the Depression). The economy turned around after WWII.

I can't agree with that. As far as I know the Great Depression is usually judged as 1929-1939 ending just as the war started and two years before the US officially entered the war. GDP stopped dropping and started to rise in about 1933-34 according to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg" right around when the New Deal was enacted. It wasn't an immediate recovery but to me it looks like good healthy growth similar to the speed at which the economy "crashed". It seems to be at pre-crash levels right on schedule in 38-39.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually there are a couple programs that are part of unemployment to provide benefits for entrepreneurs. Instead of looking for work they must provide a business plan and work towards it. I honestly don't know exactly how it works but my sister-in-law used the program. I could do that instead of going to college maybe. Since Maine now has legal medical marijuana maybe I could go into that business. My area already looks like it's getting a dispensary though so maybe I'll try a grow operation. I had a lot of luck with tomatoes this year and I hear their pretty similar.

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes.

Earlier in this thread, you posted this:
"First in the interest of full disclosure I am currently unemployed as is my wife. We are both attending college full time and are receiving unemployment as part of retraining programs. She, I, and our 18 month old son (she was laid off the day he was born) are receiving Medicare (this is a step up for me my last job didn't offer insurance). We get subsidised day-care, WIC, heating assistance and food stamps as well."

Now you're thinking of quitting college (funded by taxpayers?) to start either a pot growing operation or a dispensary - using Government loan guarantees?

 

[WhoWee]

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes.

my bold
Is the troll hungry? Does anyone believe the average drug dealer standing on the corner engaged in illegal activities pays income taxes? On the other hand, if you tell me they FILE a tax return to receive EITC and other re-distributions I might agree.

 

[Oltz]

I think it might be useful to think realistically about the alternatives to a social safety net, if there are any.

The basic conservative argument stresses personal responsibility and accountability. At the same time, the job market ought to be as unregulated as possible, the argument seems to go, allowing business to prosper. Today, some in the Republican Party also argue against any minimum wage at all, taking the free market concept to its logical extreme, which is where dogmas tend to be taken by the fervent and the righteously enraptured. Yet without going that far, let's see how an average Jane or Joe might fare under existing conditions.

The federal minimum wage is set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages" in the last decade. That's $13,050 per year, but let's assume a little overtime and odd-jobbing raises income to $18,000, net of FICA taxes and with no federal or state tax due. That's $1,500 of disposable income per month (part of which will be spent on sales tax).

Now, not everyone is an entrepreneur, nor can everyone become the boss, so there will be a non-negligible amount of people earning more or less this amount for a majority of their working lives.

Being responsible individuals, they will need to pay rent, eat, buy and replace clothing, buy and replace furniture, including white goods (refrigerator at minimum), as well as save for the down payment on a house, in order not to become indigent when retiring. Add free market health care, home insurance, (possibly car payments, car insurance, and gasoline where there is no public transport), saving for retirement, and no child care costs since they are single. No smoking, no drinking, no going to the movies. Just the simple joys of working, eating, sleeping, and schlepping to and from work.

Now, take a city like Washington, DC, where janitors and other minimum wage earners work. Assuming the individual lives 10 miles outside of town to save on rent, say in http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/apartments/germantown-maryland", he or she will face an average rent of $1,150 per month for a single bedroom apartment. That's $350 left over for all other expenses.

I don't think it takes much to see that beyond eating (poorly, oops, leading to junk food obesity and undue burden on the health care system, those rats!) and taking public transportation (oops, a little "socialism" has already been required to make this work), there is little or no money left over, perhaps enough for aspirin. Of course, one could share an overcrowded apartment and save some there, as well as sleep on the floor and save on bed costs, but I think you see where the numbers lead us.

So, what shall we do? Either we drastically raise the minimum wage (socialism rears its ugly head once again), which would in turn lead to price hikes across the board in many businesses, and make some types of business inviable. Or we simply say, when you are sick, die, when you reach retirement or are unable to work, starve, and if you ever need any financial help due to an unexpected event, such as a tornado destroying your home, go join Dorothy in Oz.

Just... die. Don't make any noise when doing it, and you damn better have insurance that covers the cost of your burial or cremation. By the way, suicide is a sin! So are abortions! And no stealing, bums, nor window washing at stop lights, nor public begging, slouch! You really should have been a stockbroker, loser! We at least deserve our bailouts.

Perhaps technology can replace them all with robots, and we can let them all die off after we run them out of town? Target practice, anyone? Running head starts are good sport, after all, no? Fertilizer? ...

Of course, we could have a bit of a social safety net, and let the many nice people who scrub our floors, serve us coffee, and attend to our whims at the mall not die in misery, allow them to retire with some small amount to cover their expenses, subsidize their food costs as a preventive health measure, and provide them decent health care... so our coffee won't suddenly have no one to serve it. Makes sense to me.

Too bad that's not a pure market sentiment. Guess I'm a dirty, liberal socialist schweinhund.

You do realize that in a "Free Market" that the employee knowing he can not live on that wage working at that distance with that cost of living has the choice and abaility to work some place else either for more money or in a cheaper location let's say West Virginia. In addition market forcing is a key component to "Free Markets" so when all the janitors realize they can not live on minimum wage in DC then all the offices that want a janitor will need to either pay more as an incentive to take the job or not have a janitor.

Hence the job posting that was shown earlier. Minimum wage is a legal barrier not an automatic rate everyone without a degree makes. The harder or less enjoyable a job is has equal bearing on the wage as where it is located and cost of living.

If i will not pick beans for $8/hr you either need to pay me more or find somebody who will or nobody picks beans then the beans rot and you loose your farm

Just like if you were told here go into the casion place any bets you like with all of your assets and you can keep anyhting you win, but when you walk out we will give you back x% of your losses and make sure that you are still "ok" for as long as you like/need/want for as many generations as it takes your family to be able to sustain itself with inflation and cost of living adjustments.

what percent of people go in and bet the house and car and quit their job if they had one?
what percent is "acceptable" ?

By taking away the "market" punishment for failure we encourage irresponsible risk taking

Some need to fail so others know you can "saftey nets" (more like safety hammocks) are a joke they need to be safety trampolines or safety swimming pools (you can stay in as long as you want but only as long as you can tread water then get out or go under)

 

[daveb]

my bold
Is the troll hungry? Does anyone believe the average drug dealer standing on the corner engaged in illegal activities pays income taxes? On the other hand, if you tell me they FILE a tax return to receive EITC and other re-distributions I might agree.

He was being facetious.

 

[WhoWee]

He was being facetious.

Are you certain? If you read all of his posts you may not reach that conclusion.

 

[daveb]

Well, not 100% certain, but that's how I read it.

 

[CAC1001]

I can't agree with that. As far as I know the Great Depression is usually judged as 1929-1939 ending just as the war started and two years before the US officially entered the war. GDP stopped dropping and started to rise in about 1933-34 according to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg" right around when the New Deal was enacted. It wasn't an immediate recovery but to me it looks like good healthy growth similar to the speed at which the economy "crashed". It seems to be at pre-crash levels right on schedule in 38-39.

The New Deal did a lot of good stuff in the form of infrastructure and creating social safety nets, but it did some very bad things in terms of price and wage controls (which kept the unemployment rate artificially high), various central planning moves, and some large tax hikes. The New Deal was enacted prior to 1933 by President Hoover (FDR actually ran against Hoover's "excessive" spending, as Hoover was the first to clamp down on the economy, raise taxes, and increase spending a lot)). FDR took it to the next level.

I wouldn't say the economic growth during the 1930s was healthy. By modern standards maybe, but the 1930s economy was a young economy still, so what could have been depression-levels of growth then could be considered healthy today.

 

[maine75man]

The New Deal was enacted prior to 1933 by President Hoover

I'm not sure how your figuring Hoover enacted parts of The New Deal before 1933. The term "The New Deal" was first coined by FDR during his Democratic nomination speech. It was a campaign slogan.

Hoovers programs tended to be less social safety net and more corporate welfare like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Or attempts at market manipulation like the Agriculture Marketing Act or the protective tariffs that shut America out of the global agricultural market.

The New Deal was largely a product of FDRs first hundred days. According to the http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/video/fdr_01.html#v102" on FDR his only real guiding principle was to try anything that might work because what had been tried already definitely hadn't worked.

Hoover in fact loathed the new deal and actively http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/herbert-hoover-against-that-communist-roosevelt-karl-marx-john-maynard-keynes-and.html" it likening it to Communism, Socialism, and even Roman despotism.

 

[maine75man]

Now you're thinking of quitting college (funded by taxpayers?) to start either a pot growing operation or a dispensary - using Government loan guarantees?

Actually I said nothing about government loans. I was talking about switching from the Unemployment training program I'm into an entrepreneurial program. Same idea except rather then showing progress on a degree the beneficiary can work for themselves. You need a business plan, financing in place, and jump through a few other hoops. You also can't draw a salary or pay yourself or your benefits are reduced by an equivalent amount just like if you do any other paid work while on unemployment.

Of course I'm not really considering it (To tenous a legal standing for one). In principle though it would be a potential way to maximise by benefits so I'm surprised you'd be opposed. Starting a business that might be turning a profit before my unemployment runs out rather then working on a degree that will take at least 2 semesters longer to finish then I have left in unemployment. It wouldn't be the first time I've sold or processed drugs I've worked in a liquor store and a boutique coffee roasters.

 

[CAC1001]

I'm not sure how your figuring Hoover enacted parts of The New Deal before 1933. The term "The New Deal" was first coined by FDR during his Democratic nomination speech. It was a campaign slogan.

He coined the term, but the policies of government stepping into a good degree to try and repair the economy had already begun.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually I said nothing about government loans. I was talking about switching from the Unemployment training program I'm into an entrepreneurial program. Same idea except rather then showing progress on a degree the beneficiary can work for themselves. You need a business plan, financing in place, and jump through a few other hoops. You also can't draw a salary or pay yourself or your benefits are reduced by an equivalent amount just like if you do any other paid work while on unemployment.

Of course I'm not really considering it (To tenous a legal standing for one). In principle though it would be a potential way to maximise by benefits so I'm surprised you'd be opposed. Starting a business that might be turning a profit before my unemployment runs out rather then working on a degree that will take at least 2 semesters longer to finish then I have left in unemployment. It wouldn't be the first time I've sold or processed drugs I've worked in a liquor store and a boutique coffee roasters.

You didn't need to specify a Government loan - you're on Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment - you obviously don't have the cash to start a business and would need assistance to engage a start up.

my bold
If you aren't "really" considering it - why insert it into the discussion - that could be described a troll.

 

[KingNothing]

Maybe it's too late to chime in, but I think a lot of people think about Hitler and the Holocaust when they hear socialism.

Nazi = National Socialism

 

[apeiron]

Maybe it's too late to chime in, but I think a lot of people think about Hitler and the Holocaust when they hear socialism.

Nazi = National Socialism

Now that's what you call trolling!

[Oh, you probably mean people are so unfamiliar with political theory they could make this connection? Whoa.]

 

[DoggerDan]

Here's the recording.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Reading the article, I'm heartened. Listening to the recording, I'm further heartened.

Not by the two who were over the top, but by the one (Senator Dr. Ron Paul) who wasn't. He shared a healthy mix of compassion and realism. Yes, you do your level best to help others in need. At what point, however, does their negligence transmute their need into their fault? At the far end of the extreme of irresponsibility, well into willful self-harm, we rescue suicides, too. Some might say, "let 'em go," but I don't think Dr. Paul would do that. He knows, as do we all, that suicide is often, if not usually, somewhat transitory, and that with help people can go on to live healthy lives.

I've read a lot of pot shots in this thread that are far off the mark in this issue.

 

[ThomasT]

Maybe it's too late to chime in, but I think a lot of people think about Hitler and the Holocaust when they hear socialism.

Nazi = National Socialism

I think it's more likely that most people associate nazis with fascism.

Nevertheless, you've steered the thread back toward its theme.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, I don't think most people even know what "Nazi" even stands/stood for, at least in modern America anyway. The German people, right after WWII, associated Nazis with socialism, that is part of the reason that West Germany adopted a market capitalist economy after WWII.

 

[ThomasT]

IMO, I don't think most people even know what "Nazi" even stands/stood for, at least in modern America anyway.

I think you might be right. What I remember from my grade school days is just that Nazi = Bad.

Anyway, I don't think that an association of socialism with nazism is why some Americans exhibit a sort of Pavlovian 'knee jerk' aversion to socialism.

This, apparently unreasoned, aversion to socialism seems to be, in some sense(s), akin to the aversion to, say, marijuana.

Then again, maybe it isn't, for the most part and by most people, an unreasoned position or attitude. Socialism can be considered a constraint on personal freedom. So maybe Americans' large scale aversion to socialism can be understood as an affirmation of the primacy of the ideal of liberty wrt the ideal of equality.

 

[daveb]

that could be described a troll.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

- Inigo Montoya

 

[KingNothing]

Now that's what you call trolling!

[Oh, you probably mean people are so unfamiliar with political theory they could make this connection? Whoa.]

No, I'm not trolling at all. People on here are intelligent enough to see through the negative connotations, but I believe a lot of people form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole nazi thing.

And yes, people are out of touch with political theory. I don't think people have to know what "Nazi" stands for. I vaguely remember being in a history classroom (probably 6th-8th grade) and learning about Nazis, Socialism, and the Holocaust all at the same time.

My answer to the question is this, plus another factor of not wanting to violate social norms. That is, enough people are averse to "socialism" that the average person is better off at least claiming to disdain it, so as to not appear as a weirdo/evil maniac.

 

[WhoWee]

Originally Posted by WhoWee
"that could be described a troll."

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Inigo Montoya

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

In the post you've commented on maine75man(1 post) - someone that has disclosed he and his wife are on a variety of Government subsidized programs - Medicaid (actually he said it was Medicare earlier in the thread), food stamps (said he bought steaks at $7.99/pound), unemployed, WIC, going to college) - after suggesting that street corner drug dealers pay income taxes - specified that he was thinking of quitting college to open a business dispensing medical pot or growing pot - (because he has the Government safety net to fall back on if it doesn't work). Then he posted "
Originally Posted by maine75man
Actually I said nothing about government loans. I was talking about switching from the Unemployment training program I'm into an entrepreneurial program. Same idea except rather then showing progress on a degree the beneficiary can work for themselves. You need a business plan, financing in place, and jump through a few other hoops. You also can't draw a salary or pay yourself or your benefits are reduced by an equivalent amount just like if you do any other paid work while on unemployment.

Of course I'm not really considering it (To tenous a legal standing for one). In principle though it would be a potential way to maximise by benefits so I'm surprised you'd be opposed. Starting a business that might be turning a profit before my unemployment runs out rather then working on a degree that will take at least 2 semesters longer to finish then I have left in unemployment. It wouldn't be the first time I've sold or processed drugs I've worked in a liquor store and a boutique coffee roasters."

To which I posted "You didn't need to specify a Government loan - you're on Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment - you obviously don't have the cash to start a business and would need assistance to engage a start up.

my bold
If you aren't "really" considering it - why insert it into the discussion - that could be described a troll."

daveb
If this guy isn't a troll - please read through all of his posts in this thread (again , he only has 1 post credit) - and support your comment (this time).

I maintain this fellow routinely posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response - that qualifies as a "troll" by the definition supporting my post.

 

[mheslep]

I can't agree with that. As far as I know the Great Depression is usually judged as 1929-1939 ending just as the war started and two years before the US officially entered the war. GDP stopped dropping and started to rise in about 1933-34 according to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg" right around when the New Deal was enacted. It wasn't an immediate recovery but to me it looks like good healthy growth similar to the speed at which the economy "crashed". It seems to be at pre-crash levels right on schedule in 38-39.

At the time of the attack on Perl Harbor, the US unemployment rate was still ~14%. Also, given the Great Depression is indeed credited to a ten year period, what caused the Depression to last far longer than any other economic downturn?

 

[DoggerDan]

I believe a lot of people form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole nazi thing.

I form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole 40% personal taxes and less than stellar socialized medicine thing.

 

[WhoWee]

This Obama supporter is thankful for her benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This Obama supporter is thankful for her benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related

Should I start posting videos from the KKK as the counter argument? Idiot YouTube videos are not evidence of anything. These sorts of tactics are one reason why I no longer respect most Republicans.

 

[WhoWee]

Should I start posting videos from the KKK as the counter argument? Idiot YouTube videos are not evidence of anything. These sorts of tactics are one reason why I no longer respect most Republicans.

What tactics Ivan?

The young lady in the video celebrated her support of the President, explained how his programs have benefited her, and made it clear she's glad someone else will continue to go to work to pay for it. The re-distribution of wealth is clearly working from her perspective - it's only fair that we should hear from recipients.

I would have posted this in the Warren Buffet thread - but she didn't specify who should pay for her benefits - nothing about "rich" people specifically.