BUSH ECONOMICS AND BUDGET

Originally posted by flyUnity
I am againts Goverment spending, unaployment, and welfare ect. What this does is promotes laziness

Originally posted by flyUnity
I am againts Goverment spending
Before questioning you more on this, when you say you are against government spending do you mean any
government (local, state, federal) or just federal government?

unaployment (sic) and welfare ect.

I assume you really mean just welfare. I guess almost all of us are against unemployment (by this I mean the case where a member of the labor force is actively searching for a job, but not finding anything).
Ok welfare-
Granted, it does provide some incentive not to work (of course you must be actively searching for a job, but you might shirk a bit on effort).
I have two arguments in favor of it however for you to consider.
First, it reduces inefficiency in allocating labor economy wide. Newly unemployed agents do not find jobs overnight. These unfortunate, though possibly industrious persons, may need some guarenteed minimal consumption while finding a firm that needs their particular skilled labor. In this way, unemployment allows this person to focus on getting a new job in the area in which he/she is most productive and beneficial to the economy. If unemployment were not available, these agents would either:
1) find employment in a job in which they would be less productive to the economy. This would take away from time spent job hunting, extending the period outside skilled employment, and thus exacerbate the inefficiency.
2) agents would already have saved up some wealth in the contingency that they became unemployed for some indefinate period. Naturally, as this would be insurance, risk would be minimized (you wouldn't be investing it in the market!) and so this money would sit in a savings account or a CD at a bank. Banks would loan it out for profit, which may be helpful, but it would generally be better utilized if it were used for consumption or investment.

Second, not having unemployment insurance would create social externalities that employed people would be willing to pay to see removed. Sometimes even diligent search does not immediately yield a job. It can take several months or more even to find a low paying job. During this time bills come due. A lot of people could get thrown out on the street, including children. We may even see an increase in homelessness, begging, and even crime. Even if a very callous person, not persuaded by the human tragedy, surely would pay some small portion of their income to reduce these externalities.

Both arguments are about trade offs. Does the payment to these workers while between productive jobs outweigh the sum of the loss in efficient production from an extended misallocation of skill labor and the cost of the social externality caused from abject poverty?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
In my neverending quest to stir intelligent and lively debate, I bring to you another hot topic of the day.

George Bush released his budget this week. The budget contains deep cuts in domestic spending and freezes all domestic discretionary spending for five years. It also defunds Amtrak, and omits the estimates of money needed for Iraq as well as ...[text shortened]... e cared for, or should they be left to their families?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

This is the same guy who has been running enormous deficits for the last few years, right? $413 billion on the Federal deficit on 2004.

Judge politicians on result, not talk.

Originally posted by steerpike
This is the same guy who has been running enormous deficits for the last few years, right? $413 billion on the Federal deficit on 2004.

Judge politicians on result, not talk.

Judge them thus - if they sink and drown they are innocent, if they float they are guilty, and should be burnt.