Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I am not sure of the relationship between my post and this post, actually. I just think that giving a person an actual JOB is much more uplifting, and will have a better long-term impact on their attitudes and contribution to society, than telling a person "you're entitled to help from the government but we're going to make you do work to get it (unless you can come up with an excuse)".
I bet a lot of people on these boards had one or more grandparents that were employed by the government during the Depression. DODO aside, does anyone really question that these programs had an overall positive impact on the country? Does anyone really think that in a time of over 10% real unemployment and record low interest rates, it would be a bad idea for the government to hire some people to fix up some of our crumbling infrastructure? Even if it (*gasp*) increases the deficit?
Good post.
I was agreeing with you that labeling/compartmentalizing programs is an important part of garnering support. Unemployment insurance has typically been better received by conservatives because it's been societally set up as a temporary means of getting back on your feet, and getting you from one job to another. The SCOTUS intentionally framed UI to be distinct from welfare programs (where people are on it more long-term) to make sure it didn't get stigmatized like welfare in general does. In actuality UI is government aid and people don't necessarily like to consider it such. I think that giving someone a "job" rather than "work to receive aid" it would be better received.