California and over-aged teens

[demi-conservative]

Cali progs: Trump you suck!!! I will go my own way! Calexit!!

later

Cali progs: Dad I'm in trouble and I already spent all my money on illegal immigrants. Please send money!!!!!

[Sparko]

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

[Leonhard]

Denmark has an unemployment rate of 6.4% comparable to 6.1% in the US. (OECD statistics)

There is no sign of imminent collapse in our economy, despite having had a social democratic government for the past few decades.

[Mountain Man]

You do realize that our 6.1% unemployment figure is pretty much meaningless. The actual unemployment is much, much higher if you count people of prime working age who have simply given up looking for work, and the large number of people who were moved from unemployment to disability benefits. And there are a number of indicators that our economy is in deep trouble, and this is driven partly by the fact that people can't find jobs and contribute to economic growth, which in turn leads to fewer jobs. It's a vicious cycle, one that the President is working very hard to break.

[rogue06]

You do realize that our 6.1% unemployment figure is pretty much meaningless. The actual unemployment is much, much higher if you count people of prime working age who have simply given up looking for work, and the large number of people who were moved from unemployment to disability benefits. And there are a number of indicators that our economy is in deep trouble, and this is driven partly by the fact that people can't find jobs and contribute to economic growth, which in turn leads to fewer jobs. It's a vicious cycle, one that the President is working very hard to break.

And again I'll predict that if the economy turns around we'll see a large percentage of those who simply gave up return to the job market causing unemployment numbers to rise and we can all guess how the MSM will portray that.

[Starlight]

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

As I have explained to you in the past, money goes around the economy in a cycle. Think of it like water that rains and flows down rivers to the sea and then evaporates and rains again. The same water goes around and around, and the same money goes around and around the economy. Socialism doesn't "run out" of money because it's not something that can be used up. Socialism does however channel money from places where it's useless (sitting in the pockets of rich people doing nothing useful like stagnant water that isn't flowing) to places where it's useful (poor people who spend that money in the economy thereby creating jobs), so it speeds up the 'velocity of money' (rate at which money is flowing around the economy) which tends to be good (because economic stagnation = bad).

When the government takes money from the rich, it then spends it to build roads, to pay doctors, to pay teachers, etc, and so that money goes right back out again and into the pockets of ordinary people. The government isn't some sort of vacuum cleaner sucking out people's money into a giant black hole where the money is destroyed. On the contrary, the government is the single biggest job creator because it is the biggest spender of money in the economy.

[Sparko]

As I have explained to you in the past, money goes around the economy in a cycle. Think of it like water that rains and flows down rivers to the sea and then evaporates and rains again. The same water goes around and around, and the same money goes around and around the economy. Socialism doesn't "run out" of money because it's not something that can be used up. Socialism does however channel money from places where it's useless (sitting in the pockets of rich people doing nothing useful like stagnant water that isn't flowing) to places where it's useful (poor people who spend that money in the economy thereby creating jobs), so it speeds up the 'velocity of money' (rate at which money is flowing around the economy) which tends to be good (because economic stagnation = bad).

When the government takes money from the rich, it then spends it to build roads, to pay doctors, to pay teachers, etc, and so that money goes right back out again and into the pockets of ordinary people. The government isn't some sort of vacuum cleaner sucking out people's money into a giant black hole where the money is destroyed. On the contrary, the government is the single biggest job creator because it is the biggest spender of money in the economy.

Work creates wealth. People create things, or perform services that are valuable, that people want. It requires money to get these goods and services. Now if you just create money and give it to people, then it becomes valueless. It was not created by labor, it was just paper printed up by the government. With that, you get runaway inflation and poverty. The government can print as much paper as it wants, but unless its people are producing things, it will fail because governments don't live in isolation. They have to trade goods outside of themselves. And if everyone just sits on their butts and collects checks, nothing will get made. No food grown, no cars made, no electricians, or factory workers. How does the country function with a bunch of lazy people who just want to collect welfare checks? The government eventually has to force them to work. Then is is not just socialism anymore, it is something like Russia had. A social dictatorship.

So sure, you can take money away from the people who work and make the most money, and give it to those who don't work, but eventually those "rich" guys are going to catch on and say "why should I work if the government is just going to take it away from me and give it to lazy people who won't work?" - then they just either move out of the country (or at least their business) or they just give up and become one of the lazy ones. When the country reaches a point where they can't drain any more money from the "rich" then they enter the scenario in the paragraph above: runaway inflation and social dictatorship.

[Ana Dragule]

Work creates wealth. People create things, or perform services that are valuable, that people want. It requires money to get these goods and services. Now if you just create money and give it to people, then it becomes valueless. It was not created by labor, it was just paper printed up by the government. With that, you get runaway inflation and poverty. The government can print as much paper as it wants, but unless its people are producing things, it will fail because governments don't live in isolation. They have to trade goods outside of themselves. And if everyone just sits on their butts and collects checks, nothing will get made. No food grown, no cars made, no electricians, or factory workers. How does the country function with a bunch of lazy people who just want to collect welfare checks? The government eventually has to force them to work. Then is is not just socialism anymore, it is something like Russia had. A social dictatorship.

So sure, you can take money away from the people who work and make the most money, and give it to those who don't work, but eventually those "rich" guys are going to catch on and say "why should I work if the government is just going to take it away from me and give it to lazy people who won't work?" - then they just either move out of the country (or at least their business) or they just give up and become one of the lazy ones. When the country reaches a point where they can't drain any more money from the "rich" then they enter the scenario in the paragraph above: runaway inflation and social dictatorship.

And that is why we need a balanced approach to the economy, one that gives people the security to spend money without fear of being in deep need and provides a measure of reward for work.

[Starlight]

Work creates wealth. People create things, or perform services that are valuable, that people want. It requires money to get these goods and services. Now if you just create money and give it to people, then it becomes valueless. It was not created by labor, it was just paper printed up by the government. With that, you get runaway inflation and poverty. The government can print as much paper as it wants, but unless its people are producing things, it will fail because governments don't live in isolation. They have to trade goods outside of themselves. And if everyone just sits on their butts and collects checks, nothing will get made. No food grown, no cars made, no electricians, or factory workers. How does the country function with a bunch of lazy people who just want to collect welfare checks? The government eventually has to force them to work. Then is is not just socialism anymore, it is something like Russia had. A social dictatorship.

So sure, you can take money away from the people who work and make the most money, and give it to those who don't work, but eventually those "rich" guys are going to catch on and say "why should I work if the government is just going to take it away from me and give it to lazy people who won't work?" - then they just either move out of the country (or at least their business) or they just give up and become one of the lazy ones. When the country reaches a point where they can't drain any more money from the "rich" then they enter the scenario in the paragraph above: runaway inflation and social dictatorship.

People nearly always want more money. So even if the government is giving money to everyone generously, people will still want to work if they can earn more money by working. In the same way, a person who is already working generally wants to be promoted and earn more money, and to move to a job where they can earn more money.

Obviously if everyone didn't work, nothing would get produced. Although in the foreseeable future, robots could do all the production for us and nobody would need to work. That aside though, even in countries that have had very generous welfare, then is not really much evidence of massive amounts of couch-potato-ism. People nearly always want to earn more money, so they want to go out and work and earn it.

[Darth Ovious]

Denmark has an unemployment rate of 6.4% comparable to 6.1% in the US. (OECD statistics)

There is no sign of imminent collapse in our economy, despite having had a social democratic government for the past few decades.

So I'm taking it you don't put any stock into the claims that your welfare system was being disproportionately used by immigrants in Denmark? I heard 25% of the system was being used by immigrants who made up 4% of the population. Just saying that's what I heard but I haven't checked it myself personally.