She said what ??!! - Page 2

AVGWarhawk · 07-02-10, 08:15 AM

I love Nancy. She is so special.....

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.

mookiemookie · 07-02-10, 08:34 AM

And it's this sort of cluelessness when it comes to the principles of economics that prevents me from identifying with the Democratic party. Maybe we could send them textbooks?

UnderseaLcpl · 07-02-10, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And it's this sort of cluelessness when it comes to the principles of economics that prevents me from identifying with the Democratic party. Maybe we could send them textbooks?

I doubt it would do any good, notwithstanding the current iteration of democratic slant that many textbooks have when it comes to economics.
Their view of economics is utterly confusing to me, as they simultaneously support social programs, aid to less-developed economies, and government means, whilst never considering that the latter may be mutually exclusive to the aforementioned pair, which flies completely in the face of modern economic theory.

Time and time again I see examples of the state failing at absolutely everything it does, and yet people still buy that the state is an effective agency for implementing policy. One would think that the problems of a monopolisitc state would have become apparent by now, but it isn't so, for reasons that should be obvious when considering the nature of modern state structure.

07-02-10, 08:15 AM	#16
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,286 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I love Nancy. She is so special..... __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

07-02-10, 08:34 AM	#18
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	And it's this sort of cluelessness when it comes to the principles of economics that prevents me from identifying with the Democratic party. Maybe we could send them textbooks? __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

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.