This is drivel. Where was the attack on religion, school, family or culture? Why suggest welfare is Marxist when it clearly isn't?
how could you know from the old world? There is a movie "waiting for superman" about ghetto families crying begging and praying to get their kids into Republican capitalist schools but being denied by soviet bureaucrats forcing them into dangerous and worthless libgovt schools.
Please breathe in and out. Repeat! I asked a simple question: Where was the attack on religion, school, family or culture? Please provide detail twinned with rational comment.
welfare says you are a victim, you are in a class, you not competent, white man is the enemy, and 97% of you must vote for more libcommie govt welfare to have the beginnings of justice.
Welfare was spawned by the likes of imperialist competition between Germany and the UK. You really are clueless about its history to suggest Marxist origins. The Marxists would be referring to that imperialist competition!
if I said anything about its origins I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet? or run away with your liberal strawman's tail between your legs once again.
You referred to "Marxist welfare programs". We know that welfare does not have Marxist origins. We also know that every non-Marxist developed country uses welfare. When are 'welfare programs' Marxist?
This is another childish comment. I'll have to assume that you neither understand Marxism or the nature of welfare. That conclusion didn't take much effort mind you.
the right wing still has no better solutions but claim moral superiority, with nothing to work with. come up with better solutions at lower cost.
the right wing has no faith in capitalism. Providing recourse to an income for Labor solves official poverty, not merely a multitude of sins.
You're the one referring to right wing concepts. Why don't you answer my simple question? Why do you support the concept of the NRU when it actually argues for reductions in unemployment benefit?
Capitalism can do good, when a country understands that it must do good by taxing upper-incomes to benefit those with lower-incomes. Which is a fundamental concept of equitability - meaning not "equal incomes" but "fair and decent incomes". The higher taxation in Europe, and particularly France, is intended to "do good". And by that is meant, first, a National Healthcare System that allows a higher lifespan in the EU as shown here: And, secondly, as regards educational attainment : Note that Tertiary-education in the US and EU in terms of results is fairly comparable. But the EU had to restart from total destruction after WW2. And, if it has reached a level comparative presently to the US, that result is because most tertiary education in the EU is free or nearly-free ...
I only argue, an NRU favors Capitalists not Labor; capitalist have an NRU to help out their bottom line and need entire departments to help them out with tax regulations regarding tax breaks, anyway. An NRU does nothing for labor. Equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will; can solve simple poverty through unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed. It is much more cost effective for the People and much more convenient for merely unemployed Labor.
Capitalism has done nothing to solve simple poverty. It is an externailty to the concept. Socialism can use a more holistic approach.
This makes no sense. Capitalists don't have a NRU. It's a right wing economic concept based around the notion of a vertical Phillips curve (which disputes any notion of multiplier effects) You stated "unemployment compensation on an at-will basis means capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can enable more change to become more efficient in the marketplace, more easily". That was drivel as it ignored how the NRU is used to argue in favour of reductions in unemployment benefit. The idea of unemployment benefit solving poverty continues to be ludicrous.
Why does a "natural rate of unemployment" exist in our Republic. It helps the bottom line of Capitalists, not Labor.
Unemployment compensation for capitalist's natural rate of unemployment for the bottom line; is equitable, equal protection of the law.
It must exist and have some input to our economy, since it is used as a metric for public policy decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_unemployment The current equilibrium, favors Capitalists and denies and disparages Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.
Yes, it does. All an unemployed person need do, should be apply for unemployment compensation; to be a fine capital fellow in our Republic.
You can play pretend as much as you want. Unemployment benefit has been used in liberal and social democratic countries for yonks. None of those countries have solved poverty. That you'd refer to the right-wing construct, the NRU, only makes your argument even more ill-conceived.