SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

tater · 07-02-10, 08:31 AM

Her claim is absurd.

Welfare is at best a subsistence level payment (even if many spend it inappropriately—presumably she assumes this is most spending by welfare recipients?). As a result, it gets spent on food, housing, utilities. Since the payee had a job BEFORE collecting welfare, welfare doesn't expand spending, at best in some areas it maintains spending.

There is not job-growth with flat spending. Mr. X spent $200 on groceries this month last year with a job, spends the same this month on welfare. Jobs created? ZERO.

It shows that they think that not losing a job is the same as "creating" a job. Sort of like they say that not increasing government spending is a "cut," or even increasing spending, but by less than last year is also a "cut."

Idiots.

07-02-10, 08:31 AM	#17
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Her claim is absurd. Welfare is at best a subsistence level payment (even if many spend it inappropriately—presumably she assumes this is most spending by welfare recipients?). As a result, it gets spent on food, housing, utilities. Since the payee had a job BEFORE collecting welfare, welfare doesn't expand spending, at best in some areas it maintains spending. There is not job-growth with flat spending. Mr. X spent $200 on groceries this month last year with a job, spends the same this month on welfare. Jobs created? ZERO. It shows that they think that not losing a job is the same as "creating" a job. Sort of like they say that not increasing government spending is a "cut," or even increasing spending, but by less than last year is also a "cut." Idiots.