Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
So, no jobs would be created if the money was left in the hands of taxpayers, or if there wasn't as much of a drain on the economy by the toll of the national debt?
The same can be said for EVERY government dollar spent, even for social net spending. Somewhere someone is receiving each of those dollars spent for services rendered. Whether it is a 75000 dollar a year engineer, or a 55000 dollar a year social service worker. In fact I highly doubt many minimum wage jobs are going into the production of those 32 planes (maybe if new facilities were needed, but even then with the security clearances probably needed, I imagine they were higher paying construction jobs). Conversely, in social net spending most all of those dollars are going to pay for mid level bureacrat salaries, and local construction, or money right back that gets put right back into the economy in the form of food or housing payments.
Point is just because some good comes from a reckless project (in defense or social net spending) doesn't mean that project has an overall good result.
|
I agree with pretty much everything you said. You guys know me, always looking for the positive spin on something. I guess that's my thought as to why this program has continued to gain funding. It's the way American politics work. Congressman from some state keeps supporting it as long as Widget Y production is kept in their district.
Personally, I believe putting money in the hands of the people is the way to really stimulate the economy. People like me spend money on things -- both necessities and frivilous things to which I pay sales tax and don't go through the effort to find loopholes/etc. Businesses take that money and are typically a bit smarter with it. That is one of the fundamental economic differences we see in this country. Chicken or the egg. Do businesses with money create jobs, or do people with money create the demand for jobs. Personally, I believe the latter, but my economics training is limited at best!