Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

Employment is not a law, it is an agreement of two parties.

Employment relationships are governed by State laws.

Then prove there is no equal protection.

He thinks it's not equal if you get the unemployment compensation your employer has been paying for and you got laid off, but he doesn't because he never held a job.

cheaper than welfare; and, if you don't want to pay more in taxes, employ more people to lower your tax burden.

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

 

[Papageorgio]

Let's see your proof.

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

Again, I want to see proof of your claim, do you have it or not? I also asked what the natural rate unemployment was under capitalism and have yet seen an answer to that either.

Do you have proof to back up your claims or not?

Means testing is not cheap.

Unemployment compensation should be automatic.

Again, I asked two questions and you answer neither, so you really aren’t serious you are just regurgitating the same BS over and over. For a guy that claims he has a cause, you sure have no answers.

The issue is the hard working taxpayer is denied equal protection as they have to work and pay the lazy man that does not work.

Only the clueless and Causeless claim that. Anyone who knows any Thing about economics knows solving for simple poverty must engender a positive multiplier effect upon an economy. And, compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment functions as an Automatic stabilizer upon our economy.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage should not have any detrimental effect, in that case.

Need proof, back it up, it seems you are clueless, because you still have no answers.

 

[danielpalos]

Handing bums money is never going to be a positive multiplier. Not ever, never.

only capital Has to circulate under Capitalism.

 

[Papageorgio]

Let's see your proof.

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

Be honest. You mean choosing not to work.

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Got nothing, thanks for admitting you are a fraud, you need to contribute to the general welfare of the country.

 

[hadit]

It has been doing great until the last few years when people are just wanting money without actually having to work for it, then trying to claim that sitting and doing nothing is beneficial for society.

You are right, I don't buy into your idea, mainly because your idea rewards the lazy and takes away from the hard working Americans. Your idea of the unemployed creating new products would be fine as long as they can payback their debt to the American taxpayer at that time.

You don't understand Capitalism. Capitalism is about Voluntary transactions. Employment is at the will of either party. It is not about using Capitalism to "punish". It is about promoting the general welfare by merely using Capitalism for All of its worth in modern times.

The point is, right wingers; that not all capital opportunities can always be taken advantage of at any given time. Some people may be better off taking classes or vocational training while on unemployment. Reducing commuter traffic could also be a plus.

You are clear as mud on what you are saying. I already said that we need safety nets for individuals that find themselves out of work or that maybe getting welfare and trying to improve their lot in life. So, you are not communicating your message which sounds like everyone should be entitled to $14 forever, whether they work or not.

they could make more if they get a job. i am advocating for unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour equivalent less, than the minimum wage.

Stop calling it UE, because it's not.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

That applies to people who would work if they could, not those who can work but won't.

 

[Papageorgio]

Employment relationships are governed by State laws.

Then prove there is no equal protection.

He thinks it's not equal if you get the unemployment compensation your employer has been paying for and you got laid off, but he doesn't because he never held a job.

cheaper than welfare; and, if you don't want to pay more in taxes, employ more people to lower your tax burden.

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

What the hell are you talking about? “The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us”? That isn’t even a complete sentence, what the heck are you talking about?

Why do you not want to contribute to the general welfare? You are clueless.

 

[hadit]

Let's see your proof.

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

Be honest. You mean choosing not to work.

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Let's see if we have this right. You want to take money OUT of the economy so you can inject PART of it back INTO the economy because that's somehow superior to leaving it IN the economy to start with?

Basically, you're trying to fill a swimming pool by pumping water from the deep end into the shallow end.

 

[danielpalos]

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

Be honest. You mean choosing not to work.

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Got nothing, thanks for admitting you are a fraud, you need to contribute to the general welfare of the country.

just your ignorance. all of the concepts presented by me are valid. You all have no valid rebuttals, only gossip, propaganda, and rhetoric.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't understand Capitalism. Capitalism is about Voluntary transactions. Employment is at the will of either party. It is not about using Capitalism to "punish". It is about promoting the general welfare by merely using Capitalism for All of its worth in modern times.

The point is, right wingers; that not all capital opportunities can always be taken advantage of at any given time. Some people may be better off taking classes or vocational training while on unemployment. Reducing commuter traffic could also be a plus.

You are clear as mud on what you are saying. I already said that we need safety nets for individuals that find themselves out of work or that maybe getting welfare and trying to improve their lot in life. So, you are not communicating your message which sounds like everyone should be entitled to $14 forever, whether they work or not.

they could make more if they get a job. i am advocating for unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour equivalent less, than the minimum wage.

Stop calling it UE, because it's not.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

That applies to people who would work if they could, not those who can work but won't.

just your hangup. you could quit and go on unemployment. see how equal that is.

 

[danielpalos]

Then prove there is no equal protection.

He thinks it's not equal if you get the unemployment compensation your employer has been paying for and you got laid off, but he doesn't because he never held a job.

cheaper than welfare; and, if you don't want to pay more in taxes, employ more people to lower your tax burden.

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

What the hell are you talking about? “The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us”? That isn’t even a complete sentence, what the heck are you talking about?

Why do you not want to contribute to the general welfare? You are clueless.

you have to know something about economics.

and,

i know i can win my arguments in more serious venues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Handing bums money is never going to be a positive multiplier. Not ever, never.

only capital Has to circulate under Capitalism.

DURR.

 

[danielpalos]

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

Be honest. You mean choosing not to work.

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Let's see if we have this right. You want to take money OUT of the economy so you can inject PART of it back INTO the economy because that's somehow superior to leaving it IN the economy to start with?

Basically, you're trying to fill a swimming pool by pumping water from the deep end into the shallow end.

Full employment of resources is the objective.

What merchant in commerce would be worse off, if all adult customers have recourse to a minimum income simply for being unemployed?

If a person wants to make more, they can provide labor input to the economy.

The right wing has problems with the Poor and a Minimum wage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He thinks it's not equal if you get the unemployment compensation your employer has been paying for and you got laid off, but he doesn't because he never held a job.

cheaper than welfare; and, if you don't want to pay more in taxes, employ more people to lower your tax burden.

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

What the hell are you talking about? “The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us”? That isn’t even a complete sentence, what the heck are you talking about?

Why do you not want to contribute to the general welfare? You are clueless.

you have to know something about economics.

and,

i know i can win my arguments in more serious venues.

So that leaves you out.

 

[danielpalos]

Handing bums money is never going to be a positive multiplier. Not ever, never.

only capital Has to circulate under Capitalism.

DURR.

anyone who knows anything about economics, knows that.

 

[danielpalos]

cheaper than welfare; and, if you don't want to pay more in taxes, employ more people to lower your tax burden.

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

What the hell are you talking about? “The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us”? That isn’t even a complete sentence, what the heck are you talking about?

Why do you not want to contribute to the general welfare? You are clueless.

you have to know something about economics.

and,

i know i can win my arguments in more serious venues.

So that leaves you out.

You have no valid arguments in this public venue. Why should I take You, seriously?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be honest. You mean choosing not to work.

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Let's see if we have this right. You want to take money OUT of the economy so you can inject PART of it back INTO the economy because that's somehow superior to leaving it IN the economy to start with?

Basically, you're trying to fill a swimming pool by pumping water from the deep end into the shallow end.

Full employment of resources is the objective.

What merchant in commerce would be worse off, if all adult customers have recourse to a minimum income simply for being unemployed?

If a person wants to make more, they can provide labor input to the economy.

The right wing has problems with the Poor and a Minimum wage.

Handing money to bums results in less than full employment of resources.
Subsidizing sloth results in more sloth and less production.
Your weed fueled idiocy is not economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

What the hell are you talking about? “The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us”? That isn’t even a complete sentence, what the heck are you talking about?

Why do you not want to contribute to the general welfare? You are clueless.

you have to know something about economics.

and,

i know i can win my arguments in more serious venues.

So that leaves you out.

You have no valid arguments in this public venue. Why should I take You, seriously?

If mine are invalid yours are more vapid.

 

[danielpalos]

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Let's see if we have this right. You want to take money OUT of the economy so you can inject PART of it back INTO the economy because that's somehow superior to leaving it IN the economy to start with?

Basically, you're trying to fill a swimming pool by pumping water from the deep end into the shallow end.

Full employment of resources is the objective.

What merchant in commerce would be worse off, if all adult customers have recourse to a minimum income simply for being unemployed?

If a person wants to make more, they can provide labor input to the economy.

The right wing has problems with the Poor and a Minimum wage.

Handing money to bums results in less than full employment of resources.
Subsidizing sloth results in more sloth and less production.
Your weed fueled idiocy is not economics.

Capital has to circulate under Capitalism. That is why, Man invented money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Let's see if we have this right. You want to take money OUT of the economy so you can inject PART of it back INTO the economy because that's somehow superior to leaving it IN the economy to start with?

Basically, you're trying to fill a swimming pool by pumping water from the deep end into the shallow end.

Full employment of resources is the objective.

What merchant in commerce would be worse off, if all adult customers have recourse to a minimum income simply for being unemployed?

If a person wants to make more, they can provide labor input to the economy.

The right wing has problems with the Poor and a Minimum wage.

Handing money to bums results in less than full employment of resources.
Subsidizing sloth results in more sloth and less production.
Your weed fueled idiocy is not economics.

Capital has to circulate under Capitalism. That is why, Man invented money.

Don't be such a lazy, whiney bum.

 

[danielpalos]

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

What the hell are you talking about? “The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us”? That isn’t even a complete sentence, what the heck are you talking about?

Why do you not want to contribute to the general welfare? You are clueless.

you have to know something about economics.

and,

i know i can win my arguments in more serious venues.

So that leaves you out.

You have no valid arguments in this public venue. Why should I take You, seriously?

If mine are invalid yours are more vapid.

You appeal to ignorance, not reason and valid lines of reasoning.