|QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 12:33)|
|Obviously it's not a money-maker when the government runs it. |
no see, this goes back to your biased view about taxes.
you don't get it.
government-run programs are not supposed
to be profitable. at the very least they don't have to be
profitable in order to define their success (or failure, for that matter). government is not a business. its services are not meant to be viewed in so strict a context as making or losing money. by and large it is government that is supposed to support the private sectors ability to produce its OWN capital which is returned - in part - by way of taxation; and as the GDP goes the private sector goes.
government is supposed to be the neutral purveyor of public good.
it was never meant to be a profitable Fortune 100 company.
|Someone could come up with a profitable system in which monthly contributions would provide a hedge against some of the financial perils of unemployment. But that's just absurd libertarian bullsh*t, like car insurance. Oh, wait...|
once again you're simply off-base.
car insurance cannot compare with unemployment insurance.
you can live just fine without a car. you can't live in anything but squalor without a job.
apples, meet oranges.