It's not Christian to give people incentive to not be productive, and clearly unemployment payments are not a net boost to the economy. Your opinion vs mine, you don't have any evidence that I've seen that what you are declaring is anying but your opinion.
Respectfully, from a small lump of Progressive anti-matter, Barfly.
What you knew anyhow. Why the Spending Stimulus Failed
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: What you knew anyhow. Why the Spending Stimulus Failed
pretty much every economist, even those viewed as Conservative(although mixing political identification with economics is dicey) agree that unemployment compensation, at a time of high, involuntary layoffs, is the most efficient economic stimulus that government can undertake. FWIW, infrastructure spending comes in second. I can dig up links if you want, but you seem bright enough to go find more than my lazy ass is going to post.Barfly wrote:It's not Christian to give people incentive to not be productive, and clearly unemployment payments are not a net boost to the economy. Your opinion vs mine, you don't have any evidence that I've seen that what you are declaring is anying but your opinion.
well, you always seem respectful......I just wonder why anyone would want to be anti-Progressive. Doesn't that imply an embrace of regression towards the past? I mean, for the average worker, going back to the time before Teddy Roosevelt started the whole Progressive thing doesn't seem like a good deal to me. Sweatshops, anyone? Child labor? Don't think that could ever happen again? Don't kid yourselves.Respectfully, from a small lump of Progressive anti-matter, Barfly.
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: What you knew anyhow. Why the Spending Stimulus Failed
you must be kidding. You think that is why you have entension of state unemployment insurance in times of high, pervasive unemployment? Do you really think that $250 or 300 per week is anyone's idea of a dream situation? Especially, when to receive it, those people were earning twice that when they worked? I am shocked to think that anyone could be so dismissive of the plight of their fellow man, hell, their fellow citizens, as to suggest that. Seriously, something has gone terribly wrong with our national moral compass when it seems fine to continue a ten-year long giveaway to those of us that inherited decent sums of money and screw the folks who had to work to obtain anything......Barfly wrote:It's not Christian to give people incentive to not be productive
-
Pudfark
Re: What you knew anyhow. Why the Spending Stimulus Failed
I don't care who ya are...that's funny shit...right there......callmeslick wrote: Sweatshops, anyone? Child labor? Don't think that could ever happen again? Don't kid yourselves.
Scare tactics to promote the progressive agenda.....again. Well, at least it was funny this time....
Re: What you knew anyhow. Why the Spending Stimulus Failed
I don't reject the pleasant, dictionary definition of the word progressive, I reject Progressivism, which is a push towards collective morality and statism, away from personal responsibility. The only thing at the end of the psychedelic Progressive rainbow is misery. It's an experiment that is not new and does not promise anything better. History shows it. If you are fortunate enough to live easy in a material sense, and not worry about your basic needs, that's great, but it gives you a perspective that is not shared by most people in this country. Free market capitalism has developed into an environment that allows anyone here the best opportunity to be productive and prosperous - even if you aren't creative in so many ways. A distant, meddling federal government doesn't enhance peoples lives in a way that can't be done better at the local, accountable level.
Provide for the general welfare means ensuring equal opportunity to pursue life liberty and happiness on your own, in concert with your fellow man, not an entitlement to anything material, and certainly not involuntarily from someone else. It's not human nature to be insulated from the pressures of self sufficiency and direct, local dependence on your fellow man, including your family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Our founders were brilliant in looking at the scope of human history, and developing a system that is most consistent with the good of human nature. The collectivism that has been eroding the intent of the founders is suitable for those who are not productive, the immoral, or thieves. It's a suitable life philosophy for a colony of insects, which, unless you think we're no different than any other species of animated cell clumps, we are not.
My point being, that reliance on a distant, self interested federal government to provide a road to personal prosperity and individual happiness is a fantasy. You will always get back a fraction of what you give in that respect. With regards to unemployment payments, almost anyone can save enough money to weather a bad economic cycle or periodic unemployment, if they just save a percentage of their income. Whatever small fraction of people that can't sustain themselves in hard times for whatever reason have always been taken care of by family, charitable organizations like churches, the good will of their neighbors. The federal government has done nothing to improve what we used to have. It provides some useful functions, like internal and external security, like any nation. But it has taken too much, and that is painful, and disheartining to many of us.
Provide for the general welfare means ensuring equal opportunity to pursue life liberty and happiness on your own, in concert with your fellow man, not an entitlement to anything material, and certainly not involuntarily from someone else. It's not human nature to be insulated from the pressures of self sufficiency and direct, local dependence on your fellow man, including your family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Our founders were brilliant in looking at the scope of human history, and developing a system that is most consistent with the good of human nature. The collectivism that has been eroding the intent of the founders is suitable for those who are not productive, the immoral, or thieves. It's a suitable life philosophy for a colony of insects, which, unless you think we're no different than any other species of animated cell clumps, we are not.
My point being, that reliance on a distant, self interested federal government to provide a road to personal prosperity and individual happiness is a fantasy. You will always get back a fraction of what you give in that respect. With regards to unemployment payments, almost anyone can save enough money to weather a bad economic cycle or periodic unemployment, if they just save a percentage of their income. Whatever small fraction of people that can't sustain themselves in hard times for whatever reason have always been taken care of by family, charitable organizations like churches, the good will of their neighbors. The federal government has done nothing to improve what we used to have. It provides some useful functions, like internal and external security, like any nation. But it has taken too much, and that is painful, and disheartining to many of us.