Is the Bern not typical of most wealth haters?

[Dovahkiin]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

The government effects the economy and our elected leader should have a more positive effect on the economy, vice running it in the ground like they're doing now.

I agree, Obama's deficit cutting has harmed the recovery, and his refusal to work towards full employment.

 

[Dovahkiin]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

riiiiiiiiight.

What he/she doesn't realize is that the us govt creates dollars from thin air, so getting the 'govt out of the way' is absurdity.

 

[9aces]

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

 

[jillian]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

riiiiiiiiight.

What he/she doesn't realize is that the us govt creates dollars from thin air, so getting the 'govt out of the way' is absurdity.

it's an absurdity for more reasons than just monetary, imo. it's absurd because history proves that laissez faire capitalism creates dickensian nightmares or third world banana republics. they're like little children whining when their parents set rules. how dare they be required not to have slaves; how dare they be required to serve all types of people; how dare they be required to follow OSHA rules and not endanger their employees or run sweat shops.

unbelievable.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

The government effects the economy and our elected leader should have a more positive effect on the economy, vice running it in the ground like they're doing now.

I agree, Obama's deficit cutting has harmed the recovery, and his refusal to work towards full employment.

Government spending isn't how you encourage the economy.

The Soviet Union tried that and it flopped.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

The minority community, as a whole, has been trained to expect government assistance, in some form. And that ain't bullshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Government spending isn't how you encourage the economy.

The Soviet Union tried that and it flopped.

And FDR tried it and it worked, so I guess you gotta do it right.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

The minority community, as a whole, has been trained to expect government assistance, in some form. And that ain't bullshit.

With 50% unemployment among some minority demographics, I would expect them to expect government assistance.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Government spending isn't how you encourage the economy.

The Soviet Union tried that and it flopped.

And FDR tried it and it worked, so I guess you gotta do it right.

FDR only prolonged the depression. Ever notice how Truman and Eisenhower didn't try it and we saw nearly unmatched economic prosperity?

 

[JimBowie1958]

FDR only prolonged the depression. Ever notice how Truman and Eisenhower didn't try it and we saw nearly unmatched economic prosperity?

It amazes me how ideologues on the left and the right just invent the 'real truth' of well known historical events like it was just so much fluff.

Here is a table that plainly shows the inflation adjusted GDP of the US from 1929.

US Real GDP by Year

By 1936 the US had returned to the 1929 GDP and never fell below it again.

So much for your claim that FDR lengthened the Great Depression, in fact that Depression was created by loose credit and a string of bubbles prior to it that destabilized the markets. After FDR and his allies passed reforms like Glass-Steagal we didnt have a major market crash until 2008, about a decade after repealing Glass-Steagal.

Sorry Wild Bill, but your facts dont match up to reality.

 

[jillian]

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

The government effects the economy and our elected leader should have a more positive effect on the economy, vice running it in the ground like they're doing now.

I agree, Obama's deficit cutting has harmed the recovery, and his refusal to work towards full employment.

Government spending isn't how you encourage the economy.

The Soviet Union tried that and it flopped.

really? so the entire GI bill never happened and didn't create massive economic growth?

the WPA didn't help get us out of the depression.

while i appreciate your earnestness it is not based in reality.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

 

[jillian]

FDR only prolonged the depression. Ever notice how Truman and Eisenhower didn't try it and we saw nearly unmatched economic prosperity?

It amazes me how ideologues on the left and the right just invent the 'real truth' of well known historical events like it was just so much fluff.

Here is a table that plainly shows the inflation adjusted GDP of the US from 1929.

US Real GDP by Year

By 1936 the US had returned to the 1929 GDP and never fell below it again.

So much for your claim that FDR lengthened the Great Depression, in fact that Depression was created by loose credit and a string of bubbles prior to it that destabilized the markets. After FDR and his allies passed reforms like Glass-Steagal we didnt have a major market crash until 2008, about a decade after repealing Glass-Steagal.

Sorry Wild Bill, but your facts dont match up to reality.

what i find more interesting is that we disagree on most everything except for economic policy.... at least in part.

well done.

 

[JimBowie1958]

what i find more interesting is that we disagree on most everything except for economic policy.... at least in part.

well done.

I just prefer my history and policy analysis without invention...which is probably why we disagree on so much more.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Government spending isn't how you encourage the economy.

The Soviet Union tried that and it flopped.

And FDR tried it and it worked, so I guess you gotta do it right.

FDR only prolonged the depression. Ever notice how Truman and Eisenhower didn't try it and we saw nearly unmatched economic prosperity?

Funny when people say that.. he didn't prolong anything, people always refer to the downturn that happened, oddly enough, WHEN ROOSEVELT CUT SPENDING. We recovered because of the massive government spending from the war

 

[Dovahkiin]

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

I would love to see your evidence when food stamps are cut, Walmart sales go down. Are you talking about WalMart's grocery items or in general?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.

That is because inflation is hidden using various accounting tricks, like not calculating in fuel and food costs and 'balancing' price increase by increase in quality, like computers being able to do more calculations.

Anyone that has to put food on the table knows that we are seeing inflation.

Macro economic inflation will only happen if the oil producing nations end their demand for US dollars for their fuel.