Once again the debate is circling around to an extension of unemployment benefits. You may remember the last time this subject came up. That was when we were stretching payments for not working out to 99 weeks, essentially two full years of watching Judge Judy and the Fishing Channel without having to get up in the morning, get dressed or contribute a thing to society.
You remember the concept of unemployment insurance, don't you? It was set up by states, remember the concept of federalism? It was contributory by employers so that it discouraged arbitrary and wholesale lay-offs. If too many of your former employees wound up on the dole, your contributions to the fund went up. It lasted about 26 weeks, which was deemed a suitable time for a bit of assistance in keeping body and soul together while seeking a new position.
Now it is federal, it is strictly redistribution, and it is seemingly without end.
Want to know what sort of rationale explains why that has come about? Look no further than the deer in the headlights spokesman of the Messiah himself:
Unemployment Is the Best Economic Stimulus
It is hard to overlook the smug, insulting, superior attitude that accompanies such drivel when addressed to a Wall Street Journal reporter in the White House Press Corps. What an arrogant ass!
But once you get past that, then examine what he says.
How does keeping 30 million potential producers on their butts with an enduring stipend build gross domestic product? What do you spend your unemployment check on that you wouldn't have been required to buy regardless? You don't go out and buy a new car, a 3D Hi-Def flat screen, a luxury watch, a new house, or even a flashy new computer. You buy food, pay your utility bills and hope you can keep ahead of the mortgage.
In essence you sustain, but you sure as hell don't grow. That's the part that should have been on your entry exam, Mr. Carney.
The greatest motivator for taking a job is actually NEEDING one. Your need goes down when a government check arrives every month. You aren't encouraged to lower your expectations of compensation at previous levels if you can get just as much for doing nothing. Economies grow when people work. Economies shrink when government takes money out of the economy and distributes it to people who don't work.
Got that, Carney?
8 comments:
Mr. Idiot missed the fact that it costs money to collect manage and distribute those Unemployment benefits meaning you are taking out more than you put back in....no wonder they cant balance the budget in Washington, they can't even do basic accounting. I wont even mention the immorality of forcibly taking from those who work for the money to give to those who are granted more and more time to do nothing.
In the minds of liberals, the trickle down economic theory is wrong. Except when it is a convenient pretext for entitlement transfers, and then it is a valid theory.
Is political rapprochement possible with people who are so willfully ignorant about fundamental truths such as the laws of economics and human nature?
Both of those have a strong interrelation in the realm of transfers and self-reliance. By nature, many will do less when given more at someone else's expense. Those who create will create less if the only outcome is to see more and more taken from those and redistributed to those that do not create.
The Flying Barrister
On top of that Liberals see wealth as a fixed commodity, if total wealth possible in the world is X then in their view if one person has a wealth of Y then there is only X-Y for everyone else....basically a zero summ attitude which is so wrong I dont have the words to define it.
I hope that guy isnt anyone too important.If he said that down here he then would be laughed out of the room, as even our moderate left dont believe that tripe anymore.
I liked what you wrote Ed and I liked the comments, especially Anonymous re rapprochement.
Back in 1989 I was young and foolish enough to think that the West had defeated socialism but it seems that it was just half time and both teams have swapped ends of the playing field.
NZGARRY:
I am interested in reading about New Zealand's de-socialization/privatization, which I believe occurred around the 1980 timeframe. I've searched for books on the subject but without success.
Do you the best titles on the topic?
The Flying Barrister
FB
In response. I too did not find anything that worthwhile immediately.
I will follow this up for you.
.. wait out.
FB, re the above,
I e-mailed Sir Roger Douglas who, as Minister of Finance during the 4the Labour Government 1984-1987, drove the economic reform process here.
I have not received a reply as yet but will point you to an article on his website:
http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/images/stout1.pdf
I lived through these times and I revere Sir Roger for what he did for our country.
As a background to NZ politics, the National party is that of the Right and Labour that of the Left.
In a curious inversion at the time the National party was intervening economically with statist controls usually associated with the left. Labour won power in a snap election in 1984 and embarked on extensive free market reforms.
Strange days indeed but NZ has never looked back. I am more than happy to respond to any queries and also the following google search terms will be useful.
Fourth Labour Government
Roger Douglas
David Lange
Robert Muldoon
Rogernomics
add NZ or New Zealand to each.
cheers,
Garry
Post a Comment