What Slumdog Millionaire can teach us about economic stimulus

[WestSkier11]

New Zealand is a great, great example of a heavily socialistic country becoming one of the freest market economies in the world.

[CripplingDuality]

Any true libertarian ought to be profoundly disgusted with Indian cops. They are sadistic, corrupt, powermad bullies.

[apothecarynngfkt]

that good watch?v=R02tbrZSO3I

[eviloprah]

I understand Reasons point here and like many of your videos. Comparing INDIA to AMERICA is like comparing pineapples and motor oil.

Deregulating the US anymore than it already is would be disaster until corportations are dismantled from their current state.

[thomaserossi]

@eviloprah - "until corporations are dismantled" Spoken like a true Liberal Fascist. According to you, tearing down the businesses that provide a million people with jobs is considered a great economic boon. BTW, Liberal Fascists were Fabian Socialists. But you wouldn't know this either unless I told you. Also, if you watch the video again the woman speaking about India is the one that brought up Fabian Socialism. Not that you know any of this. Instead, you come here with BS analogies.

[GinsingSullivan]

Voluntaryist radio! FreeTalkLive. com

[samuils]

Same thing is going on In Ex. USSR republics, but in USA eeeeh :(

[samuils]

Hey ppl , this level of buracrasy is in USA already, I dare any1 of you to go and try to open a hot dog stand in your city , let me know the results.

[chekchamon]

Tis only a matter of time 'til India makes a 'Millionaire' movie about the West.

[smano555]

Excellent video

you have hit the right chord !

[Trollmaster21]

There's a huge difference between getting rid of regulation as described above that get in the way of prosperity for the common man and not regulating anything for the super rich and pretend to be blind to the fact that they won't rig the game to make huge windfall profits while 95% of the population suffers as a direct result.

[wadams19]

the reason some capitalists extort monopoly rent (rigging the game) is because of government involvement in the economy.

[Mastikator]

And "regulation" doesn't need to be imposed by a government. Journalists, for example, are regulated by the free market of the press by being black balled if they lie.

Regulation is so vital and important that you just can't entrust government with it.

Isn't it time for you and I to grow up and stop depending on big brother?

[Trollmaster21]

Well the current economy and deregulation under the Bush admin is crystal clear proof that you're wrong.  If what you said worked, then the economy would be booming right now instead of being on the verge of a depression.

To let the private sector regulate itself is letting the fox guard the hen house. Again these past few years proves this.

[Mastikator]

The housing bubble was directly caused by Bush's regulations (which were put in place to make it easier for everyone to own their own home).

Using the government for noble goals always results in disaster. I think the world would be better off without governemnt alltogether.

Without government there wouldn't be any anti-gay marriage laws, or anti-marijuana laws. Or patriot act. etc Just like without cancer there wouldn't be the symptoms of cancer.

[BloodiCheeseCake]

there's a problem with that. deregulation does not cause economic failure or depression. In any free market economy, it's natural that there are depressions but they are only short term(2-5 years), but overall, in the long term(10+ years), you see financial growth in almost all sectors assuming many practices are always deregulated.

You can't always expect there to be constant economic growth in any free market economy.

[Trollmaster21]

Bush's deregulation was just a license for white collar criminals to plunder and screw things up. There has and will always be super rich people that will buy off the government to rig the rules to get more money put in their own pockets, and screw the rest of us over. There does need to be rules to make sure they can't abuse their power. It's simply naive to give them free reign and have blind faith they won't screw things up.

[BloodiCheeseCake]

actually, under Bush, the market had more regulation than before. Deregulation makes it easier for free markets to grow. I do agree that some corporations lobby the government to do some of their bidding, in fact, that's why there should be less government power over the free market in the first place..

[Trollmaster21]

And what is the answer to corporations lobbying politicians to do things that benefit only the rich and powerful, while bleeding the rest of us dry?

I respect the libertarian thinking type, (which Reason TV seems to be) but there are some respectful disagreements I have with them based upon recent events regarding to what I call corporate tyranny, which is different from capitalism.

[BloodiCheeseCake]

Hey, as a libertarian and as a person who approves of free market capitalism and corporations and such, i agree there is corporate tyranny. But i believe this tyranny is the result of companies paying politicians to do their bidding. I just think the only way to prevent lobbying is by giving politicians less power than they're granted now, so that there is equality between companies and individuals, regardless of how much money they have.

[BloodiCheeseCake]

but i respect your opinion. It's good to have some debate without resulting in petty arguments. We both have some different views but hopefully we can share the same views on social issues than on economic ones.

[Trollmaster21]

respect to you too bro. There's those (like most Republicans) I can't stand, and there's people like you whom i respectfully disagree with, and welcome an honest debate among patriots.

And I'm sure we agree on a lot, anti gun control, anti US world police type stuff, and reform of the failed drug war.

And I thought lots of what Ron Paul said was totally right on, and would have welcomed and supported him as president, despite some disagreements.

[TresobYr]

I love that "liberal" economics in India means the opposite of "liberal" economics in the States.

America needs to be more liberal in the Indian sense.

[iorbit]

I think it's just in America that "liberal" means more state power.

[DSAhmed]

In America, we are presented with 2 choices (as if that's all that exists in the world) and we label it "Liberal" or "Conservative" but in reality, its a choice between Socialist or Fascist.

[TresobYr]

I wonder why there's an "or" between socialism and fascism, considering that the role models of fascism goose-stepped under the banner of socialism...

[MtnDwarf2]

If your hypothesis was true then a completely unregulated banking system would invariably fall apart into total madness and irational exuberance. Luckily we have a example of a completely free banking system in scotland. This system did not even have a centralized printer of money and yet it worked much more efficienty then our current system ever did. So your statement is totally incorrect. To learn about scotlands free banking I suggest you check out Econ Talk titled slelgin on free bankin

[MtnDwarf2]

Just because you repeat something over and over again does not make it true. We do not have anything near an unregulated banking and financial system. The bubble was created from the excessive amount of sub-prime mortgatges purchased by the quasi-government entities fanny and freddie, the CRA putting pressure on banks from the front end and the extremely cheap money put in circulation by the federal reserve.

[Dusual]

A unregulated system leads to spirals of growth that actually are non existent

[Dusual]

As much as I love the fact that slumdog became a success i think this commentary is a bit exaggerated , For one after the reforms the boom helped some sectors of the economy but our manufacturing suffered . A lot of our brands were bought by multinational companies.Indian companies today are competing with multinationals but a lot of such large projects came with public private partnership . And this is what works for developing economies .

[MtnDwarf2]

The position that our manufactering has suffered is false. Our manufactering sector has doubled since the seventies. The amount of jobs available in manufactering has lessened. The reason for this is we are mechanizing manufactering in the same way that we mechanized agriculture. This is all good because production has increased which is actually the only real measure of a strong economy.

[hellnowewont]

Government is regulating the things that shouldn't be regulated and not regulating the things that should be regulated.

Federal Reserve, the single most powerful private organization that has greater power over economy than Congress or President, is what should be regulated and yet there is absolutely no transparency.

Demand Congress to pass HR 1207 the Federal Reserve Transparency Act!!!!

[beatle234]

damn indian!!! frucking annoying ass accent!!! i swear indians have the most annoying accents!!!

[aaronbreault]

....I thought hers was kinda attractive.

[AcidTrout]

LMAO! I agree : )

[ajayc78]

I would like to hear you speak an indian language and comment about the accent :)

[NeonKnight88]

Democracy is mob rule. And there are not even any democracies in the world. Large numbers of the population are prevented from voting, most of those eligible do not vote at all, and most that do vote arent voting for an agenda but rather for the "lesser of two evils", against the other agenda. So it might be less than ~5% of a country's population which agrees with the current dumbfuck political agenda.

[bighitter42]

Switzerland is about the only case of a true democracy actually working.

[stick1to2the3issue]

touche.

[kittyprydekissme]

I like seeing a video that points out that Bush did NOT deregulate anything, and that his administration presided over a HUGE increase in Government control of the economy. I wish more people would get that message out there. It drives me insane when people on TV complain about Bush's 'laissez faire' policies causing current economic problems. It really shows how stereotypes of Right-Wing Republicans completely override reality in people's minds.

[freesk8]

Right on!

Great video.

[WarDogLRS]

You fuckers that passed up Dr Paul just signed our death warrant four the next 4 long years.

But they dont care they dont know who Obama is for that Matter You all make sick that voted for another fake

[stick1to2the3issue]

Dr. Paul is a market anarchist. Don't get me wrong I appreciate free markets like him, but I disagree with him totally on monetary policy. Markets need liquidity to prevent the devastating effects of bank runs. I don't buy into the evil federal reserve conspiracy. Yes they have acted incompetently, but the option of not having them is worse.

[KcKommunistisch]

Its short-term narrowminded socialism vs. long-term economic growth.

Always has, and always will be. The sooner Americans realize, the quicker we can get back on our feet, like East Asia has.

[DillonX]

The main thing that helped India was the outsourcing of jobs from the USA (& more than a dozen other countries).

Why pay a USA worker $15 an hour when you can get someone in India for $1 per hr.

When I have a problem on my telephone or cable bill I talk to someone in India.

Private Enterprize is booming in India due to this modern day technology.

I understand in the near future when you order food at McDonald's or other fast-food places, you'll be talking to someone in India.

[P3rf3ctStorm]

Don't forget about the H1-B visa program too. Which imported tens of thousands of foreign workers to replace (and hence displace) their American worker counterparts. Microsoft, IBM, and many notable others have utilized this practice for years now to "reduce costs".

[hoomelemele]

wonderful video, when we reach the state of poverty in India maybe we will figure it out too.

[P3rf3ctStorm]

Perhaps in a year or so?

[82abhilash]

I like this. I really do. Indian civil is becoming a real part of American mainstream thinking in a sensible way. Not in the voodoo, dum dum way that geographically illiterate Americans people are accustomed to thinking about India. Boy, I my American friends have asked me very strange questions about India. I was wondering where they where getting their info from. Finally I found out....

[82abhilash]

..... let us just say that the people who try to push creationism on to the American school system have a lot in common with those who misinform Americans about India.

[truthadvocate]

82abhilash, Freedom improves the lives of people. The only way to achieve true freedom is by limiting the size of government. It's a struggle that has existed since ancient Greece. As far as the Creationism comment... religion has nothing to do with this topic or this video, and your tactic is frankly pitiful. I'm an atheist. And the same common sense principals that lead me to atheism, led me to denounce your type of thinking. Your faith in government virtue is a religion based on lies.

[82abhilash]

I totally agree with you politics wise. Let me clarify what I meant. You know that well funded lobby groups with religious agendas have negatively influenced the opinions of the public towards evolution in the US. What I am claiming is that there are similar groups shaping the opinions about India in the US as well. I cannot say they are outright lying. Nay it is sophisticated sophistry. A mess that is difficult to decipher from here. I just thought I would sensitize people to that fact.

[truthadvocate]

Ah, I totally misinterpreted you. Thank you for clarifying.

[82abhilash]

I consider myself an atheist too. FYI.

[82abhilash]

I also have no faith in the virtue of government. FYI.

[rambo26]

India could do with even more economic freedom

Let's hope they choose the right path!

[iheartnobody]

Gah rational Indian women are so hot.

[TainaAtheist1]

And "they" say human beings cannot eradicate poverty! If only Ghandi could come back from the dead ...

.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

excellent video, brilliant

[SureHowDoYouKnow]

This is one of the best, most informative, and most useful things I have ever seen on Youtube. Thank you!

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

Yes, India's economy is doing fabulous... at the expense of the U.S. economy.

Our greedy execs have sent some many U.S. jobs there precisely because of the deregulated, lower wage atmosphere the text to the right there wants us to celebrate. If the type of economy that we see in India-- hardly a major world economic power-- and its effect on the U.S. job market is supposed to be a model for us to emulate and celebrate... well, I weep for the 21st century.

We used to aim higher.

[Gavinthorp]

If we had similar deregulation, wouldn't that mean those greedy execs wouldn't have to outsource their jobs to other countries like India, and we could get some of those jobs back.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

To Gavinthorp-

No, it wouldn't mean that. We've seen now what good comes here from deregulation. Both businesses and individuals acting as if there are no rules.

Another example... tax cuts. Bush defended his cuts saying it'd make businesses hire more etc. Instead, companies laid off more than ever and slashed benefits and cut hours in recent years (pre-recession even), and just increased their own top-level profits.

The idea that execs care about workers or the lower economy is naive.

[TracyII77]

Bush also lowered interest rates, as a means of back door taxes, and expanded regulations. Both of those actions were anti free market. Bush only paid lip service to the free market, while upholding Keynsian socialist principles, just like his father who said, "Read my lips. No new taxes."

The idea that politicians care about workers or the lower economy is naive.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

The idea that George W. Bush-- ignoring that he spent his last year bailing out his failed comrades on Wall Street-- was somehow not friendly enough to conservative economic policies is insane. The people who believe this probably buy the myth that Reagan was some conservative hero too.

There's no such thing as a free market. A market, by definition, is a construct of the society that created it, and is subject to the norms and rules of said society. It is supposed to serve society's needs.

[TracyII77]

Bush ADDED to regulation. Bush lowered interest rates in order to prop up housing prices. How this is not government intervention is beyond me. A market is not by definition a construct of society. It is the term used to describe the buying and selling between various individuals in a society. With or without rules, it exists. To say that the market is supposed to serve society's needs, is like saying the ocean is supposed to ship products across its waters. W/or w/out ships, it exists.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

The idea that the housing bubble was a result of too MUCH government interference, rather than two little (even the McCain/Palin crew agreed on that much), is a leap from reality. The housing bubble was not only Wall Street's ultimate free-market triumph (this decade, anyway), it was also the underpinning for Bush's 'ownership society'... the key domestic achievement celebrated at the 2004 GOP convention.

Very convenient of conservatives to launch him to two terms, then disown when he fails.

[TracyII77]

You obviously have not studied credit markets. The government purposely lowered interest rates to encourage people to spend money. It was specifically directed at the housing market, pushing housing prices further up. At no point did the government create any new buyers or did they make housing more affordable (in principle payments) to those who currently rent (such as myself). Even now people are more concerened about not profiting as much on their houses, and less about the fact

[TracyII77]

my generation was increasing becoming less able to afford to buy a house. Many of the foreclosures on the market now, are new homes in markets w/declining populations, house flips and rental properties (nonprimary residences), and remortgages based on the inflated prices. At the end of the day, you can keep adding 0's to our paper money, but that doesn't change the number of buyers and products on the market. But this was lost on Bush.

[TracyII77]

You see you can prop up housing prices, and prop up wages (your better wages) and prop up every other price and cost. You can just keep adding 0's at the end, but it means nothing. Unless productivity is allowed to increase, there is no increase in wealth. With increased wealth, prices naturally drop w/out loss in profit, meaning MORE people are able to acquire the wealth. You see money means NOTHING with nothing to buy and noone to buy it.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

Lowering interest rates to encourage people to spend more money sounds like GOP economics to me... after all, it's basically the same general defense for tax cuts.

And yes, the government did create new buyers for homes. Through deregulation (etc), they helped create an anything-goes financial market, which lead to banks giving out mortgages and loans to people who couldn't afford them (and then repackaged them for profit). when a better system of regulations and checks would've curbed this.

[texichan]

Actually, that's not true. It was not deregulation that created this anything-goes problem. It was a government effort to reach out to those with lower incomes - so that they could purchase houses - which was an INCREASE in regulation. They regulated banks and the financial sector to force them to accept those with sub-par credit - in the name of good. It just ended up very poorly. It was in no shape, way, or form the cause of deregulation.

[TracyII77]

You keep spouting that it is deregulation. So please enlighten me with these deregulations. What specifically was deregulated? Which regulations were eliminated? Or are you just spouting propoganda.

You seem to have such a vitriole hatred of the GOP that you don't even realize that this is a Libertarian channel and you are talking to a Libertarian. Yes, Bush screwed our economy, through inflation NOT deregulation. Get your facts straight.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

The idea that what we've had in the financial markets, etc, in the last decade or so is a case of too MUCH regulation, rather than the vice versa, is just not something that seems compatible to me with reality.

[jcastillo81]

Government: Hey, Mortgage Lender, we're going to change the rules so you can lend to people who normally wouldn't be able to afford houses.

Lender: But, that would put us at great risk. What do we do when people realize they can't afford our loans?

Government: *wink wink nudge nudge*

Jeremy, this is not "deregulation". I suggest you watch some of Stefbot's "true news" series. I think you will start to see things differently.

[TracyII77]

That is because you have been taught that business and government are on seperate ends of the power spectrum, when in reality, businesses use the government to achieve their unchecked power. When my former company bid on a government contract, we had to follow regulations that were written by larger businesses.  They would actually refer to internal documents of the larger company, thereby making it near impossible for a competitor to meet the requirements.

[TracyII77]

Regulations are written in one of two ways. Either by politicians who are not familiar with the industry in question, making gross assumptions which are frequently flawed. The second method recruits experts from a given industry, i.e. "industry insiders". Where do these experts come from? The very companies they are trying to regulate. This is a gross conflict of interest. The idea that there exist people who are both knowledgeable and have no self-interest is naive.

[okgamecock]

Sarbanes-Oxley. The Fannie-Freddie-community reinvestment-Countrywide cronies? TSA? Not regulatory enough for you?

You keep on believing Lou Dobbs, Jim Cramer, and Barry.

And give me some of what you're smoking. Disregard that. Smoke free for 33 of my 33 years on earth, so I'll pass. But I do support your right to light it up. Good luck wit dat' yo.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

I do not smoke weed, but thank you for immature and hysterical response. Very informative.

[MooseOfReason]

Jeremy, You should know better.

The Federal Reserve is in charge of the interest rate and the money supply. They can increase or - as they've been doing recently - decrease the interest rate whenever they want. The housing bubble would not have gotten so big without the Fed inflating it through reckless monetary policy.

Housing prices need to come down, rather than the government print trillions of dollars trying to keep the prices artificially high.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

Water exists in nature. Air exists in nature. Etc.

A market does not exist in nature.

It is a construct of society... the buying and selling between individuals is a construct of society (birds don't have a market, for instance). It exists within the norms and rules we establish for it, and these vary between societies, cultures, countries. It is not some magical, pure thing.

As long as the GOP comes off as a party that cares more about magic markets than actual people, they're in trouble.

[TracyII77]

So we hould stay rich and India poor? God forbid that anyone else has an opportunity to work and to feed themselves. No we should continue our protectionist policies, keep 3rd world countries poor, and pay them only charity in return for political and military favors. And as Gavinthorp mentioned below, you've already stated how we can be competative and get those jobs back. What in the stimulus package does any of that?

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

If India getting richer means we get poorer, then yes I absolutely disagree with that. Do a nationwide survey on that too... I think you'll find the vast majority would agree, particularly the growing # of unemployed.

Why can't India pull itself up by its own bootstraps? Why should they rely on our handouts? WINK!

We need to take care of our country's problems-- creating new industries, fix healthcare etc-- and stop sending jobs to some countries while becoming a debtor nation to others.

[TracyII77]

"Why can't India pull itself up by its own bootstraps? Why should they rely on our handouts?"

How is this NOT India pulling itself up by its bootstraps? What handouts? You mean because India is doing a better job cheaper, they are somehow relying on handouts?  How is doing a better job instead of just accepting more foreign aide, handouts?

"and stop sending jobs to some countries while becoming a debtor nation to others."

So deregulate and cut taxes!

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

A country is not pulling itself up by its bootstraps if its economy is dependent on outsourced jobs from countries like the U.S. or U.K. (etc)... jobs that were outsourced because they know Indians will work harder for less pay. Americans expect better, you see, and that's bad for business.

PS- I can't begin in this limited space to explain how wrong it is to insist that deregulating and cutting taxes will make us LESS of a debtor nation.

[TracyII77]

So is it wrong for managers of pro ball teams to let go of their aging players for those with better stats? No. Those aging players deserve job security. Did you ever stop to ask why Indian laborers are cheaper? Here we are driving up the cost of capital goods and bailing out companies so prices won't deflate, thereby disallowing the average American to afford to live on cheaper wages. We can't compete, because our government won't let us compete.

Don't diss India for OUR failures.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

The goal should NOT be to create conditions that make it easier for Americans to live on the increasingly low wages they receive. The goal should be to get Americans more jobs and better wages, and to create an environment-- better health-care etc-- where we can live comfortably.

I assure you if you ran for office on the platform you espouse (in which humans beings and their work are dismissed as a commodity), there might only be two districts in the entire country where you'd have a shot.

[TracyII77]

I'm not trying to run on a popularity contest on false promises.

[zo1dberg]

Jeremy, I don't get it, can you seriously look at yourself in the mirror, and tell yourself that government regulation and high taxes are good your country? Do you seriously trust your government to make the correct decisions in regards to red tape and spending other people's money? Because it seems to me that this is what you advocate.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

I believe we live in a complicated society with many needs, and I see economic libertarianism (I am a social libertarian, however) as anarchy.

We've seen how businesses behave when there is no check on them (Enron, the housing bubble scam, savings and loans in 80s, etc). Believing in self-regulation takes a naive view of what motivates businesses.

In recent decades, top salaries increased by thousands of %s while base wages have remained stagnant. This is not good for America or capitalism.

[TracyII77]

This is also due to government policies. Thank to the various retirement schemes produced by the government, people have been encouraged and directed to put their money into retirement accounts which are usually money market funds with which we have no voting power over the stocks. This means that large corporations have been given large amounts of money with noone to object to how they spend it. When was the last time you excersized a proxy vote on your 401k?

[okgamecock]

And what of the THOUSANDS of unchecked businesses that do things correctly. See Tracyll77's posts above on regulatory capture.

[zo1dberg]

"Believing in self-regulation takes a naive view of what motivates businesses"

And if these businesses wish to shoot themselves in the foot or pay their execs stupid amounts of money, what business is that of yours? Such a perverse concern is something that a government should not have.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

It's a business of mine what businesses do because a) they control our economy, and thus directly affect our lives and communities, and b) I, and you, and every other taxpaying American have been asked in the last year or so to bail out their failures-- to the tune of almost $1 trillion-- while they continue to behave irresponsibility and lavish millions on themselves with my money.

So yea, it is all of our business.

This is a democracy, not a corporate oligarchy.

[zo1dberg]

(a) they only have that much influence on the economy because government has such an influence. Ever notice that the size of the big corporations grows with the size of government?

(b) Absolutely no argument there - except for one thing, i'm Australian, not American :) It's complete insanity and so unfair.

[zo1dberg]

"This is a democracy" - what a joke, you call this a democracy? Democracy to me every day is looking more like a farce. I'd like to one day see a democracy where our elected officials are not household names where they don't hold the whole country in which you live in at the mercy of their whims and desires of them and their lobby groups.

[stick1to2the3issue]

I totally agree. I reject the notion that democracy is something to aspire to. History and human nature proves that democracy is only delayed socialism, which is delayed totalitarianism. Once people figure out that they can vote based on who will give them an advantage over others, democracy is over. Thats why America will regret its departure from the least bad form of government, a constituional republic.

[stick1to2the3issue]

I agree. If you add up all the income of all the major execs in America it doesn't even make a splash in the grand scheme of things.

To your point about businesses not being allowed to fail (shoot themselves in the foot), people need to understand that for markets to function, people need to learn. You only learn through failure. If your not allowed to fail, there is no penalty for recklessness.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

As for taxes, well they pay for police, firefighters, parks, schools, public assistance, etc. All good things. I want the private sector to run stores and restaurants, not the parks or fire department.

I'm less concerned w how much I pay, and more concerned that the $ goes to worthy places (instead of military or other pork).

The problem is too many people take what we got from the New Deal for granted. I've yet to hear, for instance, of libertarians refusing their unemployment benefits.

[okgamecock]

Hmm... technically I could've taken unemployment for 2 weeks in 2007, while I was in transition between jobs. But I didn't need it- I had more than enough money saved in preparation. Novel idea.

[JeremyTheBlueDuck]

Please go give that lecture to the countless thousands (growing every second) of unemployed.

My friend was unemployed last year for nine months, at which point he had to leave his apartment (crashing with various friends), and was also hospitalized for kidney failure. His unemployment benefits were the only thing that kept him from going completely bankrupt or homeless.

But wow, I'm sure glad you made it through these two whole weeks without any problems. Phew.

[conorhennessey]

You do know that your unemployment benefits come out of your paycheck right? No free lunch....

[okgamecock]

Yes. I know this. But it is not like the money is going into a trust or account reserved for me. It goes directly into the budget, and is spent immediately. Thus, it's taken out of my paycheck, but not for me.

If I draw unemployment, it's taken from someone else's tax dollars.

[okgamecock]

Seems to me that the unemployment benefits worked out for your friend, as designed. Furthermore, his ability to "crash with various friends" is another example of the private sector responding more effectively than the gov't. Lastly on that point, what does the kidney failure have to do with it?

I want the unemployed to get back to work. But, this "stimulus" will not get them back to work. And I will gladly tell them that.

[zo1dberg]

Funny that you mention parks - do you think that if you had a concerned individual who owned parks, they'd wouldn't take care of it?

Too me that's just plain ignorance.  Take Steve Irwin as an example - he spent as much money as he could to buy land.

"I've yet to hear, for instance, of libertarians refusing their unemployment benefits" - well, it would be the sensible thing to do if you were unemployed, wouldn't it be?

[isin17123]

Very Interesting.

[legendre007]

Interesting.