Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[bedowin62]

the people running a former Walmart Board of Directors member for President are crying about walmart

iditos and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

Walmart employs and offers affordable products to poor people of all races and types. of course the Left hates Walmart.

 

[Brain357]

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's hilarious watching these open-borders traitors twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify doing nothing about illegal immigration. You have to be a special kind of scumbag to support leaving the borders wide open.

What I find amusing is his way of stumbling about what he thinks is stimulus theory, when he has no idea of what turns or multipliars are. Keynes never opined that long term welfare benefits an economy. This is the true disservice that Krugman does to the left, he so badly distorts Keynesian ideas that the fools reading his idiotic tripe walk about advocating utter and complete nonsense.

I am an advocate of the Austrian school, Rothbardian actually, as you know. But for christs sake, if you must advocate Keynesian economics, get it right.

 

[Brain357]

It's hilarious watching these open-borders traitors twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify doing nothing about illegal immigration. You have to be a special kind of scumbag to support leaving the borders wide open.

What I find amusing is his way of stumbling about what he thinks is stimulus theory, when he has no idea of what turns or multipliars are. Keynes never opined that long term welfare benefits an economy. This is the true disservice that Krugman does to the left, he so badly distorts Keynesian ideas that the fools reading his idiotic tripe walk about advocating utter and complete nonsense.

I am an advocate of the Austrian school, Rothbardian actually, as you know. But for christs sake, if you must advocate Keynesian economics, get it right.

You've already agreed with me it would be bad for the economy. You can't agree with what I said and then say I am wrong unless you are wrong.

 

[bedowin62]

the Left wants to take Walmat's wealth and .....................................................hold onto it for a while until they decide which "poor people" are more worth of the stolen loot than the other poor people. Progs are the Mafia middlemen of Robin Hoods

 

[bedowin62]

It's hilarious watching these open-borders traitors twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify doing nothing about illegal immigration. You have to be a special kind of scumbag to support leaving the borders wide open.

What I find amusing is his way of stumbling about what he thinks is stimulus theory, when he has no idea of what turns or multipliars are. Keynes never opined that long term welfare benefits an economy. This is the true disservice that Krugman does to the left, he so badly distorts Keynesian ideas that the fools reading his idiotic tripe walk about advocating utter and complete nonsense.

I am an advocate of the Austrian school, Rothbardian actually, as you know. But for christs sake, if you must advocate Keynesian economics, get it right.

You've already agreed with me it would be bad for the economy. You can't agree with what I said and then say I am wrong unless you are wrong.

you're more wrong leftard, you're wronger, wrongest.......lol

 

[bripat9643]

That's how wages go up. You disagree?

You have the perception of a 3 year old child. It is amusing how little you grasp of how reality works.

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

1. An increase in the ratio of capital to labor.
2. A smaller supply of labor.
3. Greater demand for labor.

So as I was saying if there were great jobs going unfilled wages would not be stagnant.

There will be plenty of unfilled jobs after we send all the illegals back where they came from.

 

[Brain357]

It's hilarious watching these open-borders traitors twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify doing nothing about illegal immigration. You have to be a special kind of scumbag to support leaving the borders wide open.

What I find amusing is his way of stumbling about what he thinks is stimulus theory, when he has no idea of what turns or multipliars are. Keynes never opined that long term welfare benefits an economy. This is the true disservice that Krugman does to the left, he so badly distorts Keynesian ideas that the fools reading his idiotic tripe walk about advocating utter and complete nonsense.

I am an advocate of the Austrian school, Rothbardian actually, as you know. But for christs sake, if you must advocate Keynesian economics, get it right.

You've already agreed with me it would be bad for the economy. You can't agree with what I said and then say I am wrong unless you are wrong.

you're more wrong leftard, you're wronger, wrongest.......lol

So is uncensored then.

 

[Brain357]

That's how wages go up. You disagree?

You have the perception of a 3 year old child. It is amusing how little you grasp of how reality works.

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

1. An increase in the ratio of capital to labor.
2. A smaller supply of labor.
3. Greater demand for labor.

So as I was saying if there were great jobs going unfilled wages would not be stagnant.

There will be plenty of unfilled jobs after we send all the illegals back where they came from.

I would expect it to help wages.

 

[bripat9643]

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

I'm a poopy doo-doo head?

You don't say?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

And those who are taxed to pay welfare would have more to spend. You fail to grasp even simple concepts.

Moving capital from one bucket to another has no impact on a market.

 

[Brain357]

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

I don't think there is a lack of loans slowing the economy. Lowering consumer spending however would slow the economy.

 

[Brain357]

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

And those who are taxed to pay welfare would have more to spend. You fail to grasp even simple concepts.

Moving capital from one bucket to another has no impact on a market.

So now there would be tax cuts? So no balancing the budget? No being fiscally responsible?

 

[Brain357]

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

I'm a poopy doo-doo head?

You don't say?

You continue to prove you have the mentality of a child.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You've already agreed with me it would be bad for the economy. You can't agree with what I said and then say I am wrong unless you are wrong.

I've agreed that discussing economics with a three year old is more fruitful than with you. You have no idea what a market is or how an economy works. You have no conception of the primary economic theories, or how they work. You want, and that is all you can understand.

 

[bripat9643]

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

So you are claiming there would be a tax break too? So much for balancing the budget. The bush tax cuts didn't do much for the economy.

Even without any tax cut, government spending would decline, that means less government borrowing and therefore more money available to loan to privates businesses and consumers.

I don't think there is a lack of loans slowing the economy. Lowering consumer spending however would slow the economy.

You can't give money to illegals without it coming from some other pot. Government spending does not help the economy. It does not produce one more car or one more pound of hamburger.

 

[Brain357]

You've already agreed with me it would be bad for the economy. You can't agree with what I said and then say I am wrong unless you are wrong.

I've agreed that discussing economics with a three year old is more fruitful than with you. You have no idea what a market is or how an economy works. You have no conception of the primary economic theories, or how they work. You want, and that is all you can understand.

Yet I was right based on you agreeing. I guess you know nothing also?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So now there would be tax cuts? So no balancing the budget? No being fiscally responsible?

Where do you think money to pay welfare comes from? The magic welfare fairy? Before you can buy votes with welfare, you must first take that money from those who earned it. Before capital can be looted, it must first be created.