I think you might be surprised. Yes, there will always be the "how much can I get for how little effort" group - but I don't think they're as large as some others think.

Yeah, I'm cynically optimistic.


>Even shoveling holes and filling them up again would be better than current way of help, as this:
>
>"Meanwhile, what economists call the substitution or price effects of stimulus spending are negative for all parties. In other words, the transfer recipient has found a way to get paid without working, which makes not working more attractive, and the transfer payer gets paid less for working, again lowering incentives to work."
>
>But then there will be court action that this is not PC, coupled with more demands for gov to hand out base living money for free.
>
>
>
>>Perhaps we should bring back the Works Projects. Get the infrastructure fixed, get people working. Worked in the 30's.
>>
>>
>>>Mr. Laffer plays very nice in this article. I'm not so kind.
>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537244225685010.html
>>>
>>>We already knew all of this. We pointed it out ad nauseum. We have empirical historical evidence behind us, yet there are still those who "believe" government "stimulus" spending actually stimulates. It doesn't. Once again the results are clear.
>>>
>>>The Krugman's, Reich's and Geithner's of the world cannot be forgiven because they are informed and educated enough to know this yet they repeatedly insist on ever-more spending. Knowingly advocating a plan guaranteed to destroy the capital output of a nation while stifling economic growth and burdening future generations with paying the bill is maliciously evil.
>>>
>>>Those who may not be so well informed, I do not consider evil, just ignorant. However, ignorance is not an excuse. They have minds and it's high time they step away from the "stimulating" rhetoric and embrace reality. They've now seen the result first hand, not merely as boring economic history. If first hand observation doesn't move their position then they are too trapped in their idology to be taken seriously and are part of the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>Policy makers in Washington and other capitals around the world are debating whether to implement another round of stimulus spending to combat high unemployment and sputtering growth rates. But before they leap, they should take a good hard look at how that worked the first time around.
>>>
>>>It worked miserably, as indicated by the table nearby, which shows increases in government spending from 2007 to 2009 and subsequent changes in GDP growth rates. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, those with the largest spending spurts from 2007 to 2009 saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus.
>>>
>>>The four nations—Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic and Finland—with the biggest stimulus programs had the steepest declines in growth. The United States was no different, with greater spending (up 7.3%) followed by far lower growth rates (down 8.4%).
>>>...
>>>Sorry, Keynesians. There was no discernible two or three dollar multiplier effect from every dollar the government spent and borrowed. In reality, every dollar of public-sector spending on stimulus simply wiped out a dollar of private investment and output, resulting in an overall decline in GDP. This is an even more astonishing result because government spending is counted in official GDP numbers. In other words, the spending was more like a valium for lethargic economies than a stimulant.
>>>
>>>In many countries, an economic downturn, no matter how it's caused or the degree of change in the rate of growth, will trigger increases in public spending and therefore the appearance of a negative relationship between stimulus spending and economic growth. That is why the table focuses on changes in the rate of GDP growth, which helps isolate the effects of additional spending.
>>>