Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Now, I was reading an article in the Post yesterday.
Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, said
quote,
"Workers are less likely to look for work
or accept less than ideal jobs
as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed.
That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment or that unemployed
people are lazy,
but it is simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as the
check is coming in."
Boy, that almost takes your breath away, Mister President.
That we have people like this in high places
that are setting economic policy or trying to set economic policy.
"As long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed." What does he mean?
You've got to starve? You've
got to go out on the street corner here, hat in hand?
Give up their homes, put the furniture out on the street,
send their kids to the orphanage?
Is that what Mister Tanner means, "the full consequences of being unemployed?"
Maybe starving?
Can't get enough
to even eat?
What's he talking about, "the full consequences?" When there are eight people looking for every job.
He says, by extending unemployment benefits, that makes people less inclined to look for
work.
You wonder where people like this come from. Where did they ever go to school, what did they ever learn in
their lifetime? Or are they just so,
so
uncaring
about their fellow human beings
that they just say
let it happen. Whatever happens, let it happen and the government can't do anything to help.