Did you even read the article?
(Excerpt) Like all liberals and most Democrats, she believes in the lunatic concept of subsidizing people in order to get them out of their joblessness and economic hardship. Clearly, Pelosi—that San Francisco values 70-something—doesn’t understand psychology either, because subsidizing people with food stamps and more unemployment insurance just discourages them from finding jobs and pulling themselves out of the hole. It’s a fact.
According to the Cato Institute (a libertarian think-tank) and even that disreputable pseudo-economist that the liberals love to cite, Paul Krugman, giving people more unemployment benefits and insurance only leads to keeping them jobless longer and unmotivated to look for work longer. The elementary, psychological reason is that people who receive extended unemployment benefits are shielded from the full effects of unemployment. Thus, they are not as likely to look for work than if they were not getting a steady check that keeps coming in. If you don’t agree with or understand this basic concept of economics as well as human psychology, then you’re just hopeless! (End)
All crap. First of all, anyone who thinks a normal, healthy person is going to be content living on food stamps and unemployment has never lived on food stamps and unemployment. Living on food stamps and unemployment
is being in a hole.
As for the second paragraph and not understanding human psychology that's about as dumb as dumb can get. Of course a starving person is going to be more motivated to find employment just as they will be more motivated to lie and cheat and steal. Maybe if we tortured unemployed people they'd try harder to find employment?
The truth about human psychology is if a person is treated like crap they're much more likely to treat others like crap.
Talk about being hopeless. The author knows little about economics and absolutely nothing about human psychology.
Of course that does create more jobs for drug dealers~