Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Olog-hai
Technically no. A "stimulus" should add activity that would otherwise not be there. Jobless benefits might have the effect of keeping existing spending going when the jobless person falls off their own personal financial cliff, i.e. the family keeps eating. But that isn't really stimulative and most benefits help a family meet only their most basic needs.
17 posted on 12/06/2012 2:03:56 PM PST by NonValueAdded (If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you've likely misread the situation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: NonValueAdded
Technically no. A "stimulus" should add activity that would otherwise not be there. Jobless benefits might have the effect of keeping existing spending going when the jobless person falls off their own personal financial cliff, i.e. the family keeps eating. But that isn't really stimulative and most benefits help a family meet only their most basic needs.

Very true. But here's the interesting part - setting aside the part about good jobless benefits being an enabler of continued joblessness, in saying that jobless benefits are the best stimulus, he's implicitly admitting that money works best in an economy when it is in the hands of actual individual consumers.

Which just happens to be the exact argument in favor of lower taxes, right?
35 posted on 12/06/2012 3:41:22 PM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson