1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13244/all-things-considered-except-libertarianism/

All Things Considered … Except Libertarianism

July 12, 2010 by

Today on NPR’s All Things Considered there was a discussion of extending unemployment benefits. The liberal view that unemployment insurance was a good thing and that the benefits should be extended was taken for granted. Mention was made that Democrats and Republicans in Congress disagree on how to fund an expansion of benefits. Then a conservative was interviewed who talked about the need for a social safety net and fairness.

What was missing was the libertarian view: 1. It is immoral to take money from one American and give it to another American in the form of unemployment insurance. 2. The government should not be in the unemployment insurance business. 3. Businesses should not be forced to pay unemployment insurance on behalf of their employees. 4. Unemployment insurance should not be mandatory.

Too bad NPR didn’t interview Walter Block. For more on the unemployment racket, see my article on the subject from Freedom Daily.

{ 59 comments }

Russ July 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm

5. The money that goes to the unemployment fund could instead go to the employees, who would be able to save it or buy private unemployment insurance with it.

Andras July 12, 2010 at 7:29 pm

“The Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” – Winston Churchill

Bruce Koerber July 12, 2010 at 9:14 pm

6. Charity will be more plentiful absent coercion and the spirit of charity will be significantly greater when people feel that they can be helpful to those in need who are not just acting like some sort of beggar.

Gil July 12, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Why would it be more plentiful? People only give to what they feel is worthy. Most people don’t see unemployment on the same scale as sickness or advanced old age. If anything, unemployment is probably near the bottom of the list of what would considered ‘worthy’. Indeed most would not give money to unemployed people arguing they should have made plans when they were employed.

Boromir July 13, 2010 at 5:30 am

The have a cave troll.

Matthew Swaringen July 13, 2010 at 6:29 am

And is that somehow wrong? The extra money not taken by taxes could easily be used to properly save for such situations for most people. And the few foolish enough not to do so would have to act accordingly to get temporary assistance from friends and relatives (which they still do now btw).

Bruce Koerber July 13, 2010 at 8:21 am

One reason it would be more plentiful is, absent coercion (like taxes), the resources that people would have will have increased.

‘Worthy’ is detrmined by the one being charitable and so if someone who is cared about becomes unemployed they will receive charity from those who care about them, especially if it is known that laziness and sloth are not being encouraged.

michael July 13, 2010 at 9:22 am

Bruce: I’ve seen this argument before, that our resources would somehow be more plentiful if redistribution was through a for-profit insurance company rather than through a government. But the numbers don’t add up.

Invest your savings with an investment broker. See what they charge you to set up a retirement plan to fit your needs. I’m thinking it will come to 4-5% of your total investment. Because profit has to be taken into consideration.

Invest it instead in a government-run program of retirement insurance, like SS. Their overhead is less than one percent of the money they handle.

How about health insurance? Right now around 31% of your health premium goes toward administrative overhead. Not just within the company’s headquarters, but inside each doctor’s office in the nation. Your own doc has to hire one person just to process all the paperwork involved in submitting your claim through one of maybe 25 competing plans she handles. Were we to instead have a system of single-payer health care this 31% would go down below five percent, I’m thinking.

Whenever profit takers get themselves inserted into the process it’s going to cost you more. And at first, when I came here, I figured this site was a place where profit-takers silently ran the show, as the arguments I find here serve their purposes so nicely. But now I’m thinking perhaps you fellows sincerely believe that if you allow all your transactions to go through the hands of people who sincerely want to become very rich off your payments, you’re doing the right thing.

The difference in our orientation is that your picture of centrally managed programs like retirement and health care is full of emotional hot buttons, like ‘theft’, ‘charity’ and the like, because the services being provided are mandatory. I’m a little different. Give me the choice of deciding between a number of higher-priced policies and having no choice in holding a lower-priced policy, and I’ll choose price and simplicity every time.

I do understand your anxiety though. And I sincerely wish you and yours are all able to find a place where you can locate your own country. You’re just not that happy here. :)

mpolzkill July 13, 2010 at 9:53 am

How many times has this scum-bag told people to get out of “his” country now?

michael July 13, 2010 at 2:08 pm

A solid majority of the country, whether D or R in their affiliations, would like the government to continue. And hopefully, to improve. If you want to tear it down you would be in the extreme minority.

Be that as it may, stay if you prefer. It’s a free country. :) Even masochists should be allowed their pleasures. And make as much noise as you please. I’m just saying that if you want to take effective action toward creating a free space in which to live without any form of organized government, you should probably think about locating it somewhere else. Because here? Ain’t going to happen.

Peter July 15, 2010 at 7:33 pm

A solid majority of the country, whether D or R in their affiliations, would like the government to continue. And hopefully, to improve. If you want to tear it down you would be in the extreme minority.

So what? It doesn’t matter if every single person in the country, bar one want things the way they are. They have no right to impose their wills on the remaining one; therefore the government has to go.

Be that as it may, stay if you prefer. It’s a free country.

Obviously, it isn’t.

michael July 17, 2010 at 9:06 am

Peter, I begin to see why you’re so unhappy here. Everyone but you is wrong. Wrong!

Bruce Koerber July 13, 2010 at 10:14 am

Dear Michael,

You misunderstood what I said. Your point began with “Bruce: I’ve seen this argument before, that our resources would somehow be more plentiful if redistribution was through . . .”

Nowhere did I use or imply ‘redistribution.’ What a person earns is theirs and if that is not confiscated by the State the available earnings will be greater and available to be used for charity.

The rest of your argument also has nothing to do with what I said.

michael July 13, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Our disagreement is purely semantic, Bruce. By “redistribution” I just mean that insurance itself is a means of redistributing proceeds, from the pockets of the subscribers to the pockets of those who qualify for benefits.

And when you use that definition, an insurance company operated by the government performs the same function as one operated by private individuals. Except, of course, that the public company does not have an implicit mandate to operate for profit.

You will of course agonize over the fact that participation in the package we now have (Social Security and Medicare) is contained within the package of basing your operations in the United States. Sad to say, you can’t just choose which institutions you want to belong to and which you don’t. It’s a package deal being offered.

Were I to have the deciding vote, I’d let you guys all slide. I’d make it optional, and you could opt out now. I would be pleased to stay, as I paid in for many years and now I’m receiving the benefits I’m due.

David July 13, 2010 at 10:27 am

I save using precious metals and other natural resources like arable land in my community. Do you know why? Because I can see them. I understand precious metals, and I know the people who lease my land. I can monitor my savings.

How is your Social Security doing? Do you understand your savings? From where I am sitting, it looks like the government has used your retirement money to fight its wars, thereby exploiting some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Pretty words about “price and simplicity” are not going to take care of the baby boomers once they start to retire. Taking care of those who have not prepared will require the production of wealth (from somewhere).

Or can the government just print Social Security checks? Before answering, make sure you understand what gives those checks value. You might end up examining some of the same resource wars the government has used Social Security funds to fight. It’s an ugly, exploitative process you are advocating.

George July 13, 2010 at 11:42 am

“Bruce: I’ve seen this argument before, that our resources would somehow be more plentiful if redistribution was through a for-profit insurance company rather than through a government. But the numbers don’t add up.

Invest your savings with an investment broker. See what they charge you to set up a retirement plan to fit your needs. I’m thinking it will come to 4-5% of your total investment. Because profit has to be taken into consideration.”

Haven’t you ever heard of a company called Vanguard? It’s called the free market, and it provides alternatives. Only monopoly situations (i.e. government) lead to extortionate rent-seeking behavior.

“Invest it instead in a government-run program of retirement insurance, like SS. Their overhead is less than one percent of the money they handle.”

I suppose I could also tell my kids that they “owe” me their future income, simply because I said so.

“How about health insurance? Right now around 31% of your health premium goes toward administrative overhead. Not just within the company’s headquarters, but inside each doctor’s office in the nation. Your own doc has to hire one person just to process all the paperwork involved in submitting your claim through one of maybe 25 competing plans she handles. Were we to instead have a system of single-payer health care this 31% would go down below five percent, I’m thinking.”

Then remove the regulations that grant power to the cartel.

“Whenever profit takers get themselves inserted into the process it’s going to cost you more. And at first, when I came here, I figured this site was a place where profit-takers silently ran the show, as the arguments I find here serve their purposes so nicely. But now I’m thinking perhaps you fellows sincerely believe that if you allow all your transactions to go through the hands of people who sincerely want to become very rich off your payments, you’re doing the right thing.”

Higher profits = higher competition. See my Vanguard example above. Profits are also the whole point to doing any productive activity. Why the hell would I work or do anything at all if I didn’t profit from it? Merely being able to eat is a form of gain & profit. If you are truly against profit, then you must also be against all productive activity and life itself.

“The difference in our orientation is that your picture of centrally managed programs like retirement and health care is full of emotional hot buttons, like ‘theft’, ‘charity’ and the like, because the services being provided are mandatory. I’m a little different. Give me the choice of deciding between a number of higher-priced policies and having no choice in holding a lower-priced policy, and I’ll choose price and simplicity every time.”

Since you agree that more choice is better than less choice, then you surely must also agree that it’s better to have a choice between those who give the choices.

“I do understand your anxiety though. And I sincerely wish you and yours are all able to find a place where you can locate your own country. You’re just not that happy here. ”

So do you think it’s OK that some people owe something to other people by the mere fact of their existence, regardless of their consent?

michael July 13, 2010 at 4:30 pm

George, it looks like you guys are pretty much resolved to be cranky, no matter what I say.

I say “Were I to have the deciding vote, I’d let you guys all slide. I’d make it optional, and you could opt out now. I would be pleased to stay, as I paid in for many years and now I’m receiving the benefits I’m due.”

To which you respond “So do you think it’s OK that some people owe something to other people by the mere fact of their existence, regardless of their consent?”

Obviously by my initial comment, I think you should be given the option of opting out. Just as I think it was okay for me, personally, to put money into the system and later to withdraw money from it.

J. Murray July 13, 2010 at 11:45 am

Uh, the “overhead” of a government program is roughly double the rate of the average private charity. The management cost of the Social Security administration, for instance, is 36%. 36% of all taxes collected for SS go to the administration of the program, not to actual benefits. For comparison, the United Way has a management cost of around 18%.

michael July 13, 2010 at 4:39 pm

“The management cost of the Social Security administration, for instance, is 36%. 36% of all taxes collected for SS go to the administration of the program, not to actual benefits.”

Show me your source. SS uses less than one percent in administrative costs.

“What Were the Administrative Expenses in 2008? Administrative expenses, as a percentage of total expenditures, were:
OASI (Old Age and Survivors’ Insurance, or Social Security): 0.6% of total expenditures.
DI (Disability Insurance): 2.3% of total expenditures.”
..from the Trustees’ Report Summary

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Old Mexican July 13, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Re: Michael,

Bruce: I’ve seen this argument before, that our resources would somehow be more plentiful if redistribution was through a for-profit insurance company rather than through a government. But the numbers don’t add up.

You assume that redistribution is desirable or the ultimate goal. You’re begging the question.

michael July 13, 2010 at 4:41 pm

It’s an insurance policy, Mex. The purpose of such things is to redistribute assets, from the policy holders to the beneficiaries. That’s the way it works, whether we’re talking public, private or any other kind of insurance.

George July 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm

“George, it looks like you guys are pretty much resolved to be cranky, no matter what I say.”

And you conveniently ignored everything else I said :)

michael July 16, 2010 at 11:49 am

George: I though it went without saying. Sure, market forces have stimulated companies like Vanguard and low-cost, no-services web sites where you can trade your own stock. That’s fine.

But the majority of Americans won’t use such things. They don’t know anything about financial instruments, and so (very rightly) distrust their own judgment. They’ll go to a broker to design something.

And that person, a financial services counselor or whatever he calls himself, will put them into something that’s just as shaky as your 401K. And charge them 4-5% for the service.

In case you haven’t figured it out for yourself, that was what the whole drive to undermine and destroy Social Security was about. What is it, 3-1/2 trillion dollars in assets? If you got the government to throw that kind of fund onto the open market, what would four or five percent be?

Let’s see, what else have I missed?

“I suppose I could also tell my kids that they “owe” me their future income, simply because I said so.”

Zany and irrelevant. The SS fund operates like any form of insurance, public or private. That is, current premiums pay claims. I guess you didn’t notice this.

Then me: “.. Were we to instead have a system of single-payer health care this 31% would go down below five percent, I’m thinking.”

And you: “Then remove the regulations that grant power to the cartel.”

Should we transition to a world where anyone who wants to call himself an insurance company can just set up letterhead? That would be great. They’d all offer tremendous services for low premiums, and cash all the checks that came their way. Naturally there’d be no stuffy government regs to make them retain prudent cash reserves. And when the claims started coming in? They’d just ditch the lease on their storefront and vanish into the night.

The following week they’d show up as some entirely unrelated “insurance company”.

So then. “Higher profits = higher competition. See my Vanguard example above. Profits are also the whole point to doing any productive activity. Why the hell would I work or do anything at all if I didn’t profit from it?”

Profits also motivate predatory activity. And I think we’d be seeing a lot more of that if the government ever went out of business.

BTW I was able to operate throughout an entire career at a profit. But at the same time I was able to keep loyal customers, by offering a better service at a lower price. My philosophy given here is in total accord with my approach to my profession.

Ohhh Henry July 12, 2010 at 9:19 pm

“Then a conservative was interviewed who talked about the need for a social safety net and fairness.”

This is typical of practically every Big Media story you will ever consume. Part A, there is a problem out there, either something caused by either an unforeseeable act of nature, by fanatical foreigners, or by greedy businessmen. Part B, but fortunately the government has a plan, and here is a government spokesperson or shill to lay it out for you. Part C, in the name of balance, presents a critical viewpoint – an opposition politician, an academic, a union/community organizer, or a lobbyist – who questions whether the government is hitting the problem hard enough. If space permits they will outline an even more draconian alternative solution, as a kind of softening up or trial balloon for the next-gen coercive plan or else in order to scare you into going along with the “reasonable” government plan.

terrymac July 12, 2010 at 10:41 pm

I’d rather have private unemployment insurance – the most common form of which is personal savings.

Years ago, people used to be given the advice to save up 6 months of living expenses. When the value of a dollar could be depended on, this made excellent sense. If you set aside one hundred dollars, you knew it was worth nearly five ounces of gold, and would purchase about the same this year or ten years from now.

Today, if one saves up thousands of faith-based paper dollars, one does not know what they’ll be worth next year, or the year after. Most likely, a fair bit will be lost due to inflation.

David C July 13, 2010 at 12:25 am

I completely agree with all four points. However, compared to the rest of what the government is doing, this is small potatoes. Get rid of half the other garbage, and nobody would need unemployment insurance. If it’s already gotten to the point where they have damaged things enough to put millions out of work, arguing about unemployment insurance is a lost cause.

IMHO, it’s like Ron Paul and student loans. Oppose it in principle, but in practice if the government wasn’t already in there messing everything else up, the students wouldn’t even need loans and the problem would self resolve.

So anyhow, if the Mafia is going to steal our money and give us back a few peanuts, it may as well be unemployment. At least it’s not going towards killing people overseas, incarcerating people at home, spying on our bank accounts, searching our property, or indoctrinating our children in those make-shift prisons they call schools. Other than rewarding formerly productive people for being unproductive, and discouraging a prompt economic readjustment, the damage is limited.

illness July 13, 2010 at 3:45 am

Oh no David C, I’m afraid the damage is huge. From a left-wing politicians point of view, unemployment benefits are a voter generating machine.

Unrestricted unemployment benefits actually generate a whole class of people who desperatly need the state’s help for survival. Because of learned lazyness, lack of skills and experience and inflation they are forced to vote those people expanding their benefits.

It’s a one way ticket to redistribution of wealth (look at germany for example) and riots (look at greece for example). And the worst part is, this huge block of potential voters (there are estimations that 20% of the people in germany depend on welfare for survival) will force every major party in an neverending trip to leftist politics.

If there is one policy which introduces socialism through the back door, it’s unemployment benefits.

J. Murray July 13, 2010 at 5:16 am

7. Unemployment benefits cause unemployment. That’s a practical approach that turns heads.

Russ July 13, 2010 at 3:57 pm

I’m not sure this is true, but I may be wrong.

My logic is this… If businesses were no longer required to pay for unemployment benefits, that may help unemployment in the short term, but pretty soon smart potential employees would bid up their wages to compensate for not getting the unemployment compensation (and because they know the companies can now afford the higher wages). In other words, if X is the wages a person gets, and Y is the unemployment payments the employer makes, the company pays out X+Y for that person. So the employer is willing to pay X+Y for that person. With repeal of unemployment compensation, the employer would still be willing to pay X+Y for the person; the only change would be that the employee gets the Y part, not the State. So, I don’t think eliminating unemployment compensation would increase employment longterm; it would just increase the wages of those hired.

Granted, getting rid of unemployment payment requirements for businesses could stimilate employment in the short term, until the market adjusts to the new conditions.

PS: I wish the old preview system for posts could be brought back. This 5 minutes to edit your post stuff sucks ass. Every time I edit the post, I have to reinsert all the line breaks.

J. Murray July 13, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Not necessarily. It’s true that existing workers would get a pay raise as market forces would start shifting the money paid out to unemployment gets put back into the employee’s pockets, but you forgot about the part where people who were made marginally unprofitable by having to pay unemployment insurance on their wages are now made marginally profitable and worth hiring. Employment isn’t a zero sum concept, companies will hire someone if the benefit provided exceeds the wages paid. Eliminating unemployment insurance will expand the employment pool, especially among low-skilled workers who are disproportionately harmed by unemployment insurance taxes (the rate is typically paid on the first $7,000 wages, making lower skill workers burden a higher tax rate).

P. Watson July 13, 2010 at 7:38 am

I heard this interview and was also outraged. They had some fool on from Harvard who admittedly resorted to ethics without giving any basis on where his ethics were derived. Never mind the fact that he was asked to give an economic analysis, not an ethical one. I wasn’t shocked to hear his foolish responses. After all, what are the odds that they would be grounded in Human Action or Argumentation?

Joshua July 13, 2010 at 8:28 am

“1. It is immoral to take money from one American and give it to another American in the form of unemployment insurance.”

That sentence should be edited to “1. It is immoral to take money from one American and give it to another.” The remainder of the sentence makes it seem like there is a libertarian justification for expropriation of certain kinds but not this particular kind.

JFF July 13, 2010 at 9:23 am

I’m pretty sure Block’s on NPR’s list of “do not ever call or interview for any reason what so ever.”

illness July 13, 2010 at 9:49 am

Michael, I’m sorry, but reality contradicts everything you just said.

Take germany as example. There are public and private insurance companies. Public companies are paid according to your income, private ones are paid according to a risiko assesment.

Funny thing is, as a male, even if you earn nothing at all, you have to pay a 50 € premium per month if you compare public and private companies. Guess where the money goes ? Abortion and the pill, paid for every woman with public insurrance.

Oh, and they say the insurrance is by-choice, but actually you will be kicked out of university if you have no insurance. Nice isn’t it ?

You see, they actually force catholic priests to pay for abortion.

Curt Howland July 13, 2010 at 10:06 am

Illnes, coercion is immoral on its face.

Coming up with good results of coercion is just using the ends to justify the means.

George July 13, 2010 at 11:44 am

I don’t believe that’s what he was doing at all.

mr taco July 13, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Curt, I think you need to reread what he posted .

Curt Howland July 13, 2010 at 10:13 am

I have never heard a show more utterly government biased and carefully, oh so carefully, presented as “moderate”, than _Few Things Considered_.

Once in a while I’ll listen to NPR just because of being tired of commercials and flipping channels, but every time I tune away utterly disgusted.

And like JFF I’m certain they have carefully vetted approved list of “opposing view” people, and Walter Block is not on it.

Just like how Milton Friedman was the state-approved “radical free-market fundamentalist”, as long as he never challenged the Federal Reserve, and never, ever, mentioned Mises or Rothbard.

mpolzkill July 13, 2010 at 11:14 am

It’s not just “Except Libertarianism” on Nearly Pravda Radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXh1_ubCQAI&feature=related

J. Murray July 13, 2010 at 11:07 am

NPR – brought to you by…you, whether you like it or not.

Raimondas July 13, 2010 at 11:46 am

Unemployed is not guilty when laid off so must get benefit extensions till jobless rate drops at 4.0-4.6%.

J. Murray July 13, 2010 at 11:48 am

And I’m guilty for his being laid off? Right now, getting laid off is the fault of the current members of Congress and the President himself. Charge them for the unemployment benefits and them alone.

Raimondas July 13, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Congress and the President is not the system. System must be charged.

Raimondas July 13, 2010 at 1:56 pm

“3. Businesses should not be forced to pay unemployment insurance on behalf of their employees.”

It’s not fair.

Entrepreneur takes a risk makes a profit employee gets only a salary so business is responsible of lay offs and must pay for that.

Owners-Entrepreneurs not figures-employees pay for game.

Russ July 13, 2010 at 3:44 pm

You’re forgetting a few little points.

1) Businesses are not responsible for the business cycle; when the economy tanks, it is not the fault of the businesses.

2) Sometimes businesses have to lay off some workers to save the business as a whole, and thus save other workers’ jobs.

3) Even if businesses were ultimately responsible for layoffs, why does that mean that they must pay for former employees? The entire concept of a binding employment contract has pretty much been destroyed, so all employment now is essentially terminable at will by either party. The businesses have the right to lay off employees, just as the employees have the right to quit at any time, and businesses shouldn’t be punished for exercising that right.

4) What gives others the right to force businesses to pay for employees once they are no longer needed?

Paul in Chicago July 13, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Indeed, businesses should not be required to pay on behalf of their employees the taxes which finance the unemployment benefits racket. After all, the beneficiary would be the employee, not the employer. Just imagine insurance companies forcing third parties to pay their customers’ premiums. Those third parties would have every right to stick the insurers’ bill collectors with pitchforks to get them to break off their aggression.

But why call it “unemployment insurance“? Since when did unemployment become an insurable risk? The discussion suffers from linguistic slanting.

To become unemployed is not a loss of wealth, as when one’s home is robbed or car smashed by the driver behind you, but rather is the cessation of gain through trade, in this case, of labor. To describe unemployment benefits as insurance perverts the meaning of the word insurance. Unfortunately, cheerleaders for unemployment benefits have been permitted to mask the deception by slanting the discussion still further with words like “lost” in the phrase “lost his job”.

Another problem is the unwarranted assumption that a person who would like to make a trade, in this case, of labor for remuneration, is entitled to make a particular trade. No adult thinks this true of people who sell widgets like cell phones or services like wireless telephony. Sure, one selling phones or telephony service has the right to attempt to make a trade, i.e. to make a sales pitch and to ask, “so, do we have a deal?”. But to suppose that there is a right to a trade must entail that there’s an obligation to buy. Further, the obligation would be at the discretion of the salesman, but at least in the example of phones and phone service there’d be a mutual exchange, possibly still beneficial to both parties.

The advocate for unemployment benefits, however, would dispense entirely with the trade and coerce a third party to pay the salesperson, even though nothing of value, neither phones nor service, would be given up by the salesperson.

What more evidence do we need to conclude that the advocate of unemployment benefits is perverse and that an unemployment benefits program is evil?

michael July 13, 2010 at 4:47 pm

P in C: Anything can become an insurable risk. Insurance is just wagering on a possible outcome. If the insuring party and the insured agree to it, they’ve got a deal.

And sudden, involuntary unemployment is certainly one of the foulest things that can happen to one in our American economy. Jobs, once lost through economic contraction, can be very hard to replace. And without insurance, by the time you get a new one you’ve often lost everything: the house you sunk your equity in, the car you need to drive to work, etc. It’s not easy losing a job in a downturn.

So we have unemployment insurance. It’s a part of the cost of doing business here. But I hear if you move your plant from Chicago to Honduras, you don’t have to pay.

Bruce Koerber July 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm

We are all in agreement that insurance is voluntary, I assume. If I choose to rely on charity in case I lose my job that is the type of ‘insurance’ that I prefer and that is the type that I choose; and if I am not allowed to make that choice then it cannot any longer be referred to as insurance. It is some oppressive scheme that differs greatly from the meaning of insurance.

So we have now come to the conclusion that we are talking about some oppressive scheme, not insurance!

Donald Rowe July 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm

“Anything can become an insurable risk.”
[sound of phone ringing]
“Acme Insurance.”
“Hi, my name is Sally, and I would like to buy an employment insurance policy, because I think I am going to be fired!”
[click]

S_M_V July 13, 2010 at 8:34 pm

[Sound of phone ringing]

Hi Bob, Our ‘ABC’ club that you have belonged to for years has decided to offer a plan to insure our members for involuntary unemployment. The dues are $xxx and you can not collect in the first 12 months after you start the program.

Not interested? Just because the government already forces you to contribute to their plan. Funny you are the 1,000th person this month that feels this way.

Gil July 13, 2010 at 11:53 pm

“Acme Insurance.”

“My name is Homer and I would health insurance as I’ve being diagnosed with a serious illness.”

“My name is Homer and I would theft insurance as my house is being looted at this moment.”

[click]

mr taco July 14, 2010 at 1:27 am

theft insurance is a 45 caliber pistol named bruce

james b. longacre July 14, 2010 at 1:50 am

The report by the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation says nearly 1.7 million firearms were reported to police as stolen from January 1993 through August 2002. The number of guns stolen per year has declined, from 221,322 reported in 1993 to 138,035 in 2001, the report says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm

james b. longacre July 14, 2010 at 1:58 am

maybe sam the hijacked sawed-off 12 guage of will end up cancelling your policy.

Raimondas July 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm

Unemployment is the most important thing #1 in the stuff.

“People need to have worked to keep their living going” says poll respondent Jane Phillips, an 80-year-old retired school teacher from Springfield, Ohio, who listed unemployment as the most important issue. “It downgrades our people if they don’t have anything to do.”

Mark F. July 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm

I agree with the libertarian view. However, considering that much unemployment is caused by government, and considering that I have payed many thousands of dollars in taxes, and considering that most people support taxes for unemployment, I’m not going to feel bad about taking an unemployment check at the moment. My liberal friends want to be taxed to help me out, so I’ll take their money!

Raimondas July 13, 2010 at 10:32 pm

“I’m not going to feel bad about taking an unemployment check at the moment.”

“till jobless rate drops at 4.0-4.6%.”

work at home income4411 July 14, 2010 at 11:45 pm

freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com is the best website since the invention of the lightbulb

people with screwy minds think like this:
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you commit an error. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will talk.

Gordon, the Pay Raise Maniac August 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm

“Unemployment is capitalism’s way of getting you to plant a garden” – Orson Scott Card

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: