Depends on what you mean by "spending". If you mean crapping it away, then spending is ineffectual at best and deleterious at worst. But spending to some purpose, such as repairing/rebuilding infrastructure, which would put people to work, which would increase incomes, which would take people off welfare rolls, which would increase the tax rolls, would be beneficial. Since you're logged on, you clearly know how to use the internet. There's tons of information on this available to anyone who has an open mind.
Actually even 53% of the registered Democrats in the state support showing a picture ID for voting. Other portions of the changes in voting laws have generated controversy. It is hard to state that the state legislature is taking a "a series of common sense steps" when even the Chamber of Commerce has urged Republicans to vote against them. Time to talk business... Let's talk about the elimination of the film tax credit in our state which turned the movie industry in Wilmington from a $1B industry to zero overnight. Let's talk how every large employer who committed moving manufacturing to our state has now told NC "No, thanks". Let's talk about how these employers pointed to the de-funding of the technical college and university system as one of the primary reasons for backing out. The fiasco list from a business perspective is endless. It is a complete disaster for a state which is working to be a high tech center based on IT, software, pharma, banking, and high-tech manufacturing jobs.
Yes. They should have bought the new suit and brushed up on interview skills WHILE they were at their old job. Keeping one's marketability during the good times is akin to spending during the good times. Not waiting until the bad times come. Yes.
Except that government does not efficiently spend anything. In fact, the government can't create anything. All it can do is reallocate.
Tsing already hit the nail on the head, that this was something the person should have prepared for in advance, during the good times, but another thing is that the concept you presented is ridiculous as it pertains to government. In the concept you presented, the person is investing to gain future revenues, the government doesnt exactly have a succesfull track record of investing in things that generate future revenues, infact for the most part all government "investments" do is create even more, and even greater future liabilities.
If government does this, then it has to carry a surplus. Therefore, "taxes are too high!" We've been running a defiicit for centuries. The argument from Pure Rationality is stupid.
Taxes can be too high and the government can be running a deficit. The two are not mutually exclusive.