Guess I may have a little different slant on this than many.
Wife of 38 years and I have always both worked hard, had a few good breaks, avoided "bad" choices (and debilitating injuries), and have had a pretty good life. We pay quite a bit in taxes, but always seem to have enough left over to live pretty well.
My point goes back to something my dad told me when I first learned about welfare and "the dole"- He said "Yeah, you can live off the guvment, but its not much of a life, more like an 'existence'. Not enough money, and too much time on your hands, feeling sorry for yourself. You'll always do better working hard and making it for yourself." Both our jobs are secure, so I guess as long as we're not reduced to living in poverty, we'll keep on keepin' on, and not begrudge the growing safety net.
We have a substantial portion of the population that would like to work, but can't, due to mental or physical impairment (often caused by "bad choices"- but the choices were made, and not much can be done about it now). More that could work, but don't want to. Those folks used to starve, but we as a country made the policy decision that we would have a "safety net" for the infirm and indolent, and whether we like it or not, that policy certainly isn't going to be changed now. Can you envision Barney Frank EVER voting against a social program?
Actually, the income redistribution by the guvment has performed an important function for the last 10 years or so. By supporting (sort of) the increasing number of non-workers, we have compensated for the fact that there are fewer and fewer people needed to produce the goods and services we need. That, coupled with "consumerism" (convincing people to buy stuff they don't really need, including more house than they can afford), has kept the economy afloat.
But it all changed, in the twinkling of an eye, last fall. The folks who were buying the consumer stuff suddenly lost $100,000 or more from their retirement funds, and they were astute enough to come to two conclusions pretty much instantly: 1, I'm gonna have to work for far longer than I planned, because my nest egg just flew away, and 2, I've gotta quit buying this consumer junk and start salting money away again. Once an ant, always an ant.
The porkulus program will not create very many jobs, at least not permanently. Most of it is an income transfer to keep the masses from revolting in the streets. With lots of money flowing around, most folks will be able to maintain the status quo and will anxiously await the end of the recession/ depression.
I still don't see how we'll get out of this mess- because so many jobs lost were for making stuff that the folks with money are no longer going to buy (how many new car buyers actually NEEDED that new car?). I think the economists may not be nearly as stupid as they have seemed of late, and are trying hard to tread a fine line between saying what they really believe, vs. causing panic in the streets.
Hang on, its gonna be a rocky ride.
