Originally posted by KazetNagorrait's called Unemployment Insurance here. UI.
Does it work like that in the US? Over here you only get unemployment benefits if you have worked, with the amount and duration dependent on the wage of your previous job, although there is also a lower benefit programme for those who do not quality for these benefits.
somewhat like car insurance. not welfare.
you pay into it. you get an amount proportionate to your average wage the year before you were unemployed, i think.
but not sure where the money goes. for high wage earners the amount put it doesn't seem to come close to the amount you could get out. but i think that'd need hard numbers to determine, and would differ between states.
the federal extended benefit that Congress put in recently is probably more like welfare. on the other hand, you can't get it if you hadn't been employed, and presumably paying taxes, so maybe not.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggYour first argument is circular, your second argument is strange because unless unemployment is rampant, people eligible to vote will be mostly taxpayers or people dependent on taxpayers rather than government benefits.
Two arguments: one principled, the other pragmatic.
First, those who pay proportionally more for X should have more say in what is done with X. The tax-proportional electoral representation that I suggest is ultimately based on this intuitive premise. I think this premise is even more intuitive than the premise that those who pay absolutely more for X s ...[text shortened]... ctoral representation that I suggest would help to prevent an extremification of this situation.
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat makes Chavez and Palin extremists and Obama and "W" "moderates"?
I think it is has been the case that the people are reluctant to educate themselves politically and make wise decisions, I agree with you that ignorance can be battled but I can't say that it is something that has no direct consequences, the price of universal suffrage is sometimes too high, and its idealist purposes don't outweigh its undesirable resu ...[text shortened]... rom any influence from extremists.
Wouldn't say my proposal would create a better system?
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarIt will never happen. In fact, as we speak the educational system in the US is getting worse by the hour. In my previous thread about the education system in the US I showed that the US ranks #48 in the world when it comes to math and science. The only question becomes, is this purposeful or neglegence? I am beginning to wonder. Is America being "dumbed down" in order to help control them by enabling them to elect statist retards like "W" and Obama?
I agree with the general idea. Why morons and irresponsible people should be given the right to vote is beyond me.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou tell me. The general has indicated that the people the US has already elected are moderates. I am just wondering by what gauge he is using to assume this fact.
In what sense are Obama and Bush extremists?
As for myself, I would call those who go to war abroad and remain there for dubious reasons and then slowly bankrupt the Republic and future generations as extemists.
Originally posted by whodeyBut the US has been doing this for about 60 years now, seems like the mainstream thing to do.
You tell me. The general has indicated that the people the US has already elected are moderates. I am just wondering by what gauge he is using to assume this fact.
As for myself, I would call those who go to war abroad and remain there for dubious reasons and then slowly bankrupt the Republic and future generations as extemists.
Originally posted by EladarThe fact that unemployed people have the right to vote and thus to express their discontent with policies that may have led to mass unemployment ought surely to be an impetus for the government to pursue policies conducive to full employment.
Yes, unemployment and welfare in general sounds great, but as I said earlier, you get what you subsidize.
It seems to me that if a country wants to have a welfare net, then the decision should be made by those pulling the cart, not by those enjoying the ride.
Originally posted by TeinosukeAccording to the laissez faire loonies, it's their own fault they don't have a job and they should be punished for this moral failing.
The fact that unemployed people have the right to vote and thus to express their discontent with policies that may have led to mass unemployment ought surely to be an impetus for the government to pursue policies conducive to full employment.
Originally posted by generalissimoDisagree. No taxation (or anything else) without representation.
It has been observed that the general population is relatively ignorant when it comes to the political process and public policy and are highly susceptible to the dangers of populism, and the often corroding influence of the media.
In order to prevent the rule of mobs the logical solution to create a system which is comprised of truly competent lead ...[text shortened]... s, ethics, political philosophy, and knowledge of current events.
.....
agree or disagree?
Originally posted by whodeyWhy except because you are a partisan shill start in 1990? Consider:
It took the American government from 1776 to 1990 to run up a debt of $3 trillion. Now its over $13 trillion. Nuff said.
The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm