NO, Unemployment is NOT DOWN

[pinqy]

That's a non-answer. Explain the mechanism. If you're saying there is a more efficient way to collect the metrics, you must have some idea of what that way is. And yet you refuse to explain.

Sure; it should be done on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States than it is currently being done under our current regime.

Again, that's not an answer. Specifics: What data? Who will collect it? How? How often? What are the current methods and what makes your version more efficient?
You have a habit of giving answers that are so vague as to be useless.

Ok, since you asked, here is the paradigm: A social safety net should only end when it is no longer necessary or it merely sacrifices the end to the means.

And, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, public policies (which constitute public Use), should correct for market inefficiencies whenever possible in order to achieve those gains from productivity.

The market for labor is one example. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic. We could be solving simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that corrects for both, a natural rate of unemployment and simple poverty when due merely to a lack income usually associated with employment.

I didn't ask for the paradigm or your philosophy. You made a specific claim. I'd forgotten this is all you do: You claim something is possible without ever giving details on how it would be possible. Never any specifics or mechanisms...just empty assertions.

Sorry; i didn't realize you didn't have a clue or a Cause.

The concept involved is employment at will and unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis.

I have no Cause, but I have many clues and many years professional experience analyzing labor markets. What you do not have, and have never shown, is concrete practical mechanisms or proceedures. Anytime you're asked specifics and exactly how something could be accomplished, you only reply "the concept is...." without giving any practical mechanism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

 

[Faun]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

It's kind of fun watching you say some of the dumbest shit with the strongest conviction ... and then insult your betters.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is illogical to be unemployed, because only through the use of liberal logic, which is completely illogical, does one have a society in which people are allowed to be unemployed dependents of the state.

What is illogical about temporary minimal governent support to prevent people from starving or turning to crime and allow them to find a job that suits their needs/skills/abilities rather than begging or stealing?

It's illogical, because giving people a buffer where they can relax, encourages them to use the buffer. As I said, if they know there is no buffer they will A) work harder to not get fired, B) make sure they have a backup plan in case they get laid off, C) work harder to quickly get a job when they do get fired. Paying someone to enjoy their time off is stupid no matter how temporary. I've never been out of work for even one day in my entire life. No one in my family has ever been out of work. Not even for one day. I do have distant relatives that took advantage of the extension of unemployment benefits to stay unemployed for years till that ran out. Shockingly they all got jobs "moments" after the unemployment benefits ran out. Unemployment benefits are nothing more than paid vacation time. Paid to do nothing.

For example, in a logical society anyone not currently employed in a job of their choice could be assigned a lower tier job that would be managed by some government and/or private organization. You won't like these lower tier jobs but they will give you something useful to do while you pontificate on what it is that you want to do to make your way in life. Lower tier jobs for disabled folk would be harder to find but are still doable.

By what you're saying there would be no ability to search for own work. As soon as a person is fired or quits, then the Nanny-State govenment you're proposing would give the person a job. What about someone looking for his first job? Or someone returning to the labor market after an absence?

By what you're saying it's impossible for someone to do two things concurrently. You are saying humans are incapable of working one shift and searching for a job when they are not working that shift. lol.. that's just silly. What I described is not a nanny state. Being paid to work is not having a nanny take care of you. Our current system is a nanny state. My proposal ends the nanny state. Thus, your accusation is baseless, false, .. your accusation is quite frankly, asinine. As for "first job" you can look for your "first job" while going to school. That's how most successful students do it.

Anyone that has willing guardian or sufficient assets so as not to need a job would be exempted from said requirements of course.

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.

No one should be paid with taxpayer funds to sit on their ass, not for any reason. Thus to be unemployed is completely illogical.

It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy. You must have worked for the government. Military or civilian?

People are unemployed because they got laid off. Or quit. Or are looking for their first job. Or are retutning to the labor force. Almost no one can find a job instantly...there will always be a lag. That's frictional unemployment..can't get rid of it. But you would practically criminalize it?

Blah blah blah... working is not punishment. Stealing income from others that's theft, which is a crime, albeit a legal one under our current laws through unemployment. You want a buffer, buy your own. I don't want your damn buffer, why the effing hell do I have to pay for yours?

Then there's structural unemployment, where you may have 100 jobs for 100 people, but 55 jobs are for engineers and 45 for doctors, but there are only 47 engineers and 53 doctors. That gives 8% unemployment even though the number of available jobs matches the available number of workers.

Blah blah blah... there's always room for more engineers and more doctors. This idea that there is a limit to the number of jobs to do is complete BS.

Look...UI benefits are not great and not much above minimum wage.

I see so because the maximum amount you can get is only a little above minimum wage it's ok to pay people a little above minimum wage to do nothing? ROFL Why is the gift of my income to you so you can sit on your ass better than me paying you a wage for work?

For some perhaps, the differential is small enough that they're better off getting a little less than min wage in benefits and not having to work than working 40 hours a week at a min wage job for only a few dollars more than UI. The world's not perfect. For most a little assistnace is necessary to take care of necessities while looking for a job. I hold that it's better to supplement a person while s/he looks for a job that matches his/her skills and abilities than waste him/her on a minimum wage job that hurts his/her ability to look for work.

I see so the idea is make people who are unemployed better off... not to get them working again. ROFL

in blue...

Let's hit a main point here. You say that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them. How do you propose to manage that level of government monitoring and interference, especially when we're talking many times more people than receiving benefits? Your system sounds a lot like the Soviet Union.

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

As for your claim that without a buffer people will work harder to avoid getting fired...you are ignoring layoffs from down-sizing or business failure. During the recession there were 9 people unemployed (total looking for work, not just those receiving benefits) so your claims that there are always plenty of jobs is idiotic.

We could have 100% unemployment and zero jobs being handed out and still I'd be able to make my own job in 1hr or less. Face it, there are two types of people in this world. People like me and useless idiots like you.

Mexico (except for Mexico City) has no unemployment insurance. Is that really your model of how things should be?

Mexico City is where we are heading as a nation because of dumb asses like you that think central planning is the end all be all and will save us all .

Your major error is referring to all unemployed as if they were leeches or should have no problem finding a job. Yet, as I already mentioned, those receiving benefits are only a third of total unemployed. In December 2014, there were 2.69 million people who had been looking for work for more than 26 weeks (the state maximimum). over half of them (1.78 million) had been looking for work for over a year. So right there, that's more than the total number of people receiving benefits. So clearly, it's not that easy to find work even if there are no benefits.

The unemployed are being leeches by the very definition of what it means to be unemployed. You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig but it's still a pig.

I have a son that got a job yesterday afternoon. He started looking for a job... yesterday afternoon. He started working this morning. It took him about 30min to get the job. But that was only cause he turned down the first offer. He'll be making 3x or so minimum wage. It's just a temporary thing for him as he's working towards a much higher paying profession in his off hours. One would have to be a completely useless human being if they can't get a job or make a job in America in a couple hours effort.

 

[pinqy]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.
It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

 

[RKMBrown]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.
It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

 

[pinqy]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.
It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

 

[Flopper]

And who said it was down ? The Obama administration ? And its Bureau of Labor Statisitics ? That's part of the US Dept of Commerce. And that's part of Obama's cabinet.

Here's the kicker of it. Unemployment rates include FOREIGNERS coming into the country and taking American jobs, inside the US. These include millions of illegal aliens, and many more legal aliens on work visas, added to that. NONE of these jobs should be counted in calculating unemployment rates. But every one of them is counted as employment, while every one of them should be counted as UNEMPLOYMENT.

These jobs are employment, yes. But they are employment for ANOTHER COUNTRY (not the US). A Mexican comes to the US in 2013, and for all of 2014, he is working in a particular job. Same with a guy from India. And these guys should be counted in such a way as to lower the unemployment rate ? Not hardly. This whole unemployment picture as reported by the media is poppy$#@!.

Until the govt gets every foreigner the hell out of here, and out of the jobs they're stealing from American workers, there is NOTHING to be said about unemployment, and until then there IS NO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. And we should all stop talking about it as if there is.

It's true that employment surveys can include illegal aliens. However with an estimated number of illegal aliens old enough to work at 9 million and 120 million people employed in the US, it's a real stretch to think that the unemployment figures could be skewed by as much as .1%. U3, the most common measure of unemployment does not consider part time employment nor temporary employment which are the most common jobs that illegal immigrants fill.

 

[RKMBrown]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.
It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

I did not deny my exact quote either you POS liar.

 

[Moonglow]

Correcting for laissez-fare capitalism's laziness regarding its Natural Rate of Unemployment is what socialism can usually bailout capitalism for.

total liberal illiteracy!! Under capitalism there is the law of supply and demand so that the number of jobs equals the number of workers.

Is supply and demand over your head too??

It's kind of fun watching you say some of the dumbest shit with the strongest conviction ... and then insult your betters.

I was going to say, i don't know where he learned the theory of capitalism,,but,,he should have ask for a refund...

 

[pinqy]

And who said it was down ? The Obama administration ? And its Bureau of Labor Statisitics ? That's part of the US Dept of Commerce. And that's part of Obama's cabinet.

Here's the kicker of it. Unemployment rates include FOREIGNERS coming into the country and taking American jobs, inside the US. These include millions of illegal aliens, and many more legal aliens on work visas, added to that. NONE of these jobs should be counted in calculating unemployment rates. But every one of them is counted as employment, while every one of them should be counted as UNEMPLOYMENT.

These jobs are employment, yes. But they are employment for ANOTHER COUNTRY (not the US). A Mexican comes to the US in 2013, and for all of 2014, he is working in a particular job. Same with a guy from India. And these guys should be counted in such a way as to lower the unemployment rate ? Not hardly. This whole unemployment picture as reported by the media is poppy$#@!.

Until the govt gets every foreigner the hell out of here, and out of the jobs they're stealing from American workers, there is NOTHING to be said about unemployment, and until then there IS NO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. And we should all stop talking about it as if there is.

It's true that employment surveys can include illegal aliens. However with an estimated number of illegal aliens old enough to work at 9 million and 120 million people employed in the US, it's a real stretch to think that the unemployment figures could be skewed by as much as .1%. U3, the most common measure of unemployment does not consider part time employment nor temporary employment which are the most common jobs that illegal immigrants fill.

What are you talking about??? The U3, the official unemployment rate certainly includes part time and temp work as employed.

 

[pinqy]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

You're basically requiring everyone in the country to file their employment status with the government and prove they are working or document a guardian or sufficient wealth. And you think U.S. unemployment insurance is socialist? You're at Soviet Union level government here.
It's more logical to spend far more money to find or create jobs for 3 times as many people who are currently collecting UI benefits? (only about 1/3 unemployed are receiving benefits. You'd also have to greatly expand the bureauocracy to even attempt to handle all those people.

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

I did not deny my exact quote either you POS liar.

Your exact words after I quoted you were "You lying POS I never said that either" how is that not a denial?

But go ahead…clarify your position, then: Your plan would require that the government know everyone's employment status and show proof of employment or dependence on another. The government would then be responsible for finding or giving anyone not employed with a job.
How would that not require a huge bureauocracy?

 

[RKMBrown]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

I did not deny my exact quote either you POS liar.

Your exact words after I quoted you were "You lying POS I never said that either" how is that not a denial?

No, you lying POS. I said, that I didn't say that it would require "no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." YOU SAID THE SHIT IN BOLD YOU LIAR NOT ME.

Then you followed up by citing what I did say, and claiming that I deny saying what I did say, which is a completely different LIE THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.

Having trouble keeping up with your lies?

 

[RKMBrown]

No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyonein the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar.

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:

Nonsense. Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy.

So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

I did not deny my exact quote either you POS liar.

Your exact words after I quoted you were "You lying POS I never said that either" how is that not a denial?

But go ahead…clarify your position, then: Your plan would require that the government know everyone's employment status and show proof of employment or dependence on another. The government would then be responsible for finding or giving anyone not employed with a job.
How would that not require a huge bureauocracy?

NO YOU LYING POS ASS HOLE. I NEVER SAID MY "plan would require that the government know everyone's employment status." You said that you POS liar!

I NEVER SAID MY "plan would require ... proof of employment or dependence on another." You said that you POS liar!

I never said the "government would then be responsible for finding or giving anyone not employed with a job." You said that you POS liar!

IOW YOU CAN'T IMAGINE SOLUTIONS WITHOUT "a huge" bureaucracy. Probably the same reason you are a bold faced LIAR.

 

[pinqy]

I wasn't claiming an exact quote. But as for denyina the need for a huge bureauocracy?You most certainly did:
So how is that not denying the need for a huge bureauocracy to implement your plan?

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

I did not deny my exact quote either you POS liar.

Your exact words after I quoted you were "You lying POS I never said that either" how is that not a denial?

No, you lying POS. I said, that I didn't say that it would require "no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." YOU SAID THE SHIT IN BOLD YOU LIAR NOT ME.

I never claimed you said those exact words, I pointed out that your plan would require a huge bureauocracy and you denied that it would. I can quote you again if you'd like.

Then you followed up by citing what I did say, and claiming that I deny saying what I did say, which is a completely different LIE THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.

Did you or did you not say it was "nonsense" that your plan would require a huge bureauocracy?

I

 

[RKMBrown]

You lying POS I never said that either. Maybe you need to learn to read, write, and cite without completely changing what people say into something completely different than what they actually said.

That was a direct quote from you in post 156. You're looking awfully foolish denying you wrote those words when it's right there for everyone to see. I didn't change anything you wrote, just cut and pasted the exact words. I omitted one previous quote from you, but that omission didn't change the context.

So explain how you can deny your exact quote? Are you now admitting your plan would require a huge bureauocracy for administration?

I did not deny my exact quote either you POS liar.

Your exact words after I quoted you were "You lying POS I never said that either" how is that not a denial?

No, you lying POS. I said, that I didn't say that it would require "no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." YOU SAID THE SHIT IN BOLD YOU LIAR NOT ME.

I never claimed you said those exact words, I pointed out that your plan would require a huge bureauocracy and you denied that it would. I can quote you again if you'd like.

Then you followed up by citing what I did say, and claiming that I deny saying what I did say, which is a completely different LIE THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.

Did you or did you not say it was "nonsense" that your plan would require a huge bureauocracy?

I

Yes you did say what I said you said.. I quoted you. This as opposed to you rephrasing my words, changing their meaning to the opposite of what I said then accusing me of all sorts of crap.

I did not give you a detailed plan. You made assumptions about what you imagined my plan to be while completely ignoring the few things that I actually said about it. I did not deny, that I said it would not require a huge bureaucracy, that is just one of the lies that YOU KEEP REPEATING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Why? Because clearly you are a LIAR. How many effing times and in how many different ways do I have to say that my plan would not require a huge bureaucracy? What part of that statement is confusing you so much that you keep asking me if I'm denying what I said?

 

[RKMBrown]

Hint. If you have a question.. just say... You said, "insert what I said." Then ask me what I meant if it was not clear. Don't say I said this and that and that means this and that and you are demanding this and that... when clearly I never made any such statements or demands. Those wild statements and demands were either based on a miss-understanding of what I said or some assumptions that you have on how things have to work in this world. I don't see things in the same way most folks do.. I'm a bit more inventive than most.

 

[Agit8r]

My friend and the waitress are victims of a massive but hidden problem called underemployment.

They are victims? huh... n'kay...

 

[pinqy]

I did not give you a detailed plan. You made assumptions about what you imagined my plan to be while completely ignoring the few things that I actually said about it.

I went straight off what you said. There is no possible way you could require people to work without knowing who wasn't working. And explicitly said the government would assign jobs.

I did not deny, that I said it would not require a huge bureaucracy, that is just one of the lies that YOU KEEP REPEATING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Why?

Because every time I stated that you denied it would require a bureauocracy, you would say "I didn't say that."

How many effing times and in how many different ways do I have to say that my plan would not require a huge bureaucracy?

Which is what I've been saying you were saying!. I never said you thought it would.

 

[RKMBrown]

Assumptions? I went straight off what you said your plan would be and I know what it would take to accomplish that.

No you did not go straight off what I said. You went the opposite of what I said. If you like you could try again by citing what I said. Then asking questions and explaining how you took what I said and changed it into what you said. Hint: I talked about availability of low tier jobs managed by government and private organizations, where folks would have access to said low tier jobs as an option to the current system where folks have access to money for not working. I'm not sure what word confused you .. whether it was "access" or some other word that turned my brief proposal into some forced system of labor with a huge government bureaucracy. Thus, by your changing the very nature of what I said and accusing me of saying that... this started the tit for tat. Hint: you did not qualify your statements about my idea as your view of my idea... you qualified your statements about my idea as my view and my plan. May not be what you intended to do, but there it is.

did not deny, that I said it would not require a huge bureaucracy, that is just one of the lies that YOU KEEP REPEATING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Why? Because clearly you are a LIAR. How many effing times and in how many different ways do I have to say that my plan would not require a huge bureaucracy?

This is the first time you've said that. Shall I recap?

No, that was probably the 3rd time.

I pointed out that your plan would require a huge bureauocracy.

No, you made silly assumptions, then accused me of demanding your silly assumptions.

You said "Not my fault you can't imagine how work can be done without bureaucracy"

Yes, I did. And from your statement about my plan requiring a huge bureaucracy, that statement is either correct or you were lying. At this point in the conversation I was giving you credit for simply not being able to consider a world without massive bureaucracy, vs. being some sort of habitual liar.

You replied with "No I didn't say "that it would require no bureaucracy to monitor the current employment status of everyone in the country and then find or create a job for them or otherwise put them on a chain gang or execute them." You're a fucking POS liar."

Correct. I did not say those things you said them.

So there you were playing a stupid games. I never said that was a quote or that you ever used those exact words.

No I was not playing stupid games. YOU WERE THE ONE PLAYING STUPID GAMES. That statement we're discussing is your stupid word game statement, not mine.

But, as you are now finally admitting, you were denying that a bureauocracy.

Your statement "you were denying that a bureauocracy" is either a LIE or a series of typos.


Again. If you'd like to debate the issue. Make your statement. If you'd like to debate what I said quote it, ask questions. But don't draft lies filled with strawmen from the perspective that you are paraphrasing what I said when in fact you are merely drafting strawmen to try to prove my plans could not work. If you want to draft a strawman don't qualify your strawman as coming from my voice. Use your own voice for your own strawmen, not mine.