Not necessarily. Simply giving money away can also simply create slaves to the state (I would argue that this is what usually happens). Take a look at the welfare reform Clinton passed in the 90s. Once welfare was cut, did thousands starve in the streets? No, they got jobs.
So giving somebody money is slavery? Even though they don't have to do anything for it? The mortgage interest deduction, then, has made a lot of slaves. As has the child tax credit. The very evident reality is that giving people money--which the government routinely does--from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich--does not enslave them. Nor does it make them not work. You'll have to look elsewhere for the reasons people do not work.
But of course this misses the point, which was not a moral one but an economic one. It doesn't matter if the poor people to whom you give money work. The economy will be improved regardless of whether they are working. You might care about stigmatizing the lazy more than creating and distributing wealth and raising living standards, but I can't say that I do. The joy of finger-pointing wears thin after a while.
It also misses the point because my point was purely economic not prescriptive. You
can give poor people money with no strings attached. Or you can also put money in poor people's hands by
offering them a government job. Presumably, you would have no objections to the latter approach? I phrased my assertion the way I did because the discussion was about "giving" rich people money, a la a tax break (which, make no mistake, is giving them money without strings attached just as much as "welfare.") So, as between giving rich people money and giving poor people, the latter is far and away better for the economy.
Finally, you must have misspoken when you started off your post by saying "not necessarily." Because, economically, it's irrefutable that the best way to increase aggregate demand is to get money in the hands of people who make so little that they will spend--not save--the money they receive (whether or not they worked for it, but there is certainly no reason not to offer them a job). What you meant to say was that, while true, you have
other objections. But those objections are misplaced, because giving people money without strings attached is not the only way to put money in people's hands.
Simply giving away money is a great way to buy votes, however, which is the real reason many cynical politicians push these 'programs'.
It's also a great way to increase aggregate demand, encourage investment, and create jobs. So any votes it "buys" are fully warranted.
Even FDR himself knew how dangerous welfare programs can be to an economy...
"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers."
Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1935 SOTU
While FDR and I wouldn't exactly be on the same page (he did save capitalism after all), I have no objection to this at all. In fact, what he was saying was that it was
our duty to offer jobs to people who want to work but could not find a job. You know that 8.1% unemployment rate. That is all the people who
want to find work but are unable to do so, because there simply are not enough being offered by the private sector. The private sector is choosing, for market reasons, not to hire all the people who want to work. So I propose, like FDR did, that work "must be found" for the unemployed. And that is accomplished by the federal government offering every person who wants one a job.
But I suspect you oppose this, even though you just provided the rationale for it.
