What would a socialist America look like?

[danielpalos]

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

That is accomplished, according to you, by putting money in people's hands. Welfare does the same thing. There is no need to restructure the Unemployment Compensation system.

no, it doesn't. it puts "funny money" in their "hands". Unemployment compensation is convertible to legal tender for all debts public and private.

Welfare provides the same checks, convertible to legal tender for all debts public & private.

not from my understanding.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is naturally more natural and market friendly.

 

[hadit]

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

That is accomplished, according to you, by putting money in people's hands. Welfare does the same thing. There is no need to restructure the Unemployment Compensation system.

no, it doesn't. it puts "funny money" in their "hands". Unemployment compensation is convertible to legal tender for all debts public and private.

Welfare provides the same checks, convertible to legal tender for all debts public & private.

not from my understanding.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is naturally more natural and market friendly.

You still haven't shown how you're going to get an additional $3 trillion+ every year out of your fantasy. And no, simply claiming it will pay for itself doesn't fly.

 

[Papageorgio]

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

for each one dollar spent, it generates two dollars of economic activity. it helps if you understand the concepts.

What's your source for that amount?

And why are you ignoring the opportunity cost of first taking $3 trillion out of the economy, year after year. That money then can't be used to develop new medical treatments, can't be used to develop new, more efficient and less harmful energy sources, can't be used to grow pot for the millions to smoke while they get paid to do nothing.

You're leaving an awful lot out.

a Department of Labor study.

You still don't understand that "grow our economy we must".

Link the study, that should be a great read.

find a study yourself. i don't need to convince you now.

Thank you for admitting you were BSing about the Labor Study, you still have nothing but a cause with no cure.

 

[Papageorgio]

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

No, it is not. Unemployment compensation is paid through additional payroll taxes that businesses pay. So it increases their expenses.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

Sorry, any new taxes to a business will amount to added cost to the goods the business provides and thus an added burden to the consumer. Which general would you tax?

 

[Papageorgio]

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.

Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

when you get it in play, I can retire, so hurry up and get it done.

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

I agree. In 25 years I have not met a journalist or a politician in America or Western Europe who gave a PROPER definition of "socialism" or "communism"

 

[hadit]

Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

when you get it in play, I can retire, so hurry up and get it done.

He'd be really ticked off when he is told he has to get a job because we can't afford to pay everybody 30 grand a year to do nothing.

 

[Papageorgio]

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

when you get it in play, I can retire, so hurry up and get it done.

He'd be really ticked off when he is told he has to get a job because we can't afford to pay everybody 30 grand a year to do nothing.

He is such a moron, he makes stupid claims, can't back them up, can't give any facts, claims there are studies, can't provide any of them. Claim to have been working with a Congressman, yet won't name them. He has a moronic theory using the stimulus as his example and admits it failed, and he calls everyone else stupid? LOL! the troll boi is incredibly entertaining, he provides lots of laughs and I laugh at him a lot, plus he keeps boosting my score.

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

when you get it in play, I can retire, so hurry up and get it done.

He'd be really ticked off when he is told he has to get a job because we can't afford to pay everybody 30 grand a year to do nothing.

He is such a moron, he makes stupid claims, can't back them up, can't give any facts, claims there are studies, can't provide any of them. Claim to have been working with a Congressman, yet won't name them. He has a moronic theory using the stimulus as his example and admits it failed, and he calls everyone else stupid? LOL! the troll boi is incredibly entertaining, he provides lots of laughs and I laugh at him a lot, plus he keeps boosting my score.

Strange, and how has such a "bad guy" been elected as a president of the great country ???

 

[danielpalos]

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

That is accomplished, according to you, by putting money in people's hands. Welfare does the same thing. There is no need to restructure the Unemployment Compensation system.

no, it doesn't. it puts "funny money" in their "hands". Unemployment compensation is convertible to legal tender for all debts public and private.

Welfare provides the same checks, convertible to legal tender for all debts public & private.

not from my understanding.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is naturally more natural and market friendly.

You still haven't shown how you're going to get an additional $3 trillion+ every year out of your fantasy. And no, simply claiming it will pay for itself doesn't fly.

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand in Any long run Capital equilibrium.

 

[danielpalos]

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

No, it is not. Unemployment compensation is paid through additional payroll taxes that businesses pay. So it increases their expenses.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

Sorry, any new taxes to a business will amount to added cost to the goods the business provides and thus an added burden to the consumer. Which general would you tax?

lol. general taxes are always to be prefer to more direct forms of taxation.

and, it would be improving the efficiency of our economy by decreasing litigation.

 

[danielpalos]

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

when you get it in play, I can retire, so hurry up and get it done.

He'd be really ticked off when he is told he has to get a job because we can't afford to pay everybody 30 grand a year to do nothing.

under employment at will; only if an employer Has to hire those on unemployment the longest.

 

[francoHFW]

The rich are the only people that need to be taxed more. We have fallen behind the rest of the world the last 35 years. As well as being the victim of incredible GOP incompetence in foreign policy and security and finances for crying out loud. And we certainly would not get all those benefits at once and don't think they cost that much.

Ask me how I know you're not well-off?

What's wrong with a flat tax rate for everyone? Too fair for you, or what?

There's a reason why tax rates should be progressive, proven over the last hundred years.you end up with a bloated Rich class rolling in money and laughing all the way to the bank, and there is not enough money to invest in the country and you have infrastructure and the non Rich falling apart. Yes I know you are a brainwashed functional moron...

Ask me how I know you're jealous of people that have more money than you. Ask me how I know you're a foreign leftist shill who isn't American?

Because you're a brainwashed conspiracy Nut Job? Maybe I'm happily retired and I don't like that our country is the most unjust of any modern country thanks to the scumbag GOP and brainwashed dupes like you. I'll meet you at the magnolia Beach saltwater saloon someday and show you what an idiot you are but you people never learn.

 

[WinterBorn]

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

No, it is not. Unemployment compensation is paid through additional payroll taxes that businesses pay. So it increases their expenses.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

So all you want to do is change who is eligible for UC, how it is paid for, how long you can get it, and how the determination is made for who gets it. Is that all? Just those few "minor" changes? Oh, and to make sure the means test is never applied to those who draw a check, no matter how long the are on the dole. Just that little bit of "adjustment"?

Wouldn't it be simpler to campaign to remove the means testing from welfare?

no; means testing has a purpose. Unemployment compensation is not that purpose.

And what is that purpose?

 

[WinterBorn]

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

You understand nothing except your fantasies of being able to draw a check and still live in your parent's basement.

the law is the law. why deny and disparage equal protection of the law and allege you are not being frivolous.

Only one post in the thread is made in frivolity. And I am not denying or disparaging equal protection under the law. I am protecting those who tried to keep working and earning their keep. And so is UC.

 

[WinterBorn]

UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most.

makes some of us wonder, why we even have a "McCarthy era phrase in our pledge".

What does a "McCarth era phrase in our pledge" have to do with my comment of "UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most"??

why not? not enough equal protection of the law to go around, for the Poor.

But the economic policies of the Chinese emperors was stable enough. And the addition of the last 2 stars on the flag were required due to the expansion of the number of states in the Union.

Correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the concept.

But the stages of the moon still shine somewhere.

 

[WinterBorn]

What's your source for that amount?

And why are you ignoring the opportunity cost of first taking $3 trillion out of the economy, year after year. That money then can't be used to develop new medical treatments, can't be used to develop new, more efficient and less harmful energy sources, can't be used to grow pot for the millions to smoke while they get paid to do nothing.

You're leaving an awful lot out.

a Department of Labor study.

You still don't understand that "grow our economy we must".

Link the study, that should be a great read.

find a study yourself. i don't need to convince you now.

In other words, you require proof and that people answer questions, but make exceptions for yourself. I believe that fits the definition of the fallacy of Special Pleading.

the law is the law. that is all the legal proof i need.

Yes, the law is the law. Unemployment compensation is available for those who, through no fault of their own, lost their job.

 

[danielpalos]

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

No, it is not. Unemployment compensation is paid through additional payroll taxes that businesses pay. So it increases their expenses.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

So all you want to do is change who is eligible for UC, how it is paid for, how long you can get it, and how the determination is made for who gets it. Is that all? Just those few "minor" changes? Oh, and to make sure the means test is never applied to those who draw a check, no matter how long the are on the dole. Just that little bit of "adjustment"?

Wouldn't it be simpler to campaign to remove the means testing from welfare?

no; means testing has a purpose. Unemployment compensation is not that purpose.

And what is that purpose?

to understand where to concentrate wealth for the greatest effect.

 

[WinterBorn]

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

That is accomplished, according to you, by putting money in people's hands. Welfare does the same thing. There is no need to restructure the Unemployment Compensation system.

no, it doesn't. it puts "funny money" in their "hands". Unemployment compensation is convertible to legal tender for all debts public and private.

Welfare provides the same checks, convertible to legal tender for all debts public & private.

not from my understanding.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is naturally more natural and market friendly.

Then you understand wrong. And since the tax money is collected from the general fund, it is more market friendly.

 

[danielpalos]

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

You understand nothing except your fantasies of being able to draw a check and still live in your parent's basement.

the law is the law. why deny and disparage equal protection of the law and allege you are not being frivolous.

Only one post in the thread is made in frivolity. And I am not denying or disparaging equal protection under the law. I am protecting those who tried to keep working and earning their keep. And so is UC.

The law is employment at the will of either party. A federal doctrine and State laws claim this.

What law is repugnant to State law and a federal doctrine?