Shored-up jobs or welfare? Either way, we pay.

[Joe Fields]

There is absolutely no reason (other than union busting) why the government can't give GM more time to get their restructure together. It would ultimately be in all of our interest to allow it. If GM is allowed more time to re-structure, then the govt. gives them the bailout they need and jobs, industries and communities throughout America can be saved. If GM files bankruptcy, then all is lost. The amount of jobs lost will be staggering. Companies that set up shop in small towns to supply GM all of the parts it needs to build cars will close their doors. The dome light makers, nuts and bolt manufacturers, windshield wiper blade makers, headlight makers, etc... Many small towns in the U.S. are one industry towns. What happens to small town America when these companies go bankrupt, following GM? What about all of the small towns that have one GM dealership, where potential customers travel fifty or a hundred miles to shop at, because it's the closest available dealership? Will they be closed down, in order to keep the dozens of dealerships in the big cities open for convenience? How many people will end up on welfare? How much will the added swell to the welfare rolls cost taxpayers? Would the govt. rather see us all on welfare, having to pay billions more to dependent Americans, or does it make more sense to shell out the money to keep jobs, even if they are shored up by our tax dollars, so that Americans can keep working and remain productive?

The govt. is going to spend our money, one way or another. Spend it on jobs, or spend it on welfare. To me, it's a no-brainer. What the fuck am I missing?

[Joe Fields]

1. I guess the issue is passe. We've moved on to healthcare.

If we're all on welfare, we won't have to worry about being covered by medical insurance, now will we?

[RadiationTherapy]

2. What's missing is that their jobs and business model are becoming obsolete.

[Warpy]

3. Shored up jobs produce goods and services

while welfare handed out to able bodied workers who aren't single parents raising young children (a "product" that will eventually come of age and join the taxpaying workforce) produces little to nothing unless education is part of the package.

That's the difference, right there.

Paying people to stay out of the workforce is akin to the price support attempts FDR dabbled in for a couple of years before he figured out the problem was wages. Wages won't be supported, talent will go to waste, depression and suicides will climb among the redundant.

Paying people to do jobs rebuilding the shredded infrastructure, repopulate healthcare institutions decimated by cost cutting to maximize profit, and simply paying folks to go out and clean the place up after years of neglect will all provide observable benefits in quality of life.

So no, they're not equivalent, not at all. One produces goods and services. The other produces hopelessness.

[Joe Fields]

4. there is absolutely no equivalence, when discussing productivity,

toll on human emotion and the shredding of our society. I'm saying that the govt. is going to pay through the nose monetarily, either way they choose to go. It's a no-brainer.