quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, what I posted was typical lefty drivel.

Basic tenet of Marxism the worker owns the means of their production.

quote:

From what I have seen in my life in different places Conservatives far outstrip any left-wingers when it comes to creating unemployment, poverty and forcing people to live off welfare.

quote:

Back in the day in Poland at the start there was hardly any unemployment because everybody worked, even sick and disabled people who received 'renta' (a sort of pension) and it was so that they could be hired on terms favourable to the employer. Then Walesa sold out to the West, and the resulting unemployment from the dismantling of Polish agriculture and industry created a welfare state.

quote:

Faced with unemployment around 50-60% in some areas young Poles have no other option but to leave if they want to work. That's why there's so many of them working in other countries.
The welfare state is a necessity if you have a free market and competition because you will have both people making money and people who are destitute.
This is as true today as it was around the time of Dickens. People should not be without opportunities to work, but wherever there is a free market you will always have unemployment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

A plea from the OP:

[sm=dontfeedtrolls.gif]

Thanks!

quote:

I do not have an issue with a social safety net. None. However, many do not rely on the social safety net as a safety net. Rather, many rely on it as a way of life. It is planned on and taken advantage of. It's not simply those who can not work, or have fallen on hard times. It also contains those who have decided that it's acceptable to rely on the benevolence of Big Gov, and then complain when they don't get as much as they want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Hmmmm...is that a global stat, or a stat from the US?

Global, I believe. Why? You made an absolute statement, bearing no sign of applying only to Americans, so I looked for pertinent info. Did you mean to say only Americans need not go hungry? According to USDA, food insecurity can indeed be an issue in the U.S., but mercifully not anywhere near the global rate.

quote:

If you're going to go with a global look at stuff, I sure hope you are going to continue that theme across all topics, like employment, for example.

I don't recall posting on an employment thread in ages, so I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. But since I'm a Google geek-giver, here are a few sites you might enjoy:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=74
http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I do not have an issue with a social safety net. None. However, many do not rely on the social safety net as a safety net. Rather, many rely on it as a way of life. It is planned on and taken advantage of. It's not simply those who can not work, or have fallen on hard times. It also contains those who have decided that it's acceptable to rely on the benevolence of Big Gov, and then complain when they don't get as much as they want.

Abuse of the social safety net is, I agree, an important concern. Can you be a bit more explicit about the "many" folks who abuse it? Has the research underlying your statements provided a sense of how big this group is or what percentage of those receiving aid are doing so invalidly? How is government assistance "planned on"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Historian Robert S. McElvaine says no. While it sounds intuitive that a businessman would have the surest handling of the economy, the data suggest otherwise.

quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

quote:

Well, I'm not sure that HillWilliam's money is going towards global welfare so much, so that as sorta limiting it to the US.

quote:

But, if you're going to take a global look at things, all I ask is that you be consistent. No griping about outsourcing (which is where the employment thing came from).

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Historian Robert S. McElvaine says no. While it sounds intuitive that a businessman would have the surest handling of the economy, the data suggest otherwise.

quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

Debt by Prez (or by affiliation):

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

quote:

Really? Are you claiming that there aren't any?

quote:

Social Security and Medicare were not supposed to be *the* retirement plans. They were to be a safety net, in case you fell short. Now, they are part of the plan, or the plan by themselves. Why provide for your own medical care when Medicare is there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Of course.

I apologised to you last time I got something wrong and I`m not adverse to doing so again.

Shame you cant or wont do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Historian Robert S. McElvaine says no. While it sounds intuitive that a businessman would have the surest handling of the economy, the data suggest otherwise.

quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

Debt by Prez (or by affiliation):

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Okay, well if you're going to bring out the voodoo economics stuff [:D]

But yes, this makes me think - balanced budget - shouldn't a successful businessman understand that concept?

Well, let me rephrase. Shouldn't a smart businessman understand that concept? Oh, sorry, I forgot we were talking about people like GW Bush. It's that smart/successful distinction again...dang....

I have nothing more to add....

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Really? Are you claiming that there aren't any?

I know we don't often agree, but you generally seem like a thoughtful poster. So it's disappointing to see you go the straw man route so fast. As you well know, I said nothing remotely close to the caricature you offer here. Indeed, aside from an initial statement of agreement about the importance of the topic, I simply asked questions. You made broad statements about abuse of the social safety net. Were they grounded in data, or are they simply conservative talking points?

quote:

quote:

Social Security and Medicare were not supposed to be *the* retirement plans. They were to be a safety net, in case you fell short. Now, they are part of the plan, or the plan by themselves. Why provide for your own medical care when Medicare is there?

I agree that Social Security has evolved in probably unexpected ways, in large part (I suspect) because people are living much longer. I don't know Medicare as well. I don't think it's voluntary, but I'm open to correction on that point. (This was something of a family discussion when my aunt turned 65 not long ago). If Medicare is indeed compulsory, it seems a bit odd to blame people for using it. I do know that some folks, including my Medicare-eligible parents, have private Medigap policies to fill in the holes, so it's not quite accurate to suggest that they're failing to take responsibility for their healthcare.
It also seems a bit of a sleight of hand to shift from the safety net's being "taken advantage of" by those who could be working (which suggests welfare fraud) to entitlements (whatever their pros and cons) for the elderly.

quote:

Are you arguing with me that it doesn't happen?

quote:

I have no hard data,

quote:

Medicare is voluntary. You do not have to jump in to it.