• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unemployment benefits: who's right?

What should be done about unemployment benefits?


  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Capital exists. You can't borrow against the future. You borrow now. You can't seriously say that my borrowing money now has no effect on someone else who is trying to borrow. I've necessarily dried up some capital.

The government borrows money, then spits it back out into the economy in the form of spending.

phattonez said:
And demand is stronger? Do you think that there's been a significant change when unemployment is still so high?

Many of those things on that chart are traded on a global market, so the US unemployment rate is barely relevant. And yes, a recovering economy tends to boost demand.

phattonez said:
But the benefit doesn't come from some mythical multiplier effect. If that were the case then spending money or cutting taxes would have the same effect. They don't. Government spending is far less efficient. People spend their own money better and use it to invest which would lead to more production.

Far less efficient at what? Government spending is MORE efficient than tax cuts when it comes to stimulating the economy, because the money will be spent with 100% certainty whereas tax cuts may or may not be spent. And saying that "people spend their own money better" is both A) an article of faith, and B) subjective. The government is better at buying infrastructure than the private sector, but you're probably better at deciding what you want to buy for lunch than the government is.
 
Last edited:
One choice should have been, "REPEAL THEM." Unemployment benefits are among the tons of things any government should never be doing.

Charity is NOT a legitimate function of government. It should be done solely by charities, churches, and other private entities.

This debate has been hashed out endlessly - If people are willing to let their tax-monies go to help others then why would they willingly donate (enough to support people who truly need it)

Government and these other sources have always been depended on by people to support them - it's not some newfangled notion of hte modern era that a government is suppose to help it's citizens, not just tell them what/what not to do.
 
OK, but what drives investment? Consumption.



They do those things in order to sell more, ie more consumption.



That IS consumption, it's just rich people doing it.



The government isn't taking money away from investors, because it is borrowing money rather than raising taxes. The investors are able to invest AND the consumers are able to consume. Both will help the economy.



It's true that the current level of deficit spending is unsustainable, but that's the point. It doesn't NEED to be sustained, it just needs to get us through a period of high unemployment. High deficit spending during bad economic times, and balancing the budget during good economic times will help smooth out the economic cycle.



To my knowledge, no federal taxes have increased since the recession began.

Khandahar, you are once again putting the cart before the horse. People don't base investments on current consumption, they base investments on the potential for future growth. If we based our investments on current consumption, we wouldn't hire new people or expand operations. Future growth is affected by future scheduled tax increases, like January 1 when taxes are going to go up for every American. And if capital gains rates don't get extended, expect the stock market to drop below 10,000 before the end of the year, maybe even lower.
 
This video reminds me of you if ya ever had to deal with the things I do in my life......

What BS reality-bubble are you living in man? I hope God curses YOU with half the **** Ive had to deal with within the last 5 years just so your ideas and ideals grow up and you become a decent man.

I spent the last 5 years in the Marines; 4 of them in the Infantry. so in the last 5 years i've gone long periods of time when instead of sleep i drove myself through hatred and rage. i've watched helplessly as some of my best friends bled out and left this world. i've been pushed to the brink of exaustion and expected to continue to perform until i collapsed. i have been left frozen in the rain literally for weeks, dehydrated to the point where i pissed the color of coffee (no creamer), gone days without sleep, and walked more miles than i ever want to think about (the worst, though, was the mosquitos. god i hate mosquitos). i have watched mistakes i made take the lives of better men than myself, and dealt with the intense shame and drive to commit suicide that that impresses upon a person. i have spent weeks drinking myself to destruction in order to block out the darkness, and then i've had to turn, deal, and face it down. in the meantime, i've had three of my fellow Marines not be able to make that turn; two shot themselves and a third drove his car head first into an 18 wheeler at about 85mph. still i don't think i have slept a straight night through in about 3 years. of my oldest sons' first two years of life, i was with him for about six to eight weeks; the rest was spent deployed either overseas or to one or another training op in the states. i missed the first steps the first teeth the first words the first birthday the first christmas... but i did get pictures in the mail, which i cherished in a manner i doubt those who haven't had to will never know. we rated food stamps, wic, a couple of other programs as i recall; we didn't take them because we made the decision to live beneath our means instead. sometimes at the end of the month that meant we ate potatos and drank tap water. so be it. through it all i donated 10% of my income (still do) to charity because that was the right thing to do. i did all the above because it allowed me to protect innocents because it was the right thing to do; it was, in fact, the thing i have done that i am most proud of in my life. i have even risked my life to save my enemys', knowing that if the situation was reversed he would have tortured me and sawed off my head on an internet video because, at the time, saving his life was the right thing to do.

now, i'm not saying this to play the penis game. plenty of folks have had it tough, and many have had it tougher than me. but maybe you ought to check yourself before you go around slinging accusations about who is a grown up and a decent man simply because you've been (i suppose) living on unemployment.

but i have noticed this; those who have been through real **** (and i know a few) don't tend to curse that on people. only sayin.
 
Last edited:
The government borrows money, then spits it back out into the economy in the form of spending.

But businesses don't expand on profits. They expand from investment. Spending doesn't make up what was just lost in investment.

Many of those things on that chart are traded on a global market, so the US unemployment rate is barely relevant. And yes, a recovering economy tends to boost demand.

But do we really have a boost in demand, or is it illusory based on monetary inflation?

Far less efficient at what? Government spending is MORE efficient than tax cuts when it comes to stimulating the economy, because the money will be spent with 100% certainty whereas tax cuts may or may not be spent. And saying that "people spend their own money better" is both A) an article of faith, and B) subjective. The government is better at buying infrastructure than the private sector, but you're probably better at deciding what you want to buy for lunch than the government is.

Money always serves a function. If it's not spent it still serves a function. And is the government better at buying infrastructure? Do you really believe that? No private company would have built an interstate? It's too expensive? I guess we should have the government build hotels and office buildings then because they're too expensive and no private company would invest in them.
 
I think extending benefits is o.k. but we need to ensure that we get something productive out of those that are unemployed. Maybe 20 hours of surveys, community service, etc. each week because some people will abuse the system and not look for work until the last few weeks of unemployment etc.
 
Agreed, the money is much more well spent than funding two wars...

hey, if you keynesians are right, then those two wars are the only things that have been propping us up for a decade. you'd better thank George Bush for his profligate ways ;)
 
What BS reality-bubble are you living in man? I hope God curses YOU with half the **** Ive had to deal with within the last 5 years just so your ideas and ideals grow up and you become a decent man.

and you think people with his belief hasn't gone through hard times, hasn't been homeless, hasn't been hungry, hasn't been penniless, hasn't been unemployed? Maybe it is you that needs a reality check. It is not situation that drives this belief it is the relation of the world we live in, the human nature that drives us all, the dependence these kind of actions create, and the liberty and rights of all people.

A person that truly cares for people doesn't give them what they need to survive, they give them a chance to reach what need on their own. Giving people what they need makes people dependent on the giver, allowing the giver chance to decide on how much is given, on how it will be restricted and on how long it will be available. If the person does it on their own they are in charge of this and no person has control over what they gain.

The worst part of it all is what comes when its taken away, the rage of what they believe they deserve, when the fact remains, they never actually showed any proof, nor did they put forth any effort to show us worth, nor will the giver care if they did. They have become the spoiled child that rages when daddy takes the tv away, that he gave to them because he felt like it, NOT because the child ever actually deserved it. However, now the child feels its not only their tv, but their right to watch that tv that was never theirs to begin with, but the childs fathers that decided to give them that tv. The child was given that tv at the will of another party, the father, that by giving that tv has decided to give a gift, but because he gave that gift still has complete control of it and can decide to take that gift back at any time and so he did. This is what entitlements are, a gift, given for nothing, for nothing, and the party that gives that gift has complete control of it, and can decide to do with whatever they wish. This is not true, however, if you either buy the tv yourself, or get whatever the entitlement is on your own. You decide which is better, a gift you have no control over but has control over you, or something you have earned and you have control of. Pick wisely.
 
Last edited:
The government borrows money, then spits it back out into the economy in the form of spending.

after running it through an expensive bureacracy.

so, government takes money from investors (who, otherwise, would have been doing things like investing in businesses), runs it through the federal bureacracy (average drain per federal worker: around 70K a year), and then spends it on important things like the Congressman C. Smith Overpass.

it's like if i were to take money from your savings account, remove 10%, put it into your checking, and claim i had made you wealthier.

Far less efficient at what? Government spending is MORE efficient than tax cuts when it comes to stimulating the economy, because the money will be spent with 100% certainty whereas tax cuts may or may not be spent.

wrong. 100% of those tax cuts will be spent. the question is will they be spent on things that government buys (such as studies on the effects of robot bees), or will it be spent on things that investors buy (such as equities in private companies who hire people and produce goods).

in order for government spending to be more effecient than tax cuts when it comes to stimulating the economy; politicians would have to be A) honest B) incorruptible and C) better at allocating scarce resources than the market.

for your theory to work, literally, communism would have to be a viable model; it is built upon the assumption of governments' ability to invest in the private market better than the private market.



fortunately, however, we know that your theory is bunk:

TAXING LESS OR SPENDING MORE?

Addressing this question requires not only data about the past year or two, but also analysis of some key assumptions at the core of the administration's approach to fiscal policy. In particular, that approach seems to take for granted that the question in choosing between spending and tax cuts is which would have the greater multiplier effect, and that the answer to that question is spending rather than tax cuts.

The first assumption overlooks an important difference between spending and tax cuts in the context of economic stimulus. When the government is seeking to revive its sick patient — the economy — time is of the essence. And time must be considered in any analysis of multipliers and other economic effects of stimulus policy. Chief among these considerations is whether government can spend money both quickly and wisely.

Many of us can draw on our own experiences in addressing that question. Anyone familiar with government projects even at the municipal level knows that the process is usually prolonged and onerous. Even if the design phase is managed well, the project is built efficiently, and the end product proves to be of good use to the community — all big "ifs" — the time involved in debating project proposals, securing approval from citizens and local boards, planning the design, hiring contractors, and completing the construction often stretches to years. Cram the process into a dramatically shortened time frame, and the likelihood that the project will be an example of "wise" government spending diminishes significantly. Expand the scope of the government spending from town planning to national fiscal policy, and the likelihood shrinks even further.

This is not just a matter of government waste, but also a question of whether money spent under such circumstances actually helps the economy grow in a way that best enhances citizens' well-being. Whenever public money is involved, it is important to ask whether the spending will produce something society needs, or wants, to improve the general economic climate. Money spent on a new road that allows farmers to get their products to market faster and in better condition, for instance, creates more value than money spent building a "bridge to nowhere," even if both projects create the same number of construction jobs.

To look at it another way: If a person pays his neighbor $100 to dig a hole in his backyard and then fill it up again, and the neighbor hires him to do the same, government statisticians will report that the economy has created two jobs and that the gross domestic product has risen by $200. But it is unlikely that, having wasted all that time digging and filling, either person is better off — economically or otherwise. Each person's net financial gain is zero, and all anyone has to show for the effort is a patch of fresh dirt in the backyard, which is unlikely to improve anyone's standard of living.

Private individuals don't usually spend their money on things they don't want or need. So when money is kept in the hands of citizens, and transactions take place in the private sector, there is less cause to worry about inefficient spending. The same cannot always be said of government. This means that government spending designed to stimulate the economy must first be subjected to serious cost-benefit analysis, which is hard to do in a big rush. Not all government spending is created equal — and rushed spending is, in many important ways, likely to be less efficient and less useful than spending that is carefully planned.

The administration's second assumption, meanwhile, is a matter of academic theories about the sizes of the relevant economic multipliers. Textbook Keynesian economics tells us that government-purchases multipliers are larger than tax-cut multipliers. And, as we have seen, the Obama administration's economic team consulted these standard models in deciding that spending would be significantly more effective than tax cuts.

But a great deal of recent economic evidence calls that conclusion into question. In an ironic twist, one key piece comes from Christina Romer, who is now chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. About six months before she took the job, Romer teamed up with her husband and fellow Berkeley economist David Romer to write a paper ("The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes") that sought to measure the influence of tax policy on GDP. Crucial to the Romers' method was their effort to identify changes in tax policy made during times of relative economic stability, and driven by a desire to influence economic behavior or activity (to encourage growth, say, or reduce a deficit), rather than those changes made in response to a recession or crisis. By studying such "exogenous" tax-policy changes, the Romers could be more confident that they were in fact measuring the effects of taxes and not those of extraneous conditions.

The Romers' conclusion, which is at odds with most traditional Keynesian analysis, was that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations.

Of course, it could be that all multipliers are larger than previously assumed. Perhaps fiscal policy has such a great influence over our economy that, if the tax multiplier is 3, the government-spending multiplier is 4 or 5. We don't know from the Romers' study; they did not analyze government-spending multipliers, only tax multipliers. But several studies on government-spending multipliers have been conducted using techniques similar to those used by the Romers. And none has found government-spending multipliers to be so large as to justify assumptions about the inherent superiority of government spending over tax cuts.

Some excellent work on this topic has come from Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego. Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers. Similarly, in recent research, Andrew Mountford (of the University of London) and Harald Uhlig (of the University of Chicago) have used sophisticated statistical techniques that try to capture the complicated relationships among economic variables over time; they conclude that a "deficit-financed tax cut is the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy." In particular, they report that tax cuts are about four times as potent as increases in government spending.

Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments....

There is a case to be made for a broad-based payroll-tax cut that might have this effect, but a narrower tax cut for new hires suffers from some major flaws. The basic problem is that we do not know how to properly define — or enforce a definition of — a "new hire." Presumably we do not want a business to hire Peter by firing Paul and to then call Peter a new hire; this would cause a great deal of inefficient churning in the labor force (not to mention a great deal of unpleasantness for all the Pauls).

Usually when tax credits for new hires are proposed, the idea is to establish some baseline employment — based on a firm's labor force a year or two earlier — and give credit to businesses that meet or exceed their baselines. But relying on such baselines can be problematic. Consider an industry hit particularly hard by a recession — say, construction — in which employment is well below the baseline established for new-hire tax breaks. Because a few new hires would still not make these firms eligible for the tax credits, these firms would have no marginal incentive to hire additional workers. Conversely, industries that have been expanding would be rewarded for hires they might have made even without the tax incentives. This policy, then, would likely create tremendous disparities across industries that could be both inequitable and inefficient. It would also create perverse incentives in favor of new firms: By definition, all employees of a new firm are "new hires." This could even give existing firms an incentive to, say, lay off the janitorial staff and hire instead an independent janitorial contractor that just started up as a new firm, since the cost per worker to the old firm could well be lower.

Attractive as such ideas may seem at first, targeted tax cuts and incentives are in fact very difficult to implement properly. If tax cuts indeed make for better fiscal stimulus than direct government spending, they should be broad-based cuts or incentives, rather than narrowly tailored interventions.

Here again, the fiscal-policy decisions of the past year and a half have not been implausible or inexplicable — but they have also not been empirically shown to work. The data point to other approaches.
 
and you think people with his belief hasn't gone through hard times, hasn't been homeless, hasn't been hungry, hasn't been penniless, hasn't been unemployed? Maybe it is you that needs a reality check. It is not situation that drives this belief it is the relation of the world we live in, the human nature that drives us all, the dependence these kind of actions create, and the liberty and rights of all people.

exactly. plenty of conservative icons have been broke, unemployed, etc.

A person that truly cares for people doesn't give them what they need to survive, they give them a chance to reach what need on their own. Giving people what they need makes people dependent on the giver, allowing the giver chance to decide on how much is given, on how it will be restricted and on how long it will be available. If the person does it on their own they are in charge of this and no person has control over what they gain.

bingo. when i graduated and went out into the wide world, my parents could have helped me out. instead they gave me a book by Dave Ramsey; because they knew that to keep helping me at the point at which i was expected to be self-reliant was to cripple me. thanks to their wiser approach, i am now in a far-better financial situation than the vast majority of my peers, and able to serve as a semi-financial counselor to many of them.

but my first piece of advice? "The first thing you have to accept is that your situation is your responsibility, and only you are going to get yourself out." Until they fundamentally realize that, they cannot be helped.

The worst part of it all is what comes when its taken away, the rage of what they believe they deserve, when the fact remains, they never actually showed any proof, nor did they put forth any effort to show us worth, nor will the giver care if they did. They have become the spoiled child that rages when daddy takes the tv away, that he gave to them because he felt like it, NOT because the child ever actually deserved it. However, now the child feels its not only their tv, but their right to watch that tv that was never theirs to begin with, but the childs fathers that decided to give them that tv. The child was given that tv at the will of another party, the father, that by giving that tv has decided to give a gift, but because he gave that gift still has complete control of it and can decide to take that gift back at any time and so he did. This is what entitlements are, a gift, given for nothing, for nothing, and the party that gives that gift has complete control of it, and can decide to do with whatever they wish. This is not true, however, if you either buy the tv yourself, or get whatever the entitlement is on your own. You decide which is better, a gift you have no control over but has control over you, or something you have earned and you have control of. Pick wisely.

and this is one of the several reasons that we chose (when we were poor) not to avail ourselves of the multiple "aid" programs we qualified for.
 
But businesses don't expand on profits. They expand from investment. Spending doesn't make up what was just lost in investment.

Businesses won't expand if they believe it will not be profitable. Secondly, profits are what fuel expansion, as profits allow for capital accumulation.

But do we really have a boost in demand, or is it illusory based on monetary inflation?

What is demand? What causes it to shift (in or out)?

Money always serves a function. If it's not spent it still serves a function.

During recessions, the fuction that is best served is being spent.

And is the government better at buying infrastructure? Do you really believe that? No private company would have built an interstate? It's too expensive?

Yes. Not even considering the transaction costs of aquiring the necessary land across cities and even states, what do commercial vehicles do in the meantime? The highway systems built following WWII were constructed by private companies, but still took more than a decade to complete. Government can provide the capital necessary to build interstate projects

I guess we should have the government build hotels and office buildings then because they're too expensive and no private company would invest in them.

Private companies are efficient at building isolated projects as a direct result of public funded highway systems; they allows laborers, equipment, and materials to move to and from the worksite without strictly using rails.
 
Well, they're considering a year-long extension. And I ask, "When does it end?"

Nobody knows where the extension will end. Nobody can predict the future, and shouldn't even try.

What we do know is with no extension millions will have no money to spend, and spending keeps the economy going, allows more time for overall recovery.

Imagine the tearful disappointment on the faces of millions of kids when they get no Christmas presents.

ricksfolly
 
But businesses don't expand on profits. They expand from investment. Spending doesn't make up what was just lost in investment.

And nobody can tell them how to spend it, including the government, but that doesn't stop it from becoming an exaggerated political issue, another buzzword gotcha...

ricksfolly
 
But businesses don't expand on profits. They expand from investment. Spending doesn't make up what was just lost in investment.

Without profit they cannot invest, yes?
It's a two-way street. . . both are essential - at some times one is more important than another.

With a dive in profit - the business cannot invest, cannot expand, and dies.
 
I read this whole thing, and didn't see where anybody mentioned that these benefits are from a type of insurance plan. Almost all of us paid in, and the people who become jobless for certain reasons collect unemployment.

The unemployed receive payouts because of this insurance. They will pay in again when they are hired somewhere.

To cover the cost of extended unemployment benefits, the rates we pay must be raised slightly until the excess is covered.

Some of you will consider this a tax increase, its like a broken record. But this is something we already pay, and a premium hike will pay the extension.
 
Local lady used to make six figures. She lost her job due to the recession, burnt through savings, lost her home, and is now selling her wedding ring to avoid being forced to sleep in her car at night. She's been looking for a job, even crappy jobs, but keeps being told she's overqualified.

Rich people: You are not immune to this. It can happen to you. It's not just people being lazy, there are more unemployed people than there are jobs, period.

What else are we to do? People left in tatters will become desperate. Desperate people will do what it takes to survive.
 
I read this whole thing, and didn't see where anybody mentioned that these benefits are from a type of insurance plan. Almost all of us paid in, and the people who become jobless for certain reasons collect unemployment.

The unemployed receive payouts because of this insurance. They will pay in again when they are hired somewhere.

To cover the cost of extended unemployment benefits, the rates we pay must be raised slightly until the excess is covered.

Some of you will consider this a tax increase, its like a broken record. But this is something we already pay, and a premium hike will pay the extension.

This argument of yours is the same argument that supporters of social security used when trying to pass it. Just like that isn't insurance, neither is this.

Forced insurance, is not insurance, it's just theft.
 
i sincerely doubt that she's being consistently turned away for being overqualified if she is willing to work for the lower wage. i drive down the street home from work and multiple restaraunts businesses have 'hiring' signs; they're just not particularly great jobs.

and really; if you make 6 figures for multiple years you ought to be abouuuut recession proof. 3 years of 125K would see me out from under my house, and with about 40-50K in the bank.
 
This argument of yours is the same argument that supporters of social security used when trying to pass it. Just like that isn't insurance, neither is this.

Forced insurance, is not insurance, it's just theft.

Call it what you want. But people paid in, and some are being benefited.

I don't guess you can imagine the US, since 2008, without unemployment insurance? Think our current situation would be a lot worse? Course it would. More credit defaults, more foreclosures, more rental leases breached, more domino effect, an even deeper recession...
 
i sincerely doubt that she's being consistently turned away for being overqualified if she is willing to work for the lower wage. i drive down the street home from work and multiple restaraunts businesses have 'hiring' signs; they're just not particularly great jobs.

and really; if you make 6 figures for multiple years you ought to be abouuuut recession proof. 3 years of 125K would see me out from under my house, and with about 40-50K in the bank.

She would not be hired by a lot of companies because she is overqualified. As a waitress she most likely would have higher qualifications then most managers (depending on restaurant of course) and they would be very reluctant to hire her because of that

Most companies will not hire someone they expect will leave in a couple of months. Nor will most potential employers hire someone who is more qualified then they are for (ie cashier vs shift supervisor)


She most likely would have to lie about her qualifications to get hired at low skilled low wage positions
 
Anyone that votes DONT PASS the extension needs a dose of my reality. And something to get rid of your exteme ignorance.

another stunning bit of libertarian logic
 
Nobody knows where the extension will end. Nobody can predict the future, and shouldn't even try.

What we do know is with no extension millions will have no money to spend, and spending keeps the economy going, allows more time for overall recovery.

Imagine the tearful disappointment on the faces of millions of kids when they get no Christmas presents.

ricksfolly

so we should tax those who have jobs and take money from them to buy christmas presents for the children of those who don't have jobs
 
Local lady used to make six figures. She lost her job due to the recession, burnt through savings, lost her home, and is now selling her wedding ring to avoid being forced to sleep in her car at night. She's been looking for a job, even crappy jobs, but keeps being told she's overqualified.

Rich people: You are not immune to this. It can happen to you. It's not just people being lazy, there are more unemployed people than there are jobs, period.

What else are we to do? People left in tatters will become desperate. Desperate people will do what it takes to survive.

I will keep this in mind the next time one of the libs claim that everyone in the top 2% can handle having their taxes on salaries jacked up 10% and their taxes on dividends more than doubled
 
so we should tax those who have jobs and take money from them to buy christmas presents for the children of those who don't have jobs

All insurance works this way. Like homeowner's, lots of people pay in, but not everybody benefits. I guess your problem with it must be its a public system. But it works, and I'm sure has helped a lot of people and the overall economy for the last two years+.
 
Call it what you want. But people paid in, and some are being benefited.

I don't guess you can imagine the US, since 2008, without unemployment insurance? Think our current situation would be a lot worse? Course it would. More credit defaults, more foreclosures, more rental leases breached, more domino effect, an even deeper recession...



Theft is theft, what that theft does to help or not help others is immaterial. You shouldn't support it because someone isn't homeless now, or someone doesn't lose a meal, its still fundamentally wrong to steal from others regardless.

Entitlements remind me of Robin Hood in so many ways. Was Robin Hood noble, or was he only changing up who plays what role? Was his theft noble because it helped people?

Answer, Robin Hood was a douche because the act of the theft made him the hero, it made him the leader, the man that all must depend on. It made him a douche because he didn't give people what they needed to get out, instead he gave himself a chance to have power over all those needy. He wasn't interested in helping them at all, he was interested in helping himself. If he was interested in them he wouldn't of stole from the rich, he would of fought for the poor, for their interests, for their cause. He would of taught them what they needed to know to fight, he would of taught them what they needed to make it on their own, but instead he stole from the rich and gave others their gold, which that gold that was given to the poor will run out and they have no way to replace it other than going through Robin Hood. Robin Hood was a douche, a lier, a deserver, and a thief. He was not noble at all and neither is entitlements.

The fact is I don't much care what the results without it would of been, I care for the correct means of fixing a problem, and not resorting to stealing from people.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom