peripat wrote:You mean that money the recipients then spend on food, clothing and the like? i think that money means job creation which benefits everyone, does it not?
Two problems with this, Peripat:
First, if it did not get taken from taxpayers (at gunpoint) it would still be spent. Much of it on job creating things like you mention. Perhaps more efficiently, perhaps less, but it would still be spent.
Second you seem to think I have been railing against welfare payments. I thought I had been clear that I was making no judgement about whether they are a good or bad thing. In fact, since I expected this kind of dishonest response, I have been careful to say over and over that I was not making a judgement on their worthiness.
Some welfare is a good thing, some is not, IMHO. I'll be happy to discuss which is and is not if you like.
All I was trying to do, beginning with student loans, is put the proper name on it.
BTW: If you want to create jobs, would not the best thing be to abolish all income taxes on incomes over $250,000 or so? Let that money go to job creation either via investment or spending. The same thing you point out that happens from welfare but without being filtered through all the layers of bureaucracy.
You might want to read this. It is short and fairly simple to understand. It has stood the test of time, about 150 years worth. Scroll down to 1.6, the Parable of the broken window. It reinforces your point about spending.http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html