Languish.org

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_new_york

QuoteNEW YORK – Gov. David Paterson announced plans Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, making a political gamble that he can ride the momentum of other states that have recently allowed the practice.

The proposal is the same bill the Democrat-controlled state Assembly passed in 2007 before it died in the Senate, where the Republican majority kept it from going to a vote. Democrats now control the Senate, but opponents are vowing to make sure this one fails, as well.

The governor's approval ratings have plunged to below 20 percent, and it's still unclear how the legislation will play in the state. Paterson says gay marriage is a crucial issue of equal rights in America that cannot be ignored.

"I'm introducing a bill to bring marriage equality to the state of New York," Paterson said to applause, surrounded by leaders including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Paterson, who is black, framed the issue in sweeping terms, invoking Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe and drawing a parallel between the fight to eliminate slavery in the 1800s to the current effort to allow gay marriage.

"Rights should not be stifled by fear. What we should understand is that silence should not be a response to injustice. And that if we take not action, we will surely lose," Paterson said.

Paterson said gay and lesbian couples are denied as many as 1,350 civil protections — such as health care and pension rights — because they cannot marry.

At the same time Paterson was to announce his proposal, Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, an opponent of same-sex marriage, planned to meet with religious leaders to discuss how to block the bill.

Diaz, who is an evangelical pastor, said his meeting in the Bronx was to inform Hispanics, Catholics, evangelicals and others opposed to same-sex marriage of their options to prevent the bill's passage.

Diaz also said it is "disrespectful" of Paterson to introduce the legislation in the same week that Catholics celebrated the installation of New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

Paterson attended the ceremony Wednesday at St. Patrick's Cathedral.

"I think it's a laugh in the face of the new archbishop," Diaz said Thursday before the start of his meeting. "The Jews just finished their holy week. The Catholics just received the new archbishop. The evangelical Christians just celebrated Good Friday and resurrection. He comes out to do this at this time? It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge."

Dislikes fatties and supports gays!

Quote"I think it's a laugh in the face of the new archbishop," Diaz said Thursday before the start of his meeting. "The Jews just finished their holy week. The Catholics just received the new archbishop. The evangelical Christians just celebrated Good Friday and resurrection. He comes out to do this at this time? It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge."

Does the bill forbid religious people from doing anything?  Does it demand they do something they are not already doing?  I guess I am having a hard time seeing the religious message.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 12:05:04 PM

Quote"I think it's a laugh in the face of the new archbishop," Diaz said Thursday before the start of his meeting. "The Jews just finished their holy week. The Catholics just received the new archbishop. The evangelical Christians just celebrated Good Friday and resurrection. He comes out to do this at this time? It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge."

Does the bill forbid religious people from doing anything?  Does it demand they do something they are not already doing?  I guess I am having a hard time seeing the religious message.

It denies them the ability to use their strength to prevent gays from marrying.  And since opposing Martinus is every citizen's duty, this bill is intollerable.

Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 12:20:03 PM
And since opposing Martinus is every citizen's duty, this bill is intollerable.

I have thought for a while now that Martinus is actually a GOP sow whose sole mission is to plant seeds of intolerance against Gays. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 16, 2009, 12:26:34 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2009, 12:20:03 PM
And since opposing Martinus is every citizen's duty, this bill is intollerable.

I have thought for a while now that Martinus is actually a GOP plant whose sole mission is to plant seeds of intolerance against Gays. 

Marty plants entire trees of intolerance.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Does the bill forbid religious people from doing anything?  Does it demand they do something they are not already doing?  I guess I am having a hard time seeing the religious message.

The religious message is obvious. Gays are intolerable and must be stopped from being treated equally at all costs, because the Catholic Church's religious views gain precedent.

Paterson's motives are a bit suspect right now, since he's extremely unpopular in NY state.

Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
Paterson's motives are a bit suspect right now, since he's extremely unpopular in NY state.

That is a bit over-stated. State government in general is unpopular in New York State right now, and he is the guy who is forcing through some much needed budget reform, which of course has a pretty serious political cost.

What is wrong with gay marriage?  I see it as a savior for our economy.  Consider this:  gift registration boosts retail sales, the floral industry thrives, and reception hall reservations increase.  Why is this a bad thing?

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:37:25 PM
What is wrong with gay marriage?  I see it as a savior for our economy.  Consider this:  gift registration boosts retail sales, the floral industry thrives, and reception hall reservations increase.  Why is this a bad thing?

Because homosexual behavior is TEH EV0L  :mad:

Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 12:38:00 PM

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:37:25 PM
What is wrong with gay marriage?  I see it as a savior for our economy.  Consider this:  gift registration boosts retail sales, the floral industry thrives, and reception hall reservations increase.  Why is this a bad thing?

Because homosexual behavior is TEH EV0L  :mad:

Ohfercryinoutloud.  Don't look, then.

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:39:49 PM
Ohfercryinoutloud.  Don't look, then.

One can't help it. They spring it all up in your faces. Like homosexuals are okay, as long as they aren't so gay about it.

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 12:45:42 PM

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:39:49 PM
Ohfercryinoutloud.  Don't look, then.

One can't help it. They spring it all up in your faces. Like homosexuals are okay, as long as they aren't so gay about it.

:D

Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 12:38:00 PM

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:37:25 PM
What is wrong with gay marriage?  I see it as a savior for our economy.  Consider this:  gift registration boosts retail sales, the floral industry thrives, and reception hall reservations increase.  Why is this a bad thing?

Because homosexual behavior is TEH EV0L  :mad:

You silly Kentucky people.  You should know to us New Yorkers TEH EV0L is Boston area sports.   ;) :P

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:46:31 PM
:D

Seriously. It becomes a problem when they go on flaunting their homosexuality and try to seduce others to their lifestyle. I don't understand why they put so much emphasis on sex.

Quote from: Vince on April 16, 2009, 12:48:20 PM
You silly Kentucky people.  You should know to us New Yorkers TEH EV0L is Boston area sports.   ;) :P

Which try to ignore that. It is embarrassing that any place considers Massachusetts as serious competition.

I think it's a good thing to have a politician frame it in those terms.  Whatever his motives, this is the right thing to do.  The only downside is that it encourages Martinus.

Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2009, 12:57:45 PM
I think it's a good thing to have a politician frame it in those terms.  Whatever his motives, this is the right thing to do.  The only downside is that it encourages Martinus.

I am sure Marty just thinks that it is a shit plan exposing the basic homophobia in America because it doesn't go far enough, like subsidize dental inserts for more effective blowjobs or something.

As a practical matter, there are other nearby states that will perform gay marriages, and NY gives full faith and credit.  So even if it doesn't pass, NY gays will still have a viable alternative.

He has a 19% approval rating as governor of NY. He has to do something if he wants a chance to run for office, such as dog catcher, in NY because he has no shot in hell at being nominated for a 2nd term as governor.

Granted that 19% approval rating is before he starts firing 8,700 State workers in July. He has a good chance of hitting single digits by this fall.  :lmfao:

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:01:26 PM
He has a 19% approval rating as governor of NY. He has to do something if he wants a chance to run for office, such as dog catcher, in NY because he has no shot in hell at being nominated for a 2nd term as governor.

Granted that 19% approval rating is before he starts firing 8,700 State workers in July. He has a good chance of hitting single digits by this fall.  :lmfao:

Social policy is always a good thing to do then.  It costs comparatively little and gives people warm fuzzies.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 16, 2009, 01:21:15 PM
As a practical matter, there are other nearby states that will perform gay marriages, and NY gives full faith and credit.  So even if it doesn't pass, NY gays will still have a viable alternative.

:yes:

It's just a matter with regards to form not function. It does seem a little strange to say that you will recognize a type of marriage from other states but you won't give anyone that type of marriage in your own state.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 03:04:33 PMSocial policy is always a good thing to do then.  It costs comparatively little and gives people warm fuzzies.

Yes, which is why I made that post earlier.  In Paterson's defense, he has been very supportive of gays in the past, before he was Mr. Unpopular for refusing to give away Senate seats like they were family legacies at Harvard. ^_^

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 12:45:42 PM

Quote from: charliebear on April 16, 2009, 12:39:49 PM
Ohfercryinoutloud.  Don't look, then.

One can't help it. They spring it all up in your faces. Like homosexuals are okay, as long as they aren't so gay about it.

If they weren't fucking stupid, they would just stay in their closets until the Pope gave them full marriage rights. :yes:

Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2009, 01:00:58 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2009, 12:57:45 PM
I think it's a good thing to have a politician frame it in those terms.  Whatever his motives, this is the right thing to do.  The only downside is that it encourages Martinus.

I am sure Marty just thinks that it is a shit plan exposing the basic homophobia in America because it doesn't go far enough, like subsidize dental inserts for more effective blowjobs or something.

You are fucking stupid.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 03:04:33 PM
Social policy is always a good thing to do then.  It costs comparatively little and gives people warm fuzzies.

If you mean that unfavorable social policy is always a good thing to do when a person realizes that they have no political future that can be hurt by it.

Than, yes, I agree with that sentiment.

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:29:20 PMIf you mean that unfavorable social policy is always a good thing to do when a person realizes that they have no political future that can be hurt by it.

Than, yes, I agree with that sentiment.

I did not mean it that way.  If he figures he is finished politically so he might as well do a good noble thing then I guess I should give him more credit.

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 03:06:46 PM


:yes:

It's just a matter with regards to form not function. It does seem a little strange to say that you will recognize a type of marriage from other states but you won't give anyone that type of marriage in your own state.

Actually, this is being battled in court right now.

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 03:30:25 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:29:20 PMIf you mean that unfavorable social policy is always a good thing to do when a person realizes that they have no political future that can be hurt by it.

Than, yes, I agree with that sentiment.

I did not mean it that way.  If he figures he is finished politically so he might as well do a good noble thing then I guess I should give him more credit.

I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:36:16 PM
I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

Yes this was more of what I was getting at.

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:36:16 PM
I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

What are his glaring faults as governor?

Quote from: Valmy on April 16, 2009, 03:37:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:36:16 PM
I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

Yes this was more of what I was getting at.

Well, based on his performance, I am guessing there is a greater chance for "nobility" as the asnwer than not.

The reason his approval rating is so low is that he has stepped on a lot of toes - the toes of people like the public employees unions, the health care lobby, and teachers unions in an effort to reform the budget.

I wonder if Strix's hostility is absed on Patterson simply being a Dem, or because Strix is a public employee? Hard to say, I guess.

But if Patterson is voted out, it will be for the reason that he was not willing to just go along with the sinking ship that is New York state public finances, and instead challenged the status quo and the entrenched special interests in the state.

Kind of funny to see Strix, the supposed hard core conservative, small government Republican champion the special interests and unions!

"I wonder if Strix's hostility is absed on Patterson simply being a Dem, or because Strix is a public employee? Hard to say, I guess."

Or option 3- Strix hates darkies.  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 04:13:27 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:36:16 PM
I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

What are his glaring faults as governor?

1. Black
2. Democrat
3. Doesn't hate gays

I distrust the blind and their "sign language".

Best of luck to them, I hope they can get it passed.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 16, 2009, 04:34:23 PM
I distrust the blind and their "sign language".

Many blind people wear sunglasses. I can see why Strix wouldn't trust them.

Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2009, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2009, 01:00:58 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2009, 12:57:45 PM
I think it's a good thing to have a politician frame it in those terms.  Whatever his motives, this is the right thing to do.  The only downside is that it encourages Martinus.

I am sure Marty just thinks that it is a shit plan exposing the basic homophobia in America because it doesn't go far enough, like subsidize dental inserts for more effective blowjobs or something.

You are fucking stupid.

You're fucking stupid.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 04:13:27 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:36:16 PM
I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

What are his glaring faults as governor?

Can't effectively glare.  Blind.

OMG I only now realized: Raz looks like Nixon. :o

Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
Paterson's motives are a bit suspect right now, since he's extremely unpopular in NY state.

Curiously enough, it's not that he's unpopular, he's just got terrible approval ratings.  Basically New Yorkers think he's a swell guy without a clue (which I think is the most insulting poll outcome for a politician).

Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2009, 05:25:30 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
Paterson's motives are a bit suspect right now, since he's extremely unpopular in NY state.

Curiously enough, it's not that he's unpopular, he's just got terrible approval ratings.  Basically New Yorkers think he's a swell guy without a clue (which I think is the most insulting poll outcome for a politician).

Well, I imagine "annoying fuck who doesn't have a clue" could be slightly more insulting.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 05:28:17 PM
Well, I imagine "annoying fuck who doesn't have a clue" could be slightly more insulting.

Nuh, in that case, you can console yourself that people don't approve of you because they have irrational dislike of you.  Getting fired by the people who truly like you is what really stings.

Hey Strix, good to see you around again.

Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2009, 05:25:30 PMCuriously enough, it's not that he's unpopular, he's just got terrible approval ratings. 

This is what I meant, of course. ^_^

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 04:13:27 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 03:36:16 PM
I think it's more of a case of him trying to distract people from his glaring faults as a governor by taking a stand on a landmine issue like gay marriage. Based on his current behavior and performance so far it has nothing to do with nobility.

What are his glaring faults as governor?

His most glaring issue concerns his attempt to crush the various state employee unions for no apparent reason other than he can try. The state is in the middle of some major budget concerns and he wants to play games?!?

1) He agreed to contracts with the various employee unions. Contracts that he signed as governor which doesn't even leave him with a "Spitzer did it defense". Now he wants to selectively renege on all the contract terms. Why? He states because of money but he could easily cover the costs of the contracts without layoffs of any sort. NY spends a ludicrous amount on private contractors that are doing work that state employees can.

2) He complains about money but gave all his personal staff huge raises, he took a pointless trip to Iraq, spent a shit load of money at Obama's swearing in, and was going to Davos (Switzerland?) for a trip until some papers caught wind of it.

3) He claims to be blind but threw a perfect strike at the Buffalo Bison's home opener.

So, basically, his faults revolve around playing games with the budget while padding the pockets of his cronies and supporters. The usual for a politician which I tend to overlook except for now that we are in a recession.

Unions should be crushed.

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
Unions should be crushed.

:thumbsup:

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
Unions should be crushed.

More secessionism. :rolleyes:

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
Unions should be crushed.

I used to think that but now I am a sell-out. Probably had to do with the fact I earned $32,000+ after six years with the state in NC, and will now be making $77,000+ after I reach my seventh year with NY doing half the amount of work.  :yeah:

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 08:01:54 PM
I used to think that but now I am a sell-out. Probably had to do with the fact I earned $32,000+ after six years with the state in NC, and will now be making $77,000+ after I reach my seventh year with NY doing half the amount of work.  :yeah:

Exactly. Such bullshit should stop. :)

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 08:01:54 PM$32,000+ after six years with the state in NC

:blink: :bleeding:

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 08:02:25 PM
Exactly. Such bullshit should stop. :)

You should see what our State Troopers make!  :D

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 08:04:03 PM
You should see what our State Troopers make!  :D

No thanks. I already hate cops.

Quote from: Strix on April 16, 2009, 08:01:54 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
Unions should be crushed.

I used to think that but now I am a sell-out. Probably had to do with the fact I earned $32,000+ after six years with the state in NC, and will now be making $77,000+ after I reach my seventh year with NY doing half the amount of work.  :yeah:

I think we all figured that out by the middle of point 1 of your response.

So is anti-unionism driven mostly by jelousy or something?

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 08:45:07 PM
So is anti-unionism driven mostly by jelousy or something?

Yeah.  The horrible fear that someone, somewhere, might have an organization on their side against The Man.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 08:45:07 PM
So is anti-unionism driven mostly by jelousy or something?

Maybe for some people, I dunno.  My anti-unionism is driven by having had to work with unions in the past. :bleeding:

Strix, it's nice to see you happily suckling at the unions' teat, but that's the kind of fiscal bullshit that needs to come to an end. Why gamble about the markets' psychology toward social policy when you can shelve some employees for a year, and rehire later without an insanely expensive middleman, whose only purpose is to raise costs for employers?

On topic, this is getting annoying. I really hate to sound like a broken record, but the religious whackjobs calling this a "challenge" don't stand to lose anything by gay marriage becoming legal, whereas gays become entitled to spousal rights and we have one less blurred line where the church is interfering in the government.

If I were the sort to stoop to the level the churches have been operating on, I would point out that the only way their arguments against gay marriage stand is if they're against the explicitly outlined principles of our nation's government, and that such a stance would shape them into radical entities that need to be contained.

But, of course, that would be totally Marti-like and I can't be arsed to involve myself in such shit-slinging. ;)

Why should a person not do what is in their rational self-interest and try to make more money?  I mean isn't that part of the free market?  It would seem that trying to crush a Union (especially with government action as has been traditional) is anti-market. 

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 08:45:07 PM
So is anti-unionism driven mostly by jelousy or something?

Something.  Public employee unions drive up state and local taxes.  Private sector unions drive up the cost of goods and services.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 07:54:14 PM

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
Unions should be crushed.

More secessionism. :rolleyes:

At least you spelled it right this time  :cheers:

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 10:39:35 PM
Why should a person not do what is in their rational self-interest and try to make more money?  I mean isn't that part of the free market?  It would seem that trying to crush a Union (especially with government action as has been traditional) is anti-market. 

Collective bargaining agreements are hardly pro-market. Between unions driving up their dues and strongarming employers into paying totally unrealistic salaries that don't even closely compete with comparable non-union work, the consumer/taxpayer is rarely satisfied with the price hike that unions cause.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 10:39:35 PM
Why should a person not do what is in their rational self-interest and try to make more money?  I mean isn't that part of the free market?  It would seem that trying to crush a Union (especially with government action as has been traditional) is anti-market.

Rational self-interest does not trump everything else.  Labor unions are a form of collusion, and collusion is not free market.

It is very simple, as I pointed out earlier.

THe state of New York is (was) staring at something like a $15 billion budget deficit over the next 5-6 years. Patterson, in addition to cutting funding (and by cutting what we really mean is not increasing as much as planned) for both the Holy Education Interests and Untouchable Health Care asked the public employees unions to agree to a revision of their contract - said revision being the horror of not getting planned on raises.

Note that not a whole lot of people are getting raises these days.

The unions, to not great surprise, told him "Gosh, no thanks! We will take our raises!" so he responded by saying "OK, you have a contract, and I cannot force you to re-negotiate. However, I can lay you off. Would that be preferable?" and the unions said "Hah! You won't do it!".

So that is what has Strixy all upset - he is now sucking at the teat of the social welfare system we call "working for the government", and a lot of people in New York are slurping along right next to him.

So, you combine the following people who are now pissed at Patterson:

1. Government employees
2. Healthcare employees
3. School systems employees

And all the people indirectly making money off those three huge parts of the state economy...and frankly it is a wonder he has a 19% approval rating.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2009, 10:44:00 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 08:45:07 PM
So is anti-unionism driven mostly by jelousy or something?

Something.  Public employee unions drive up state and local taxes.  Private sector unions drive up the cost of goods and services.

Argument shifted to different thread.

Oh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AM
Oh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

You fail at reading.

As usual.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 06:39:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

You don't. Sorry. get a crotchfruit and join the fun. OR REMAIN SILENT!

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 17, 2009, 06:44:18 AMYou don't. Sorry. get a crotchfruit and join the fun. OR REMAIN SILENT!

Yes sir.  :(

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 06:39:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

I have had a job and paid taxes.  I haven't been on welfare though.  So I suppose Berkut is the only one who can talk about both.  Oh, and Yi doesn't have a job either.  Go harrass him.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2009, 12:34:09 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 06:39:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

I have had a job and paid taxes.  I haven't been on welfare though.  So I suppose Berkut is the only one who can talk about both.  Oh, and Yi doesn't have a job either.  Go harrass him.

You keep repeating this - when have I ever been on welfare?

Apperently some time in 2003.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2009, 10:39:35 PM
Why should a person not do what is in their rational self-interest and try to make more money?  I mean isn't that part of the free market?  It would seem that trying to crush a Union (especially with government action as has been traditional) is anti-market. 

That's because the so-called "free Market" is a scam. Pure bullshit. Nothing "free" about it. It exists only as an excuse to exploit, abuse the disenfranchised ... aka anyone not born into wealth and privilege. Or something like that. :p

What happened to the union thread?  :unsure:

Yeah wtf.

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 06:39:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

I have valid opinions about OTHER PEOPLE's kids. I think they should be locked up. :P

Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2009, 03:29:13 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 06:39:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

I have valid opinions about OTHER PEOPLE's kids. I think they should be locked up. :P

For their safety, predator?

Lots of recent developments on this.

The bill passed the Assembly, but two days ago was rejected by the State Senate.  The margin of defeat was a bit larger than had been expected.  Note the NY also has no civil unions law and is unlikely to get one soon (it is opposed by both supporters and detractors of same sex marriage).

Meanwhile, both the State and some of the county executives have taken the position that foreign state and national same sex marriages can and will be accorded recognition.  This is significant because same sex marriages can be performed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Canada, all of which share a border with NY.  A couple weeks ago the state's highest court heard two challenges to this recognition policy brought by an anti-gay pressure group.  Both challenges were rejected by the court on technical grounds in a unanimous 7-0 decision.  In addition 3 of the judges wrote a concurring opinion endorsing the recognition policy.  However, the majority (4 judges) declined to address the issue - so legal uncertaintly about the scope of foreign state recognition remains.

Martiniusism defeated? Good job NY.

So they can just pop up to Stamford for the weekend and come back married.



Edit: Maybe I'll invest in a gay wedding chapel there. It should do well.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2009, 01:54:10 PM
Martiniusism defeated? Good job NY.

It is rather sad that my initial response was "Haha Marty!" rather than "Stupid senators!"

Perhaps you should reflect on your assholishness then.

Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2009, 02:07:02 PM
Perhaps you should reflect on your assholishness then.

It isn't my asshole that is the issue, Marty.

One of my friends worked as a justice of the peace in Stamford while going to school.  A significant part of his clientele are "non-traditional" couples from NYC looking for an official to marry them.  During the busy season he'll have 3-4 ceremonies a weekend.

Quote from: Berkut on April 18, 2009, 12:49:01 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2009, 12:34:09 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 06:39:22 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:40:04 AMOh and Berkut's funny.  Since working is now a form of welfare. :lol:

I don't think you sould participate in discussions regarding topics with which you have no experience. ^_^

After all, I stopped participating in threads revolving around parenting after Camper, Meri, et al. shouted down everything I said because I don't have kids so couldn't POSSIBLY have a valid opinion related to them.

I have had a job and paid taxes.  I haven't been on welfare though.  So I suppose Berkut is the only one who can talk about both.  Oh, and Yi doesn't have a job either.  Go harrass him.

You keep repeating this - when have I ever been on welfare?

Weren't you taking unemployment benefits?

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 02:03:18 PM
It is rather sad that my initial response was "Haha Marty!" rather than "Stupid senators!"

Hey, what did I ever do to you?

The Democrats may (emphasis on may) have given the Republicans control of the Senate. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/nyregion/26gays.html?_r=1

Abbadas, who only won by 53% last year, got a fair chunk of campaign money from gay groups, and at the rally I went to yesterday his primary candidate came full out for gay marriage.

I do not say she's going to win. I do think the Dems will lose.

Of course, this is also a huge  :face: to the Log Cabin Republicans, who failed to get a single senator to vote for it, and for Bloomberg, who also claimed he could.

Quote from: Faeelin on December 04, 2009, 02:17:44 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 02:03:18 PM
It is rather sad that my initial response was "Haha Marty!" rather than "Stupid senators!"

Hey, what did I ever do to you?

The Democrats may (emphasis on may) have given the Republicans control of the Senate. 

Nothing at all. Although I am not even aware that you are gay.

You should bring it up in every single discussion, no matter what it is about, so we can all be really, really sure you are gay.

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 02:07:46 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2009, 02:07:02 PM
Perhaps you should reflect on your assholishness then.

It isn't my asshole that is the issue, Marty.

Actually, it isn't his either.  :Embarrass:

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:13:20 PM
Weren't you taking unemployment benefits?

Unemployment benefits are financed through insurance premiums.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 02:42:34 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:13:20 PM
Weren't you taking unemployment benefits?

Unemployment benefits are financed through insurance premiums.

And? Unemployment benefits are an important component of the welfare state. Given the negative connotations that Americans give the word, I'm sure working people will do anything possible to redefine welfare to include only benefits that other people are receiving from the government.

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:51:22 PM
And? Unemployment benefits are an important component of the welfare state.

It makes as much sense to call Social Security "welfare." 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 02:54:11 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:51:22 PM
And? Unemployment benefits are an important component of the welfare state.

It makes as much sense to call Social Security "welfare."

It is welfare. However too many people are receiving it for Republicans to demonize it as bad welfare.

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
It is welfare. However too many people are receiving it for Republicans to demonize it as bad welfare.

You have an odd definition of welfare.  Tax refunds, should we include those too?  How about the interest on government bonds?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 03:18:39 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
It is welfare. However too many people are receiving it for Republicans to demonize it as bad welfare.

You have an odd definition of welfare.  Tax refunds, should we include those too?  How about the interest on government bonds?

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.

Hrmm. How seriously do legislators take groups like the Young Democrats?

Quote from: Faeelin on December 04, 2009, 03:31:52 PM
Hrmm. How seriously do legislators take groups like the Young Democrats?

In my limited experience, not very seriously, although more bodies for knocking on doors and the like are always valued.

Quote from: ulmont on December 04, 2009, 03:37:54 PM
In my limited experience, not very seriously, although more bodies for knocking on doors and the like are always valued.

That's what I suspected; I was mostly curious about how much they value the labor. Apparently school's College Dems have deicded not to help out the state Democrats if they don't pass the bill in NJ, which I thought was heartwarming.

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.

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 03:28:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 03:18:39 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
It is welfare. However too many people are receiving it for Republicans to demonize it as bad welfare.

You have an odd definition of welfare.  Tax refunds, should we include those too?  How about the interest on government bonds?

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.

Those evil, hateful, spiteful, party crashing Republicans! It's just too bad that everyone can't just be Democrats!    :D

Quote from: KRonn on December 04, 2009, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 03:28:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 03:18:39 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
It is welfare. However too many people are receiving it for Republicans to demonize it as bad welfare.

You have an odd definition of welfare.  Tax refunds, should we include those too?  How about the interest on government bonds?

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.

Those evil, hateful, spiteful, party crashing Republicans! It's just too bad that everyone can't just be Democrats!    :D

Indeed, but if not for the GOP, the stupid people would have nowhere to go.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2009, 02:01:00 PM
So they can just pop up to Stamford for the weekend and come back married.



Edit: Maybe I'll invest in a gay wedding chapel there. It should do well.

Homer?

Quote from: Jaron on December 04, 2009, 03:43:08 PM

Quote from: KRonn on December 04, 2009, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 03:28:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 03:18:39 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
It is welfare. However too many people are receiving it for Republicans to demonize it as bad welfare.

You have an odd definition of welfare.  Tax refunds, should we include those too?  How about the interest on government bonds?

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.

Those evil, hateful, spiteful, party crashing Republicans! It's just too bad that everyone can't just be Democrats!    :D

Indeed, but if not for the GOP, the stupid people would have nowhere to go.

Yep, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.      ;)

Quote from: Faeelin on December 04, 2009, 03:39:35 PM
That's what I suspected; I was mostly curious about how much they value the labor.

Depends totally on the individual legislator's reelection, volunteer, and fund-raising situation.

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 03:28:49 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 04:28:31 PM
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? :P

Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2009, 04:33:31 PM
So soldiers are living off welfare to you? :P

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

That's Fate's definition.

Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2009, 04:33:31 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 04:28:31 PM
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? :P

Tricare is welfare, yes.

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

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?

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 10:58:43 PM
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.

Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2009, 11:26:36 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 10:58:43 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 04:28:31 PM

Quote from: Fate on December 04, 2009, 03:28:49 PM
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).

Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2009, 03:41:40 PM
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. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 11:58:32 PM
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.

QuoteFor 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.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on December 04, 2009, 11:59:00 PM

and we are the socialist country. :rolleyes:

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.

Quote from: DGuller on December 05, 2009, 12:16:15 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2009, 11:58:32 PM
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".

Quote

QuoteFor 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").

Quote
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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2009, 12:22:57 AM
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.

Quote
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").

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: DGuller on December 05, 2009, 12:49:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2009, 12:22:57 AM
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.

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2009, 01:01:33 AM
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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteThere 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.

QuoteNo, 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.

Quote
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?

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

Quote from: DGuller on December 05, 2009, 01:28:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2009, 01:01:33 AM
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.

Quote

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?

Quote
  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.

Quote

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote

QuoteThere 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.

Quote

QuoteNo, 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.

Quote

Quote
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.

Quote


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.

Quote
  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?

Quote
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.

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 01:40:57 AM
Berkut seems more than a bit touchy about being on welfare.  :lol:

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>

Ok, hint taken.  Geez.  :rolleyes:

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?

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 01:56:43 AM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2009, 01:59:18 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 01:56:43 AM
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.  :hug:

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 02:00:02 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2009, 01:59:18 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 01:56:43 AM
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.  :hug:

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

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2009, 06:21:30 PM
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. :P

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

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 01:56:43 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 11:44:51 AM
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?

QuoteGay 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
:yeah:

Quote from: Faeelin on December 07, 2009, 01:10:05 PM

QuoteGay 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
:yeah:

:yeah:

Why the  :yeah: , derspiess?  Do you think they're going to switch support to Republicans or something?

Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Why the  :yeah: , derspiess?  Do you think they're going to switch support to Republicans or something?

I might. I'd prefer equality over low taxes, but if that's not on the table...

Besides, every GOP candidate for governor is going to be at least as pro-gay as Obama.

(This view makes me  really popular, as you can imagine).

But I suspect derspsiess is rejoicing at the Democrats collapsing.

Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Why the  :yeah: , derspiess?  Do you think they're going to switch support to Republicans or something?

Nope, just enjoy seeing the other side bicker amongst themselves :)

Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2009, 02:02:16 PM
Nope, just enjoy seeing the other side bicker amongst themselves :)

It sure is more entertaining than watching your own party goose-step in unison, isn't it?

Listen, I for one am in awe of the united front of the GOP. You would never notice that the Teabaggers are planning on primarying several candidates in swing districts.

Quote from: Faeelin on December 07, 2009, 02:12:18 PM
Listen, I for one am in awe of the united front of the GOP. You would never notice that the Teabaggers are planning on primarying several candidates in swing districts.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/12/Tea-party-backers-target-GOP-candidates/UPI-56481255352449/

I just googled "target of tea party".

Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 02:09:03 PM
Listen, I for one am in awe of the united front of the GOP. You would never notice that the Teabaggers are planning on primarying several candidates in swing districts.

My party has its own problems.  I never claimed otherwise.

As a minor update, New Jersey is now voting on this. It probably won't pass, but it's interesting how it's playing out.

There's a huge generational divide in both parties, while for Republicans who were going to vote yes have basically been told "vote no or else" by the new governor. Like the New York Democrats, there are threats of primary challenges, which have some teeth; and the Senator from Camden who's voting no is getting threatened her city can count on far less in the way of aid from Trenton.

Christie is having fun, of course but may be starting to worry about a purge of moderates in the GOP, as has been threatened.

Too bad New Jersey no longer has Governor McGreevey  :(

Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2009, 02:02:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 01:56:44 PM
Why the  :yeah: , derspiess?  Do you think they're going to switch support to Republicans or something?

Nope, just enjoy seeing the other side bicker amongst themselves :)

You do have to wonder if there is ever going to be a showdown between the Black and other minorities base, which seems to be largely against gay rights, and the gay base or if differences can be paved over indefinitely.

Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:33:45 AM
You do have to wonder if there is ever going to be a showdown between the Black and other minorities base, which seems to be largely against gay rights, and the gay base or if differences can be paved over indefinitely.

How could the gays manage such a confrontation without immediately being accused of racism?

Quote from: Neil on December 10, 2009, 09:35:01 AM
How could the gays manage such a confrontation without immediately being accused of racism?

Point out some of their best friends are gay minorities?

There is a surprisingly large number of gay black men (if you don't believe me, visit Adams Morgan in D.C. sometime), so such a showdown would be pretty interesting.  I would guess that most of them would side with the gay faction over the black faction.

Quote from: Caliga on December 10, 2009, 09:58:06 AM
There is a surprisingly large number of gay black men (if you don't believe me, visit Adams Morgan in D.C. sometime), so such a showdown would be pretty interesting.  I would guess that most of them would side with the gay faction over the black faction.

Nobody fears the black guy from Revenge of the Nerds.

BTW, the NJ debate has been delayed after the Democratic state senators who were going to vote "no" for public image reasons had their offices swamped with angry phone calls/letters/emails.  I believe you still can't get through to Jeff Van Drew's office.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2009, 11:55:21 AM

Quote from: Fate on December 05, 2009, 11:44:51 AM
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?

Why do you think he would do something so foolish as to define the words he uses?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 10, 2009, 11:45:18 PM
BTW, the NJ debate has been delayed after the Democratic state senators who were going to vote "no" for public image reasons had their offices swamped with angry phone calls/letters/emails.  I believe you still can't get through to Jeff Van Drew's office.

I was a bit amazed to find out that Princeton's rep is voting no. I think a bit part of it is young ideaologues who don't realize what a crapsack Trenton is.

Though I'm curious where you heard that's the reason.