The NY Times Editorial Board provides a perfect example of Liberal World Thought: Cutting Off The Unemployed
It was bad enough when the Senate left town for a long Memorial Day break without passing a bill to extend expiring unemployment benefits. It’s worse now.
Back in session for nearly three weeks, the Senate still has not acted. That means that 900,000 jobless workers have already lost their benefits, a number that will swell to an estimated 1.6 million people if an extension is not passed by the July Fourth holiday. Lost benefits — the average check is $309 a week — deprives struggling Americans of cash they need for buying food, paying the rent or mortgage and other essentials.
Here’s a thought: how about crafting policies and legislation that actually stimulates businesses, particularly white collar and small businesses, which have mostly been ignored, to hire? Wouldn’t it be immeasurably more desirable for people to be working, rather than on the public dole because jobs aren’t available? Unless one wants a short term job with the Census, of course. Instead of creating a parasite class, we could have people standing proud as they head off to work. And Democrats yammering on about potentially raising taxes, saying they are not bound by Obama’s tax pledge, does not help.
Of course, it is mostly the Republicans fault
At the same time, many lawmakers — mostly Republicans, but not all — are claiming that extending jobless benefits and aid to states is simply too costly. That may sound like good politics, but it is very bad economics. If the government fails to keep spending when the economy is weak, especially on core safety-net issues, it will only worsen unemployment and impede the chances of recovery.
Hmm, interesting. The NY Times and all their peeps whined about spending under President Bush as they complained that the economy was bad. Now, spending un-Godly amounts of money with a Democrat President and Congress is good. Anyone else see a problem with this picture?
Where does the government get the money for this spending? Government actually produces little of value for sale, so, the money either comes through taxes or deficit spending. Business owners know that at some point, that bill will become overdue, so, taxes will be raised for government’s indulgence. Therefore, they cut back, and do not hire. If all they see is the potential for higher costs because of legislation or potential legislation, they cut back, and do not hire. Democrat’s are the people who give you a fish, paid for by someone else.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
Here’s a thought: how about crafting policies and legislation that actually stimulates businesses, particularly white collar and small businesses, which have mostly been ignored, to hire?
You capitalist fantasy-monger, you. ;)