NY governor introduces bill to allow gay marriage

[Martinus]

What is your normal definition of welfare?  Because it seems to be any money disbursed by the government.

So soldiers are living off welfare to you?

[Admiral Yi]

So soldiers are living off welfare to you?

Marty fails to comprehend.  I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

That's Fate's definition.

[Fate]

What is your normal definition of welfare?  Because it seems to be any money disbursed by the government.

So soldiers are living off welfare to you?

Tricare is welfare, yes.

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, soldiers are providing a service to the government in exchange for their money, so that's different, yes?

[Berkut]

It is funny how much Fate/DG/Jaron are willing to stretch the definition of "welfare" in order to jump up and down and say "ZOMG! BERKUT WAS ON WELFARE!!!!"

What possible difference does it make?

[DGuller]

It is funny how much Fate/DG/Jaron are willing to stretch the definition of "welfare" in order to jump up and down and say "ZOMG! BERKUT WAS ON WELFARE!!!!"

What possible difference does it make?

Don't start with me.  This isn't the first time I talked about what is and isn't a welfare, and whether there is a practical difference.  Besides, I don't care if you took welfare, I'm not one of those who thinks that collecting benefits that you are politically opposed to is hypocrisy if you have to pay for them with taxes anyway.  You know, it's possible for people to say things without having any ulterior political motive.

[Berkut]

It is funny how much Fate/DG/Jaron are willing to stretch the definition of "welfare" in order to jump up and down and say "ZOMG! BERKUT WAS ON WELFARE!!!!"

What possible difference does it make?

Don't start with me.  This isn't the first time I talked about what is and isn't a welfare, and whether there is a practical difference.  Besides, I don't care if you took welfare, I'm not one of those who thinks that collecting benefits that you are politically opposed to is hypocrisy if you have to pay for them with taxes anyway.  You know, it's possible for people to say things without having any ulterior political motive.

Riiiigggght. That must be why you decided that your contribution to their little idiocy is to agree with them, even if it makes no sense.

Under this definittion of "welfare", every single outlay of government funds to someone that are payed for with taxes, is "welfare". Which is fine - but it is pretty obvious what the purpose is here - and it isn't to have some kind of sober discussion about what constitutes welfare, but simply to come up with a definition so Jaron and Fate and Raz can do their little dance and chant about Berkut taking welfare. It is nothing more than monkey shot flinging.

I am happy to ignore them, because they are imbeciles, but it is a little bit sad when you fuel their crap. If you don't want to be "started with", don't climb into the cage with the monkeys.

[DGuller]

I was piping in on a discussion between Yi and Fate, and specifically on unemployment insurance and Social Security, and nothing else.  Neither is technically welfare in the language used in US, but both are forms of social insurance, which is a cornerstone of a welfare state.  It's not always about you, sorry.

[Berkut]

I have a normal definition of welfare. Unfortunately Republicans can't tar and feather Social Security as well as they can Food Stamps. One off tax refunds in general no, but certainly I would include the Earned Income Tax Credit as welfare.

What is your normal definition of welfare?  Because it seems to be any money disbursed by the government.

Of course EITC is welfare.  And as DGuller points out there is a redistributive component to Social Security.

If we define "welfare" as DG does - ie, any "compulsory insurance funded by compulsory payments", then in fact every single American is on some form of welfate. Any tax break is "welfare", for example, and everyone gets some kind of tax break. Or at least, any difference would be "largely semantical".

For the record, I would consider unemployment to be welfare, or at least it can be, insofar as many people who are on it have never paid into the fund what they are getting out of it.

Considering I have certainly paid many times over into it than I ever got out of it, I don't consider myself to have been on welfare, at that time. I have been on it at other times though, most notably when I was a child. And if I lost my job today, I would have no real issue with taking unemployment again, even beyond the level at which I have paid into it (if that is even possible).

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Fate has a point.  Officially, Social Security is not a welfare program.  However, it does redistribute income, as the benefits it pays out are not proportional to the contributions paid in on individual level.  Not calling it a welfare program seems more like semantics than anything else. 

As for unemployment insurance, it usually is a real insurance.  However, it can also be a welfare program during the bad economic times, as any extension past 6 months is paid for directly by taxes.  However, even without that exception, on the practical level, the difference between this kind of compulsory insurance funded by compulsory payments, and actual welfare program funded my compulsory taxes, is largely semantical.

Interesting. In Canada there are no extensions of EI (it's called Employee Insurance here, as in your employees will rarely if ever qualify for this so don't sweat never giving them raises, let em quit) at all. You get whatever weeks you qualify, depending on wgere you lived and how long you worked and paid in. When it's over it's over... I guess the only "extensions" would be the odd job programs where you work a training position and EI pays half your wage. But I don't know if they still do those. may have been a 90's thing, or regional.

and we are the socialist country.

[DGuller]

If we define "welfare" as DG does - ie, any "compulsory insurance funded by compulsory payments", then in fact every single American is on some form of welfate. Any tax break is "welfare", for example, and everyone gets some kind of tax break. Or at least, any difference would be "largely semantical".

That doesn't follow.  Tax breaks are not insurance, social or otherwise.

For the record, I would consider unemployment to be welfare, or at least it can be, insofar as many people who are on it have never paid into the fund what they are getting out of it.

From the insurance perspective, that's a bit of a nonsensical statement.  Insurance is about spreading the luck.  By the nature of insurance some people will be unlucky and get more in benefits than they paid in in premiums, and others will be lucky and never have a claim.  Does someone whose house burns down get a welfare payment, because his check from insurance company will likely be much larger than all his lifetime homewners insurance premiums?

Insurance, especially social insurance, can be practically indistinguishable from welfare, but not at all for the reason you mention.  The way it can be welfare is if the actual premiums, in whatever form they are collected, are not proportional to risk.

[Berkut]

and we are the socialist country.

As I've said many a time before, the argument that any Western country is not "socialist" is bullshit - that ship sailed a long time ago.

The debate is no longer over socialism or no socialism, now it is just over how much.

[Berkut]

If we define "welfare" as DG does - ie, any "compulsory insurance funded by compulsory payments", then in fact every single American is on some form of welfate. Any tax break is "welfare", for example, and everyone gets some kind of tax break. Or at least, any difference would be "largely semantical".

That doesn't follow.  Tax breaks are not insurance, social or otherwise.

The difference is largely semantical. A tax break is funds sent from the government to someone, and paid for by compulsory taxes. Just like unemployment "insurance".

For the record, I would consider unemployment to be welfare, or at least it can be, insofar as many people who are on it have never paid into the fund what they are getting out of it.

From the insurance perspective, that's a bit of a nonsensical statement.  Insurance is about spreading the luck.  By the nature of insurance some people will be unlucky and get more in benefits than they paid in in premiums, and others will be lucky and never have a claim.  Does someone whose house burns down get a welfare payment, because his check from insurance company will likely be much larger than all his lifetime homewners insurance premiums?

But that isn't how unemploymnet insurance works at all - if it was, then the feds would not have to pour billions into it every year to fund it, since the fund would be paid for by those who put into it.

It isn't "insurance" at all, of course - except perhaps for those who actually do pay more into it than they receive (and then pay even more in taxes to cover all the pay outs that are not funded by the income nto the "fund").

Insurance, especially social insurance, can be practically indistinguishable from welfare, but not at all for the reason you mention.  The way it can be welfare is if the actual premiums, in whatever form they are collected, are not proportional to risk.

It is all bullshit - it isn't insurance of any kind, since it's not like the government actually puts that money aside. It is all tax receipts, it all goes into the same bucket, and it is all paid out in the same way. If you want to say that there is no "semantical difference", then you have to say there isn't any difference between it and any other program that involves the state taking in funds via taxation and sending them back out in some program.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss "semantical differences", then dismiss them all. Personally, I think it is kind of silly though to just lump everything into the same category, only for the express purpose of playing these little shit flinging games your friends are so fond of, but you have nothing at all to do with...beyond telling them they are right, of course.

[DGuller]

The difference is largely semantical. A tax break is funds sent from the government to someone, and paid for by compulsory taxes. Just like unemployment "insurance".

No, the difference is not just semantics.  There is a very clear definition of what insurance is, and that is payment to compensate for the adverse event insured against.  It's unemployment in case of unemployment insurance, it's old age in case of Social Security, it's fire for homeowner's insurance, it's car crash for car insurance, it's death for life insurance, I can go on and on.  There is no insurable event with the tax breaks, so it's not insurance, regardless of the amount of semantics employed.

But that isn't how unemploymnet insurance works at all - if it was, then the feds would not have to pour billions into it every year to fund it, since the fund would be paid for by those who put into it.

It isn't "insurance" at all, of course - except perhaps for those who actually do pay more into it than they receive (and then pay even more in taxes to cover all the pay outs that are not funded by the income nto the "fund").

It is all bullshit - it isn't insurance of any kind, since it's not like the government actually puts that money aside. It is all tax receipts, it all goes into the same bucket, and it is all paid out in the same way. If you want to say that there is no "semantical difference", then you have to say there isn't any difference between it and any other program that involves the state taking in funds via taxation and sending them back out in some program.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss "semantical differences", then dismiss them all.

First of all, as I said, in certain times it's partially a welfare program outright, officially and all.  Second of all, the regular unemployment insurance (without the extensions during recessions) are indeed funded by payroll taxes, not general taxes, and federal government does not pitch in for free when there is a shortfall.  It's really an insurance in the way it functions, so you are factually dead wrong about that point.  For more details, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_insurance#United_States

Personally, I think it is kind of silly though to just lump everything into the same category, only for the express purpose of playing these little shit flinging games your friends are so fond of, but you have nothing at all to do with...beyond telling them they are right, of course.

No, it's kind of silly to build up theories to support one's narcissism, especially if they're based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject being discussed.  I'm not saying that unemployment insurance is actually insurance because I want to support the conspiracy led by Fate to discredit you.  I'm saying it's technically an insurance because I know it to be technically an insurance, for one because I had to study for an extremely tedious actuarial exam that covered social insurance. 

Please drop this nonsense.  I'll be happy to politely debate the insurance and welfare aspects of various social insurance program if you want to.  If not, fine, just let me know that by continuing to insist that I was spreading some kind of innuendo about you, I'll take the hint and stop wasting my time writing up thoughtful replies.

[Berkut]

The difference is largely semantical. A tax break is funds sent from the government to someone, and paid for by compulsory taxes. Just like unemployment "insurance".

No, the difference is not just semantics.  There is a very clear definition of what insurance is, and that is payment to compensate for the adverse event insured against. 

So? That is just "semantics" - at the end of the day, the state takes money, and funds some program. Whether you call it "insurance" or a tax break, it is all the same...once you start down the "its all just semantics!" road, anyway. If insurance is really just welfare (your claim, not mine), then using that same logic I can certainly just say that employment "insurance" is just another tax and spend program, no matter what it is called.

Note that this is YOUR argument, not mine - that we should call unemployment insurance "welfare" because there is no real difference between welfare and insurance. Personally, I think it is a rather silly argument, but I am not the one making it - you are. I am just following it to its logical conclusion.

And hence all government programs are really just welfare, since we are ignoring "semantical differences".

And really, stop with the false appeals to authority. We all know you are the smartest kid in the class, you tell us constantly.

There is no difference between "funding from payroll taxes" and funding from "general taxes" - money is fungible - was that on your actuaries exam? There is no magic lockbox where the payroll taxes go. THe states collect it, and then they shove it into their general fund, then they spend it.

I'm not saying that unemployment insurance is actually insurance because I want to support the conspiracy led by Fate to discredit you.  I'm saying it's technically an insurance because I know it to be technically an insurance, for one because I had to study for an extremely tedious actuarial exam that covered social insurance.

No, the issue is not whether it is insurance or not, it is whether it is welfare or not. Try to keep up.

And like I said, if you want to define "welfare" loosely enough so that you can fit whatever it is that Berkut got money from into it, that is fine, if a bit childish - typical for Fate/Raz/Jaron, and now you. By that same token though, we can define pretty much all government programs as "welfare", which makes the term a bit useless.

But then, you know that already.