And what if, after that long night of ...., you decide you REALLY NEED that mocha latte to get you started before the big presentation, so you walk across the street to the coffee bar..... AND GOT HIT BY A BUS? What then?

Your example is ridiculous. If one truly had a meeting that could earn him ANOTHER BMW, would staying out all night ..... be the way to prepare? It is a bit like saying, "What if I don't go out tonight, get drunk, buy a hooker, and get her pregnant? If I don't, I might never have a son to grow up to be president!"

(PS. If you were being funny, nice job. It was so subtle I really didn't catch it. Please ignore my above post if that was the case.)

 

That's a silly argument. The economy is helped when there is productivity vs. giving people money with no productivity.

You mention fuel, so the fueler is paid for his time at work and his employer is paid for a service and makes a profit. (The economy is helped) The fuel company then pays its provider and the provider makes a profit. (The economy is helped) The employee who was paid then goes out and uses his earnings to shop at Walmart (++) ....and so on. It is all a big cycle and it stops when people stop being productive. That is exactly why Welfare/Unemployment/Social Security are complete shams.

I have an uncle who has a wrist problem. He collects social security benefits and doesn't work. There are hundreds of thousands of these people out there. I don't care if you are in a wheelchair, missing an arm or homeless, get out and get a freakin job. Walmart is always hiring greeters and as far as I know, all you have to do to be qualified is sit on a bench and read a magazine.

 

It was a weak and ridiculous point, to the point of being laughable, but, I only had a BMW and a cup of coffee to work with, based on the example that was already used. Staying out all night was beside the point. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying that a program like EAS is bringing financial benefit, that, most likely, exceeds what is being expended on it. Maybe this is a little more clear: Look at the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis. The economic impact of the collapse was estimated at $60 million+. So, not replacing the bridge would have been the most financially conservative approach to the situation. But, the new bridge, based upon the estimated economic impact the collapsed bridge had, has almost paid for itself by now, through the economic benefit it provides. Was that considered a waste of federal money? Obviously, not maintaining it was considered the most "conservative" option. The conservative option, ironically, ended up being the most costly.

 

There, fify