Saturday, June 14, 2008

Comment continuation

I was having a rather lively debate about unemployment insurance on someone else's blog. Unfortunately, that blog's moderator understandably doesn't like the style and tone of those comments. So I've decided to continue the thread here.

Here is a summary of what I've said so far:
The negatives of unemployment insurance.
1. If you don’t lose your job, everything that you spent on UE premiums is wasted.
2. People will often delay getting another job while they collect benefits.
3. Higher benefits mean higher premiums. Premiums add to the cost of employing a person, which causes companies to hire fewer people and pay those people less.


  1. I am going to boycott your post here because you failed to call anybody an idiot. Where's the fun in just sticking to the issues?

  2. LMAO....damn that's what I was going to say!


    (been through that mill often enough)

  3. And along with eliminating unemployment insurance, let’s get rid of:

    SS disability—Everyone knows people on disability really can work but just don’t want to. They want to sit around and drink and/or get stoned. I know three people on disability, and two of them drink way too much.

    Medicare—Old people deserve to die. Why should younger folks fund these people who are way past their prime?

    Medicaid—If you get sick, you also deserve to die. And if you are too poor to seek medical attention, you deserve to die because poor people are of no use to society—they can’t buy expensive stuff, they can’t dress nicely, and too often they have bad teeth.

    Welfare—People dumb enough to breed ‘em better be able to feed ‘em.

    Social Security—See Medicare above.

    Federally-funded student loans—Everyone has a degree and works a crappy job. So what’s the point of going to school? For most people, it’s just an excuse to party for four, or five, or six years, depending on the ambition/stupidity of the student.

    I pay car insurance, even though the last time I got into a wreck with my car was more than 12 years ago. Do you think I see any of my premiums come back to me because I’m a safe driver? Just think of what I could do with all that money that I put towards car insurance!

    Bottom line—life is not free. Each and every one of us pays a price for the choices we make in life. I am unfortunate enough to live in a country that puts a premium on war over taking care of its own citizens. Until I can change my situation, I have to live with this. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

  4. Gloria,

    For a moment, I thought you had truely turned into a Libertarian, but I see you were only being facetious.

    Seriously though, there are two types of people who oppose welfare programs in general. First, there is the type you described above. The Laissez-faire, every man for himself attitude is genuinely held by many people. But there is a second group of people though who often vote the same way as these people, but for different reasons.

    I believe a large number of people support many different types of welfare programs in general. They agree with the theories behind them, but not with the way they are often actually carried out. All it takes is a few examples of people abusing the system to turn public sentiment against it.

    People begin asking "Why should money be taken out of my paycheck, then given to someone who is living a better lifestyle than I am?" This sentiment eventually turns to "If the beuracrats aren't going to properly oversee the system to ensure that people who do not deserve it are not stealing my money, then to hell with the program. I'll just vote to cut the entire program.

    In other words, the scenario that you opened with in jest is sometimes the reality of the situation. I know of two friends who are on permanent disability. One of them hobbles around on a cane, the other exhibits absolutely no outward signs of having any type of impairment.

    There are people who do milk the system, and there are beuracrats that do not do enough to stop them. In my opinion, these people are as much a part of the problem as are those who truely hold the cold-hearted view that you described above.

  5. Gloria,
    Ok, the troll from the other blog didn't show up. So let's have this debate. Jack Welch is the retired CEO of General Electric. The dude is very rich, yet he gets $12,000 a year from Social Security because he is over the age of 65. Social Security was supposed to help those in need, yet a significant portion is going to those who don't need it.

    Private sector not-for-profit charities are much better suited to help those in need than the government. When a not-for-profit offers you something, it is a gift. When the government offers you something, it is an entitlement. The government has to give everybody else the same thing it gave you. If some poor bastard does slip through the cracks, he has to wait for the government to pass the proper legislation and for his paperwork to get filed. A not-for-profit can act faster than that.