41 replies to this topic

[pstall]

welfare stimulates the economy, yes

stimulate possibly. but to follow that logic why not have EVERYONE on unemployment?

its a safety net for sure. but someone who is working spends more and has a better shot at upward mobility.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

stimulate possibly. but to follow that logic why not have EVERYONE on unemployment?

its a safety net for sure. but someone who is working spends more and has a better shot at upward mobility.

no, the logic is that poor people will spend welfare immediately. if rich and middle class people were given the same benefits, they would likely not spend the money as quickly, and they may even save it.

[venom]

I mean wouldn't it make way more sense to bail out the people? In the end, whatever measures are taken are supposed to be about the preservation and well being of the people, right?

[pstall]

no, the logic is that poor people will spend welfare immediately. if rich and middle class people were given the same benefits, they would likely not spend the money as quickly, and they may even save it.

i don't know man. thats not giving the poor enough credit and the rich/middle too much. i have heard that as well.

this is why i say our biggest and best way out of our financial woes is simply more people working. they buy or save but they are getting taxed or fees or using or buying goods that helps somebody else who buys or saves or buys other stuff and so on. not talking trickle down either. this is a variation of a Keynesian mulitplier effect.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

what does that even mean? "not giving them enough credit"? it's not that they're too dumb to save the money or whatever; it's that they have to spend it on necessities. $100 means a whole hell of a lot more to someone living below the poverty line than it means to someone netting $50k a year

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

also, yes, higher employment is always ideal, as is a higher minimum wage

[Floppin]

Hey, out of curiosity. Why the fug was my earlier post deleted from this thread?

[pstall]

i didn't like your tone

[pstall]

what does that even mean? "not giving them enough credit"? it's not that they're too dumb to save the money or whatever; it's that they have to spend it on necessities. $100 means a whole hell of a lot more to someone living below the poverty line than it means to someone netting $50k a year

but if both are getting u/e it is relative.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

but if both are getting u/e it is relative.

wait so you saw "welfare stimulates the economy" and went with "well why don't we all go on welfare huh"

this is about as dumb as "oh you want higher taxes well why don't you go write a check to the IRS"

[Panthro]

Hey, out of curiosity. Why the fug was my earlier post deleted from this thread?

I fat fingered the next page button and I hit delete by accident

Mobile dunce

Sorry

[pstall]

dude. if you are going to say BOTH in the context of u/e what am i going to say? if EITHER gets u/e, the rich or poor, for that person it's relative.

but i will think like you for the sake of the thread. if a poor guy is getting u/e, because he is poor he just has to get u/e, the rich guy who is NOT getting u/e will proly save more money? right? well of course Horatio. he will.

wow. all those cans of Spite start to add up where you don't even know what you are debating. you just have to debate for the sake of argument.

[Floppin]

I fat fingered the next page button and I hit delete by accident

Mobile dunce

Sorry

Ahh. I was just wondering, I didn't think there was anything particularly offensive in it.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

i'm not debating anything. it's well established that welfare stimulates the economy.

in response to your post here:

There was some congressman saying here how unemployment was a good investment because of someone being able to buy

i said that welfare actually does stimulate the economy. unemployment is welfare. providing welfare for poor people has a stimulatory effect

again, not debating. this is established.

[pstall]

k