Ever wonder why the stimulus package isn't working?Follow

But each link carries less stress than the single link would. And a chain fails as soon as any link breaks. So having five links with 20% stress each is far better than one link with 100% stress.

It's funny to me that you say that we are not the responsibility of the government, and in the same paragraph you advocate giving the kids to the state to raise instead of helping the mother raise them.

My toilet broke the other day.

Varrus, the liberal position isn't that success is entirely due to fortune - it's very obviously a mix of the two. If any disagreement exists it's to what degree chance (factors outside the individual's control) affects financial success.

Has it been established that the stimulus package is not, in fact, working?

That's what Rush told me, yes.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, or if you just didn't get the analogy. If you reduce the number of links and increase the total load, then each link is bearing *more* load than it did before. This is analogous to the concept that as we provide government assistance to each individual who isn't able to pull his own weight, we increase the amount of "weight" on everyone else. Kinda obvious, so I'm not sure how you're somehow getting it exactly backwards.

When we remove your "load" of having to provide for your own food and housing, we do so by increasing the load on everyone else. Thus, to go back to the chain analogy, the remaining links are now under more load than they would have been otherwise.



Yes. Which is where I said that this analogy breaks down. In an economy, if one person fails financially, it doesn't bring everyone else crashing down as well. Only when the weight of the necessary costs of living for everyone become to great does the whole thing collapse. Which is basically what the Left is doing. As each person "fails", instead of either letting them deal with their failure on their own, or helping them to succeed, they instead remove them from the support side of the economy to the "weight" side. Which makes it harder on everyone else.





Yes. And it's the Liberal policies which produce the latter condition. It's funny that you get this instinctively, but can't seem to apply it to actual economic policy. What do you think we're doing when we place someone who is "poor" on welfare? We're decreasing the links carrying weight and increasing the weight the rest are carrying. As you say, it's better to have 5 people each carrying 20% of the cost, then have 4 of them decide to go on welfare and leave the last person to provide for all of them.


It's the policies you support which do exactly what you say is bad. Strange that you can't see this though...

If you're going to use that kind of analogy, a link wouldn't be a single person but a demographic segment, at which point the chain does fail.

Yes, the foster care system would be substantially worse than a stable home with a parent who loves him or her.

Gbaji apparently thinks that everyone on welfare is one welfare forever.

It's a trap!

It wasn't my analogy. I responded to Elinda's use of the analogy. She was pretty clearly speaking of "people" falling through the cracks, not being cared for, allowed to be uneducated and homeless and whatnot. Personally, I didn't buy her analogy at all, but was trying to make it actually work in some way.


No. A society is pretty much in no way like a chain. Now, a bushel of apples... ;)