Jesus. No, I said nothing of the kind. I said that scenarios that increase demand involve poor people HAVING more money. No mention at all of it coming from the government, you Karl Rove wannabe ;) Now, the New Deal did involve a number of government work programs, in which the unemployed built roads and made other infrastructure improvements, but this need not be the case, although imho under the circumstances this was not necessarily bad. It also became unnecessary as the war economy created other jobs.
As for the current administration's corporate welfare, you really must be using some Clintonian definition of "hand" and "give" that does not include tax cuts and subsidies.... http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/01/28/montana/a07012806_01.txt http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3242/1/87?TopicID=1 http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/wb/xp-49744 >You keep saying that the gov't is "handing" money to corporations. >You just said it again. Then you go on to say that, instead, the >gov't should give money to poor people or those who choose not to earn >more. > >Well, the gov't doesn't make money, therefore it's not their's to give. Your position on the minimum wage is nothing short of bizarre, but I'll repeat my previous comment - we have a minimum wage. Get over it. Why you think these people don't earn their keep escapes me... I mean, what is keeping poor widdle WalMart from firing these people if they are so worthless???? None of this has anything at all to do with Cuba. I am not in favor of socialism and don't plan to defend it, and especially not Cuba's brand of it. >Let's look at minimum wage. There the gov't is taking money that a >business has *earned* and forcing them to *give* it to a worker >despite the fact that, on the open market, the worker's choice would >be worth less. > >Here's the problem: If the gov't takes money from earners and gives it >to those that choose not to earn, then everyone will choose not to >earn. I've got a case study for you called Cuba. --snip-- the following assumes facts very much not in evidence. >From what I can see you agree with me, you're just not taking the >final step and saying that all gov't reallocation of wealth is bad >given that all citizens have equal access to capital and education >which we do but didn't in Keynes' time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:194916 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
