Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[hadit]

I have a case before the Court not right-wing fantasy, dear.

You've had that case for sometime now, according to you, but you can't seem to get any traction on it. You claim it's because you can't afford to move it faster (what, are you saying that the judge can be bribed?). Until then, what are the particulars of your case? What exactly are you charging? Are you charging that the law itself is unconstitutional or are you appealing a denial of your application?

 

[danielpalos]

How much will it cost? Until you answer that, you get nowhere.

It won't matter due to the multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

so it’s not a constitutional challenge

what are you appealing a denial of your claim?

I am not sure what you mean?

My position is that it does not matter what the State may proclaim because the State has no authority to abridge, deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the Law, to begin with. The State hath not the (social) Power.

 

[hadit]

I am not sure what you mean?

My position is that it does not matter what the State may proclaim because the State has no authority to abridge, deny or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the Law, to begin with. The State hath not the (social) Power.

IOW, you've set it up in your mind that you are right, no matter what the court says because you claim the state doesn't have authority to declare you wrong. Amazing.

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, you've set it up in your mind that you are right, no matter what the court says because you claim the state doesn't have authority to declare you wrong. Amazing.

Y'all have no valid refutations or rebuttals.

 

[hadit]

Y'all have no valid refutations or rebuttals.

Another classic Daniel admission of failure. When painted into a corner, you just start yammering that you haven't seen any refutations or rebuttals despite having dozens of them given to you and your attempts to respond to them.

 

[danielpalos]

Another classic Daniel admission of failure. When painted into a corner, you just start yammering that you haven't seen any refutations or rebuttals despite having dozens of them given to you and your attempts to respond to them.

You need valid arguments to be reasonable.

 

[hadit]

You need valid arguments to be reasonable.

And you've been given dozens of valid arguments. You just ignore them. For example, you have yet to post any legal scholar who says that UC law as written is unconstitutional. You also have yet to identify how much it will cost to pay every non-working American $15/hr with no expectation whatsoever of them working a job. Those are just two examples of where you have failed to support your assertions in any way. Yet you want to claim you haven't been given any arguments. You're ludicrous.

 

[danielpalos]

And you've been given dozens of valid arguments. You just ignore them. For example, you have yet to post any legal scholar who says that UC law as written is unconstitutional. You also have yet to identify how much it will cost to pay every non-working American $15/hr with no expectation whatsoever of them working a job. Those are just two examples of where you have failed to support your assertions in any way. Yet you want to claim you haven't been given any arguments. You're ludicrous.

You claiming anything without any valid argument for rebuttal is the Reason I start to ignore your fallacy and engage more in gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.

 

[hadit]

You claiming anything without any valid argument for rebuttal is the Reason I start to ignore your fallacy and engage more in gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.

Is that why you won't talk about how much it would cost to pay every non-working American $15/hr forever?
Is that why you won't cite any legal expert who says UC law as written is unconstitutional?
Is that why you pretend that doubling the MW overnight won't have any effect on the job market and inflation?

These are all valid arguments that have been presented to you that you have ignored.

 

[danielpalos]

Is that why you won't talk about how much it would cost to pay every non-working American $15/hr forever?
Is that why you won't cite any legal expert who says UC law as written is unconstitutional?
Is that why you pretend that doubling the MW overnight won't have any effect on the job market and inflation?

These are all valid arguments that have been presented to you that you have ignored.

You are the one appealing to ignorance of the multiplier. 2.0 versus 0.8. Only the right-wing does that while proclaiming to be for Capitalism, in socialism threads.

 

[hadit]

You are the one appealing to ignorance of the multiplier. 2.0 versus 0.8. Only the right-wing does that while proclaiming to be for Capitalism, in socialism threads.

You keep claiming 2.0 as a magic wand, but you won't talk about what it will cost.

 

[danielpalos]

You keep claiming 2.0 as a magic wand, but you won't talk about what it will cost.

Does it matter when the multiplier is 2.0?

Only the right-wing seems economically clueless and Causeless.

These persons know that economic activity Must go somewhere:

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

 

[WinterBorn]

How much money is required to pay these people?

A very good question. Daniel, for all his claimed intellect, refuses to answer that.

Let me help out.

The adult population is 258.3 million.

Population Under Age 18 Declined Last Decade

The first detailed results of the 2020 Census released today show a nationwide shift in the age makeup of the U.S. population from 2010 to 2020.

www.census.gov

The labor force participation was at 61.6% in October.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So there are 258.3 million adults in the US. 61.6% of them are employed. That means 159,112,800 adults are working. And 99,187,200 adults are not working.

A 40 hour week at $15 per hour means $600 per week in gross pay. At 52 weeks per year, that means an annual outlay of $31,200 per person.

To pay 99,187,200 adults $31,200 per year would cost the US tax payer $3,094,640,640,000.00.
If we assume that 20% of the population is not available (ie incarceration, hospitalization ect) and we only pay 80% of the unemployed the $31,200.00 every year, it will still cost the tax payers $2,475,712,512.00.

 

[WinterBorn]

Does it matter when the multiplier is 2.0?

Only the right-wing seems economically clueless and Causeless.

These persons know that economic activity Must go somewhere:

It does not all go back into taxes. And that would only happen after the massive outlay had been made.

 

[danielpalos]

A very good question. Daniel, for all his claimed intellect, refuses to answer that.

Let me help out.

The adult population is 258.3 million.

Population Under Age 18 Declined Last Decade

The first detailed results of the 2020 Census released today show a nationwide shift in the age makeup of the U.S. population from 2010 to 2020.

www.census.gov

The labor force participation was at 61.6% in October.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So there are 258.3 million adults in the US. 61.6% of them are employed. That means 159,112,800 adults are working. And 99,187,200 adults are not working.

A 40 hour week at $15 per hour means $600 per week in gross pay. At 52 weeks per year, that means an annual outlay of $31,200 per person.

To pay 99,187,200 adults $31,200 per year would cost the US tax payer $3,094,640,640,000.00.
If we assume that 20% of the population is not available (ie incarceration, hospitalization ect) and we only pay 80% of the unemployed the $31,200.00 every year, it will still cost the tax payers $2,475,712,512.00.

Thanks. Now can you explain why it matters with a multiplier of 2.0?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am saying it doesn't matter if we spend it on this due to the multiplier. We could simply print the money.

Simply print money? With that one statement you show your ignorance of economics. Any country that just prints more money experiences massive inflation.

The problem with printing money - Economics Help

Why can we just not print more money? - Explanation with diagrams and examples of why printing money can cause a rise in inflation and leave real output unaffected.

www.economicshelp.org

"Printing more money doesn’t increase economic output – it only increases the amount of cash circulating in the economy. If more money is printed, consumers are able to demand more goods, but if firms have still the same amount of goods, they will respond by putting up prices. In a simplified model, printing money will just cause inflation."

 

[hadit]

Does it matter when the multiplier is 2.0?

Only the right-wing seems economically clueless and Causeless.

These persons know that economic activity Must go somewhere:

Yes it freakin does matter because, one, you're not going to get 2.0. You'll be lucky to get what other massive welfare programs get. Then two, you'll need a massive new bureaucracy to manage the whole thing, because you're not eliminating other welfare programs. Then three, you'll unleash a tidal wave of fraud as people jump on the opportunity to get payments from multiple welfare programs at the same time, and finally, you'll see an even worse job market than we have now because there will be so little incentive to actually work a job. The only way employers will be able to attract job applicants would be by offering obscenely high pay, and if they could get those workers, prices would rise to make it possible to keep them, and guess what? We're right back to where we started, except now we would have millions of people taking payments, generating nothing for them, and complaining that $15/hr just isn't enough to support their weed habit and what Mom makes them pay for the couch in the basement.

These are economic realities you can't face.

 

[danielpalos]

It does not all go back into taxes. And that would only happen after the massive outlay had been made.

Yes, some persons would call that an investment.

 

[hadit]

Simply print money? With that one statement you show your ignorance of economics. Any country that just prints more money experiences massive inflation.

The problem with printing money - Economics Help

Why can we just not print more money? - Explanation with diagrams and examples of why printing money can cause a rise in inflation and leave real output unaffected.

www.economicshelp.org

"Printing more money doesn’t increase economic output – it only increases the amount of cash circulating in the economy. If more money is printed, consumers are able to demand more goods, but if firms have still the same amount of goods, they will respond by putting up prices. In a simplified model, printing money will just cause inflation."

Yup, that is the correct motorcycle.