Millionaires On Unemployment

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Unemployment is private insurance. It is to insure the case when a person becomes unemployed.

You pay in, you should be able to get your claim paid.
 
yeah. 1099'ers don't get unemployment. if he's seasonal he should be a 1099er.
 
This thread is just more of the same from the lefties:

The lefties should get to decide how much money is enough for everybody else. Everybody should be treated as equal... except if you make more money than the lefties.
 
Unemployment is private insurance. It is to insure the case when a person becomes unemployed.

You pay in, you should be able to get your claim paid.

Agreed, the same with social security.
 
Socialism is sweet. I wouldn't mind socialism. Everybody gets a fair shake. However, as much as the Neo-Con's on the board want you to believe, Obama isn't nowhere near a Socialist.
 
Socialism is sweet. I wouldn't mind socialism. Everybody gets a fair shake. However, as much as the Neo-Con's on the board want you to believe, Obama isn't nowhere near a Socialist.

If we get socialism here, I'll work as little as I have to and soak off someone else's hard work. Eventually there will be no hard work done.

Awesome.
 
This thread is just more of the same from the lefties:

The lefties should get to decide how much money is enough for everybody else. Everybody should be treated as equal... except if you make more money than the lefties.

yeah, and started by that leftist blazerprophet!
 
If we get socialism here, I'll work as little as I have to and soak off someone else's hard work. Eventually there will be no hard work done.

Awesome.

You missed the Republican handbook memo? We already are Socialist.
 
This thread is just more of the same from the lefties:

The lefties should get to decide how much money is enough for everybody else. Everybody should be treated as equal... except if you make more money than the lefties.

btw, your reading skills are pretty poor. 2 "lefties" commented on this thread with a comment regarding the issue, and one of those comments was kind of vague.

But hey, if it helps you to blame the "lefties" in this thread for stuff that they didn't really say (and in fact, were also said by some 'righties'...)
 
btw, your reading skills are pretty poor. 2 "lefties" commented on this thread with a comment regarding the issue, and one of those comments was kind of vague.

But hey, if it helps you to blame the "lefties" in this thread for stuff that they didn't really say (and in fact, were also said by some 'righties'...)

I know, basic reading comprehension is pretty piss poor for a "Stanford grad".
 
You missed the Republican handbook memo? We already are Socialist.

No we're not. The govt. is trying to become socialist, though. The real fight in the democratic party is whether to be socialist or national socialist.
 
No we're not. The govt. is trying to become socialist, though. The real fight in the democratic party is whether to be socialist or national socialist.

The Swedish model would be great. Quality of life there is great.
 
Not if you have $400k in the bank, no. Part of the unemployment (and Social Security, for that matter) process should be a wealth check. And don't think the government doesn't have access to that information.

So, people should sit on their money instead of keeping it cycling in the economy, just in case they lose their jobs.
 

Restraining Government in America and Around the World

Johnny Munkhammar is a member of the Swedish Parliament and a committed supporter of economic liberalization. He has a column in the Wall Street Journal Europe that does a great job of explaining how Sweden became rich when it was a small-government, pro-market nation. He then notes that his country veered off track in the 1970s and 1980s, but is now heading back in the right direction. I’ll have more analysis below these excerpts, but it is especially impressive that Sweden is ahead of America on key reforms such as Social Security personal accounts and school choice.

(if you keep holding up Sweden as some sort of Socialism success story, you're failing miserably)
 
The 1970s were a decade of radical government intervention in society and in markets, during which Sweden doubled its overall tax burden, socialized a slew of industries, re-regulated its markets, expanded its public systems, and shuttered its borders. In 1970, Sweden had the world’s fourth-highest GDP per capita. By 1990, it had fallen 13 positions. In those 20 years, real wages in Sweden increased by only one percentage point. …
I might be reading this incorrectly, but I see this as a historical example of the ills of "socialism" and increasing public assistance, taxes and isolationism. Conversely...

By the late 1980s, though, Sweden had started de-regulating its markets once again, decreased its marginal tax rates, and opted for a sound-money, low-inflation policy. In the early 1990s, the pace quickened, and most markets except for labor and housing were liberalized. The state sold its shares in a number of companies, granted independence to its central bank, and introduced school vouchers that improved choice and competition in education. Stockholm slashed public pensions and introduced private retirement schemes, keeping the system demographically sustainable. These decisive economic liberalizations, and not socialism, are what laid the foundations for Sweden’s success over the last 15 years. …Today, the state’s total tax take comes to 45% of GDP, from 56% ten years ago. Meanwhile, unemployment benefits, sick leave and early retirement plans have all been streamlined to encourage work. The number of people receiving such welfare—which soared during the socialist decades—has fallen by 150,000 since 2006, a main reason for Sweden’s remarkably sound public finances.

I agree with all of the bolded (and I don't know enough about the central bank to say one way or the other). I submit that the Democratic party agrees with none of them and is taking (has taken?) steps distancing us from them.

Edit: Denny typed faster than me.
 
How about Denmark, Denny?

[video=youtube;uvFqFppIoBA]
 
If we get socialism here, I'll work as little as I have to and soak off someone else's hard work.

It's great that socialism won't change your life. But what about the rest of us?

barfo
 
[video=youtube;LCjzgIVDhms]
 
It's great that socialism won't change your life. But what about the rest of us?

barfo

Our roles would reverse, you mean? Like instead of me carrying you, it'd be the other way around.
 
And who exactly is that guy with his barely over 100,000 views Youtube video?

Did you even watch that? It was awful.

If you say it was awful, it must be awful.

The smaller a nation's population, the easier it is to implement socialism. But it does not last.
 
The Swedish model would be great. Quality of life there is great.

Which Swedish model? :dunno: :devilwink:

search
 
Sweden's all a bunch of crackaz, of course it will work.
 
The Swedish model would be great. Quality of life there is great.

You'd enjoy Systembolaget. They restrict the amount of alcohol you can purchase, because, you know, they know what's good for you better than do you.
 
I'm more a fan of Jefferson's, Sowell's and Churchill's thoughts on the subject.
Jefferson said:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Sowell said:
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”
Churchill said:
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top