CDZ redistribution of wealth

[RKMBrown]

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

 

[ralfy]

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

My point applies to most of the U.S. population.

 

[RKMBrown]

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

My point applies to most of the U.S. population.

Right and the topic of the OP is government forced redistribution of wealth. Which has nothing to do with the middle class.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If you want a strong middle class (which is what brought prosperity to America after WWII), then you have to support the unions.

When my Grandfather had spent 30 years working for a road construction company, they gave him a gold pocket watch and a pension.

Me? I wanted the same thing, but saw how corporations and companies were heading in the early 80's, so I did what I had to do and joined the military.

After 20 years, I've got a pension that pays better than minimum wage, and I've also got healthcare.

What company is going to give you that after 20 or so years? More importantly, how solvent is the pension fund, and is it going to be sold out from under you?

We need to go back to the business practices of the 50's and 60's.

Isn't that what the GOP is always squealing about? We need to get back to better times like what it was with Andy Griffith and Ward and the Beaver?

If that is the question, then why is the GOP so dead set on breaking unions that built the middle class?

 

[ralfy]

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

My point applies to most of the U.S. population.

Right and the topic of the OP is government forced redistribution of wealth. Which has nothing to do with the middle class.

The middle class rose thanks to easy credit coupled with tax cuts, entitlement, and government services. These allowed for home ownership, education, and consumer spending. The results include increased debt and an economy that can only keep going through more borrowing and spending.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

My point applies to most of the U.S. population.

Right and the topic of the OP is government forced redistribution of wealth. Which has nothing to do with the middle class.

The middle class rose thanks to easy credit coupled with tax cuts, entitlement, and government services. These allowed for home ownership, education, and consumer spending. The results include increased debt and an economy that can only keep going through more borrowing and spending.

Define "entitlement." Define government services.

Being entitled to life, liberty, property, justice, self defense.. all good things.

Being entitled to do nothing, sit on your fat ass, and eat crap and watch TV all day... not a good thing.

Local government fire, police, rescue services are a good thing. Military, defending our country from attack is a good thing.

Government services that take our income to redistribute to the rich entrepreneurs who use our income to move our jobs to china is a bad thing. Why should Americans pay for Chinese solar power manufacturing facilities in china? Why should American taxes be used to line the pockets of Obama's friends? Why should American taxes be PISSED AWAY on welfare hand-outs that would be better spent on hand-ups? Why should we go in DEBT UP TO OUR EARS to fund SHOVEL READY CRAP PROJECTS THAT NO ONE WANTS TO FUND?

The middle class rose in SPITE of our government not because of it.

 

[danielpalos]

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

No a war on poverty is not general welfare of the country. It's individual welfare.

So, individual or private welfare is encompassed in the general welfare "cohort".

No it is not. That's like saying if one person is on trial we are all on trial. You may associate general as meaning individuals too, but that is not what general welfare means. You don't get to re-write the Constitution by changing the definition of the terms used.

I am not defining any Thing. It is those of your point of view that are appealing to ignorance of the law, willfully.

Providing for the general welfare is as limited as providing for the common defense; for comparison and contrast.

In any case, why not submit your suggestions for better promoting the general welfare?

I have hundreds of times. But you may have missed them.. Hand-ups instead of hand-outs. Loans instead of re-distribution of wealth. Reward responsibility, not irresponsibility. Let corporations fail and go through bankruptcy court instead of rewarding them for failing with a fat check.

Socialism over Capitalism; I got it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated, general power in much the same manner as providing for the common Defense and paying the Debts. If, the other two powers are general powers, then so too must be the third.

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

How rich are most people in the military?

 

[danielpalos]

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes it is. I think the issue with the term "general welfare" is that most people don't understand what it means. They associate it with hand-outs to the people, which of course is not the "general welfare." General welfare is things like the FDA and EPA.

The providing for the general welfare means solving for things that prevent it. A war on poverty is considered a promotion of the general welfare. Are you claiming we should be solving simple poverty via our Commerce Clause on an at-will basis merely to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden in that market friendly manner, instead?

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

How rich are most people in the military?

My neighbor is in the military. He lives on the same amount of land that I do in a house roughly the size of my home. He appears to be as rich as I am. He's a dentist.

 

[RKMBrown]

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

My point applies to most of the U.S. population.

Right and the topic of the OP is government forced redistribution of wealth. Which has nothing to do with the middle class.

Yes, I believe we should be solving social dilemmas in the name of providing for the general welfare, instead of simply paying for wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; on a generational basis while not calling it a form of theft (though incompetence).

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

My point applies to most of the U.S. population.

Right and the topic of the OP is government forced redistribution of wealth. Which has nothing to do with the middle class.

Yes, I believe we should be solving social dilemmas in the name of providing for the general welfare, instead of simply paying for wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; on a generational basis while not calling it a form of theft (though incompetence).

Education is the problem, some people think they can solve a social dilemma with cash. Clearly those people received a bad education.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

 

[jasonnfree]

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

Usually, no. But we're not talking about the middle class we're talking about the poor.

 

[Andylusion]

But the war on poverty, punishing some people, and rewarding others, is not providing for the General Welfare. Right now... I pay taxes, so other people can sit at home doing nothing. Only an idiot, would conclude that such a policy promotes my welfare as much as any other.

So no, I don't give a crap who "considered the war on poverty a promotion of the general welfare", those people are WRONG.

I am claiming that it's not the governments job to stop people from being poor. And the more government does this, the worse we all are.

Yes, it is the job of Government to provide for the general welfare in order to solve for (official) poverty; in much the same manner as our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; for comparison and contrast--if, as is claimed by those of your point of view, then our wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty , and terror, should not apply to Individuals either--isn't cognitive dissonance, literally, incredible.

No it is not the job of government to take money from rich people to give to poor people. HOW MANY TIMES DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE TO FAIL BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT THAT WELFARE HANDOUTS DO NOT ELIMINATE POVERTY? Quite the opposite, hand-outs CREATE POVERTY.

The American middle class was likely brought about thanks to tax cuts coupled with easy credit.

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You have proven yourself to be the most ignorant person in this conversation, with multiple people.

Every single time we have given concrete evidence showing the error of your thinking, you go into mindless parrot of the same ignorant unsupportable views again and again and again.

You should stop making proving yourself ignorant. You are never going to convince anyone here, that stupidity is smart, or than ignorance is informed. You lost this argument a dozen times in a row.

Repeating yourself isn't going to change that fact.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

Why should anyone have any incentive to work if there is a natural rate of unemployment that must be cleared, first?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, if people are not being paid to sit on their asses, they will take advantage of low taxes and easy credit to build a life for themselves. It's a damn shame we are crippling our poor by giving them handouts.

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

I was working at McDonald's in the 1990s, when they reformed welfare. We had a lady show up, who told us openly..... OPENLY to our face... that she only intended to work until she could qualify for welfare again. Sure enough, when she did, she stopped showing up for work.

No, I don't agree with your claims. Paying people to not work, reduces the incentive to work.