Subject:
|
Re: Is it ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:04:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
136 times
|
| |
|
|
If it both saves money in the long run and gets people viable work, I don't
see the problem (except of course that any government program is open to
abuse or expansion beyond all reason). Reduces my taxes, too.
This is a much better use of public funds than sitting around perpetually on
welfare, so I'm interested in where you see the problem.
Oh hey, California passed up France to become the 5th largest economy. No
wonder they hate our wine. ;-)
Bruce
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Occasionally, I am in favour of government intervention in the employment
> market. Despite that, when I read the story below, I thought this was the
> one area where companies and individuals did not need handouts / subsidies.
> Can it really be ~OK~ for government to subsidise profit making industry(?)
> in this way?
>
> The Story:
> California tells jobless 'Go east' and pays for the journey for relocation
> In the Depression years of the 30s, tens of thousands of unemployed left the
> Dust Bowl of America in Oklahoma and its neighbouring states and headed west
> for California in search of work, their plight captured by John Steinbeck in
> The Grapes of Wrath and by the haunting photographs of Dorothea Lange.
>
> But now the impoverished unemployed in California are heading east -
> encouraged by a controversial scheme that gives people on welfare a one-way
> ticket to leave their homes and look for jobs elsewhere.
>
> The rest is here:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4206891,00.html
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
