NY governor introduces bill to allow gay marriage

[DGuller]

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".

Then I guess you missed my point, partially due to me not making it completely.  So let me try again.

Unemployment insurance does actually work like an insurance.  There is some attempt to match the risks with the premiums.  The people who pay the premiums, in the form of payroll taxes, are employers, who are also generating the risk. 

However, it's social insurance, which means that it's mandatory insurance, and that it's also not too concerned with accurately matching premiums to risk exposure.  It's my belief that due to the forced nature of such programs, they are in many ways like welfare, even though there are some differences.  The biggest difference is the source of funds, which is not just a general budget funded by the general taxes.

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

I think reminding you that I'm an insurance professional may be a relevant factor, especially when the accuracy of my knowledge about insurance is being challenged.  I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I'm not the only actuary in the world, and we don't all agree on most of the topics, but I'm just letting you know that I'm not taking all my knowledge out of my ass.

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.

Yes, there is a key difference.  Funding from payroll taxes means that there is at least some kind of matching of premiums to risks.

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

You mention several times that unemployment insurance is not really "insurance" at all.  I kind of assumed it was an issue since you (erroneously) stated it so often.

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.

I wish I saw this after you edited it, so I could've saved myself the time to reply to your original portion of the reply.  I erroneously assumed that you decided to be mature and dropped it.

I'm going to say this for the last time:  I absolutely did not have anything involving you in mind when I replied to Fate and Yi.  You have two choices:  you can either accept that you misinterpreted the motivation behind my post, or you can call me a bold-faced liar.  There really are only two options here if you think about it, so don't weasel out.  So, which one do you think it is?  A or B?

[Fate]

Berkut seems more than a bit touchy about being on welfare. 

[Berkut]

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".

Then I guess you missed my point, partially due to me not making it completely.  So let me try again.

Unemployment insurance does actually work like an insurance.  There is some attempt to match the risks with the premiums.  The people who pay the premiums, in the form of payroll taxes, are employers, who are also generating the risk. 

OK, but so what? It has the trappings of "insurance" just like social security has the trappings of an retirement investment account - that doesn't make it so, at least in more than a very general "semantical" sense.

However, it's social insurance, which means that it's mandatory insurance, and that it's also not too concerned with accurately matching premiums to risk exposure.

And isn't that the key to insurance?

  It's my belief that due to the forced nature of such programs, they are in many ways like welfare, even though there are some differences.  The biggest difference is the source of funds, which is not just a general budget funded by the general taxes.

A distinction without difference. The funds all come from the same pace at the end of the day. Fungibility of money.

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

I think reminding you that I'm an insurance professional may be a relevant factor, especially when the accuracy of my knowledge about insurance is being challenged.  I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I'm not the only actuary in the world, and we don't all agree on most of the topics, but I'm just letting you know that I'm not taking all my knowledge out of my ass.

No, actually it *isn't* a relevant factor, since the debate is not about some esoteric knowledge of insurance that only a professional could understand, but simply about you inisting that we ignore differences that are "semantical", but only when it suits you.

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.

Yes, there is a key difference.  Funding from payroll taxes means that there is at least some kind of matching of premiums to risks.

Except that there isn't - for example, my payroll insurance taxes have not gone up at all since the state has started having to pay out hundreds of billions in additional taxes to cover expenses. Nor do they save the money in the good times against the bad. The decisions about what should be collected have no relationship at all to what is expected to be paid out, but are simply political decisions. So no - no differnce, key or otherwise.

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

You mention several times that unemployment insurance is not really "insurance" at all.  I kind of assumed it was an issue since you (erroneously) stated it so often.

Actually, I mentioned it once in a rather particular context and now you have latched onto it because you think you can display your super-actuary knowledge by refusing to even try to understand what I meant. But whatever.

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.

I wish I saw this after you edited it, so I could've saved myself the time to reply to your original portion of the reply.  I erroneously assumed that you decided to be mature and dropped it.

Right, you, Raz, Jaron, Fate - you are all just paragons of maturity.

I'm going to say this for the last time:  I absolutely did not have anything involving you in mind when I replied to Fate and Yi.

Of course not.

  You have two choices:  you can either accept that you misinterpreted the motivation behind my post, or you can call me a bold-faced liar. 

Are those really my only choices?

There really are only two options here if you think about it, so don't weasel out.  So, which one do you think it is?  A or B?

I am sure it is just like you said - you had NO knowledge at all about the subject of the debate, and your further posting certainly shows that there is nothing at all personal in your response, and it is simply the cool, rational support for the arguments sof Fate and Jaron that motivated you to post.

[Berkut]

Berkut seems more than a bit touchy about being on welfare. 

Yeah, that must be why I said I really don't care if I had been, and would not hesitate to take unemployment "welfare" again. Because I am so touchy about it.

<waits for DG to respond to more of Fates insightful and "has a point" commentary>

[DGuller]

Ok, hint taken.  Geez. 

[Fate]

How would Yi or Berkut define welfare? A government program that Republicans think is for lazy black people?

Curious if you think any of the below belong in welfare or not welfare pile and why:

Earned Income Tax Credit
Medicare
Medicaid
SCHIP
TANF
Social Security
Food Stamps
Subsidized Housing
Unemployment Insurance
Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI)
Primary Education
Secondary Education
Subsidized Tertiary Education

My guess is a Republican would say Subsidized Housing, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and TANF. Anything else?

[Berkut]

How would Yi or Berkut define welfare? A government program that Republicans think is for lazy black people?

I appreciate that you make it clear you aren't actually interested in discussion right at the beginning of the post, so I can safely ignore the rest.

[Fate]

How would Yi or Berkut define welfare? A government program that Republicans think is for lazy black people?

I appreciate that you make it clear you aren't actually interested in discussion right at the beginning of the post, so I can safely ignore the rest.

Don't worry, you're not a lazy black person. 

[Berkut]

How would Yi or Berkut define welfare? A government program that Republicans think is for lazy black people?

I appreciate that you make it clear you aren't actually interested in discussion right at the beginning of the post, so I can safely ignore the rest.

Don't worry, you're not a lazy black person. 

Us Republicans all go by the one drop rule, so I probably am.

[Martinus]

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

Well, I guess that would also depend on what would be the market pay for the kind of job soldiers are performing, including working conditions, retirement age and pension etc. If no private business was happy to provide that kind of benefits overall to its employees for the same kind of work (and I mean both in war and in peace), then it's welfare.

Edit: Well, precisely, the over-the-market-level premium would be welfare.

[Admiral Yi]

How would Yi or Berkut define welfare? A government program that Republicans think is for lazy black people?

Curious if you think any of the below belong in welfare or not welfare pile and why:

Earned Income Tax Credit
Medicare
Medicaid
SCHIP
TANF
Social Security
Food Stamps
Subsidized Housing
Unemployment Insurance
Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI)
Primary Education
Secondary Education
Subsidized Tertiary Education

My guess is a Republican would say Subsidized Housing, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and TANF. Anything else?

I forget what TANF is.  As I said, I would include EITC.  Basically anything that's means tested and not dependent on paying into the system (insurance style).

Now I've answered, how about your definition? 

You can't answer because you've caught yourself in a rhetorical trap.  You want to destigmatize "welfare" but realize that calling everything welfare is absurd.

[Fate]

They're all part of the welfare state. Some programs are just less sacrosanct than others, thus it doesn't feel right to include them under a Republican's definition of a lazy black person's program.

[Admiral Yi]

They're all part of the welfare state. Some programs are just less sacrosanct than others, thus it doesn't feel right to include them under a Republican's definition of a lazy black person's program.

Fascinating point.  I'm curious, what's your definition of welfare?

[Faeelin]

Gay advocates see bloodbath for New York Dem 'no' voters
Elizabeth Benjamin

Gay advocates are on the warpath after the state Senate killed same-sex marriage last week, and few Democratic senators who voted against the bill are safe from their wrath.

After spending more than $1 million to help the Democrats retake the chamber for the first time in decades, powerful gay activists and donors say they'll support challengers against anti-gay-marriage senators in 2010.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/12/07/2009-12-07_activists_say_antisame_sex_marriage_senators_should_run_for_hills_not_reelection.html

[derspiess]

Gay advocates see bloodbath for New York Dem 'no' voters
Elizabeth Benjamin

Gay advocates are on the warpath after the state Senate killed same-sex marriage last week, and few Democratic senators who voted against the bill are safe from their wrath.

After spending more than $1 million to help the Democrats retake the chamber for the first time in decades, powerful gay activists and donors say they'll support challengers against anti-gay-marriage senators in 2010.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/12/07/2009-12-07_activists_say_antisame_sex_marriage_senators_should_run_for_hills_not_reelection.html