Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
So every single goverment invested job is not contributing to the economy? Police, Fire department, Teachers, Road maintenance for starters? I know there's several economical ineffient subsided jobs, but all of them? Hardly.

I suspect more of those tariffs, when the efficient jobs start to drop below the number of people needed to be employed. It is this fear it plays on.
I was speaking about when politicians pass some spending bill and say it will 'create jobs' in the economy, not government service jobs.

Incentive wise, you would also encurage people to maintain a very large cash reserve in case they get unemployed. Which economic system maintains that having large money reserves are bad for the economy, since it is not spent and consumption is the driving force?
Indeed, it would encourage savings. And it is the failed Keynesian theory that says savings are bad. But we can see from the housing crash that more savings and less wild spending would have been very good. Savings are the foundation of a sound economy.

That was the real miss of the bailout. If you use it to save the (banking) system, then you also want to make sure that the original risktakers is punished.
I suppose we agree again.

Since you implied having relative poverty yourself, do you pay federal income taxes? You have to, otherwise you're one of "those people". And linking it to your new voting suggestions, you claim that those people are few, yet they are enough to dominate the politics... The simple reason is that people won't support balancing the budget until they do, and for many people this is done only by necceccity, after the fact. That has very little to do with economical class by the way.
No. I paid federal taxes (not income taxes though). Even if I hadn't, I wouldn't be one of 'those people' because I didn't get any unemployment benefits or the like from the government. And a group can be relatively small and still swing support to give one party the lead over the other.

And how is this maintained? Loosing your job meaning loss of voting rights? Farmers, who are partially subsided to be a strategical food reserve, is going to be rewarded by loss of voting? Working for the goverment is a loss of voting?
No, loosing your job doesn't mean loosing the vote unless you have no savings and run to the government for money. And subsidizing farmers is bad for the economy, while keeping third world farmers (who could produce food cheaper if not for first world subsidies) in grinding poverty (not to mention we'll never lose all farmers in the US).

Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them?
No, Senators can not be trusted to look after the interests of their state instead of the federal government.

CR