As predicted - Study shows Seattle $15 min wage result is less hours and 5000 less jobs

[hadit]

Dude, now you're being purposely stupid. I said it was welfare from the beginning. You, OTOH, tried to claim it was unemployment that you were after. You lost when you admitted it was welfare. Heck, you lost before you started because I spanked you on this multiple times already.

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

 

[P@triot]

Seattle will be the next Detroit. Count on it. There ignorant, failed left-wing policies are just killing that city...

Recently, Seattle’s Waterfront Park decided it would be a good idea to buy a set of three wind turbines for around $107,000. The three wind turbines (who are all white, if you were wondering) will generate $1.39 worth of electricity a day, or a spectacular $42 a month. Now, that may not seem like a lot, but that’s because that’s the low estimate. At peak generation, the turbines will create about . . . wait for it . . . over 5 bucks a day! Or $168 a month in electricity! At that rate, it will only take about 53 years for the wind turbines to pay for themselves! Well, assuming no maintenance costs. Or staffing. Or anything else.

Proving yet again that progressives are completely ignorant of basic business and basic economics. They have absolutely no concept of ROI or TCO, etc. But wait. The insanity doesn't stop there. It gets better. As usual, the ignorant progressive "representative" has no idea what they are voting on...

City Councilwoman Sissi Bruch summed up the wind turbines’ energy production perfectly — along with the reason government is horrible at everything: “I did not realize they would produce so little energy. I wouldn’t have voted for it knowing it was that little.”

#GreenFail: Taxpayers Foot $107K Bill for Wind Turbines That Don’t Work

 

[danielpalos]

So what. Welfare is welfare. We have a general welfare clause. You have, nothing but fallacy.

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

 

[danielpalos]

Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise

I believe it tells us more than right wing, "nothing but repeal".

 

[hadit]

I have you admitting that your initial position was wrong. That's a step in your recovery.

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

 

[danielpalos]

Having nothing but fallacy and claiming you are right only works on those, "twice a day moments". This is not, one of those moments.

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

Are you going to quibble about terms? There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

 

[P@triot]

Providing for the general.

Since left-wing subscribers are a cancer that is destroying America (morally, legally, financially, etc.), it would be in the "general welfare" of the U.S. to eliminate all of them. So you agree that President Trump and the Republicans can immediately place all left-wing citizens into concentration camp for execution, right?

 

[P@triot]

I believe it tells us more than right wing, "nothing but repeal".

It is our job to repeal illegal legislation passed by you left-wingers.

 

[P@triot]

There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

There is also no "gay marriage" clause. There is also no "social safety nets" clause. There is also no "healthcare" clause. There is also no "horse and burrow" clause. There is also no "education" clause. There is also no "energy" clause.

When you shut down the thousands of items the federal government has unconstitutionally taken control of, we will shut down the drug war. Until that time, you just sound like a blathering hypocrite.

 

[P@triot]

There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

Does anyone else realize the absurdity of danielpalos's posts? He claims the "general welfare clause" grants the federal government unlimited power so long as they declare what they are doing is for the "general welfare" of the United States.

Well...it is in the "general welfare" of the United States to stop narcotics trafficking and to stop people from getting stoned. Oops...

 

[hadit]

There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

Does anyone else realize the absurdity of danielpalos's posts? He claims the "general welfare clause" grants the federal government unlimited power so long as they declare what they are doing is for the "general welfare" of the United States.

Well...it is in the "general welfare" of the United States to stop narcotics trafficking and to stop people from getting stoned. Oops...

It is absurd.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general.

Since left-wing subscribers are a cancer that is destroying America (morally, legally, financially, etc.), it would be in the "general welfare" of the U.S. to eliminate all of them. So you agree that President Trump and the Republicans can immediately place all left-wing citizens into concentration camp for execution, right?

We have a Bill of Rights; only the right wing prefers socialism on a national basis.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe it tells us more than right wing, "nothing but repeal".

It is our job to repeal illegal legislation passed by you left-wingers.

how about a better, plan, Stan?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

There is also no "gay marriage" clause. There is also no "social safety nets" clause. There is also no "healthcare" clause. There is also no "horse and burrow" clause. There is also no "education" clause. There is also no "energy" clause.

When you shut down the thousands of items the federal government has unconstitutionally taken control of, we will shut down the drug war. Until that time, you just sound like a blathering hypocrite.

There is no common offense clause or general warfare clause, either right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

Does anyone else realize the absurdity of danielpalos's posts? He claims the "general welfare clause" grants the federal government unlimited power so long as they declare what they are doing is for the "general welfare" of the United States.

Well...it is in the "general welfare" of the United States to stop narcotics trafficking and to stop people from getting stoned. Oops...

lol. You have to prove health care and equal protection of the law, promote the general badfare.

 

[hadit]

Which is, if course, not what we were talking about. It is, rather, a pathetic attempt to dodge the subject in which you were losing, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

Are you going to quibble about terms? There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

You're babbling now, and hoping I'll forget that you admitted paying people for not working is welfare. Now you're trying to change the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for admitting it. Providing for the general welfare, is in our Constitution. Providing for the common Offense and general Warfare, is not.

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

Are you going to quibble about terms? There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

You're babbling now, and hoping I'll forget that you admitted paying people for not working is welfare. Now you're trying to change the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

 

[Rustic]

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

Are you going to quibble about terms? There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

You're babbling now, and hoping I'll forget that you admitted paying people for not working is welfare. Now you're trying to change the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

How about people pay for their own shit?

 

[hadit]

More blather. Now that we have established that getting paid for not working is welfare, can we expect you to stop bloviating that it is something other?

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

Are you going to quibble about terms? There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

You're babbling now, and hoping I'll forget that you admitted paying people for not working is welfare. Now you're trying to change the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

Paying people for not working is welfare. We agree on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

lol. avoiding the Constitutional issue with nothing but repeal? how, right wing of you.

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

So, does this mean you're going to stop trying to call welfare something it is not?

Are you going to quibble about terms? There is no drug war clause. Abolish the drug war to promote the general welfare via social safety nets, right wingers.

You're babbling now, and hoping I'll forget that you admitted paying people for not working is welfare. Now you're trying to change the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Providing for the general, not colonel or major welfare, is in our Constitution. A drug war is not. Whenever shall the right wing, understand the whole and entire, difference.

Paying people for not working is welfare. We agree on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol. good thing we have a General welfare clause that has to cover this and not a major welfare clause that can, "pass the buck".