The blueprint for prosperity

[danielpalos]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

 

[WinterBorn]

Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.

Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism. Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.

Everyone needs capital. But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.

And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.

Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

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%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

Nice post. Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The whole point about equality means nothing to you?

Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.

I have not disputed general welfare. I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.

Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses? Only right wingers allege what you do. Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.

I am all for cutting corporate welfare.

But, I will ask you again, if a mean test disqualifies you from welfare, why should you receive an income from other people's taxes. The means test shows you can live without assistance.

You confuse UC with means tested welfare. Both promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Since our welfare clause is General not common or limited, it means we are free to come up with any solution that promotes the general welfare but not the general malfare.

And still you dodge the question.

Once again, if a means test determines you can live without gov't assistance, why should tax payer funds be given to you?

 

[WinterBorn]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

 

[WinterBorn]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

 

[otto105]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.

 

[WinterBorn]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.

Greed based? It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live? I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.

 

[otto105]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.

Greed based? It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live? I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.

Why don't you post where on this planet your greed based economic theory is practiced with success.

 

[WinterBorn]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.

Greed based? It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live? I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.

Why don't you post where on this planet your greed based economic theory is practiced with success.

Nice dodge. I think the subject is fine where it is. But feel free to start a thread on it.

 

[danielpalos]

Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.

Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism. Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.

Everyone needs capital. But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.

And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.

Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

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%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

Nice post. Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The whole point about equality means nothing to you?

Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.

I have not disputed general welfare. I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.

Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses? Only right wingers allege what you do. Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.

I am all for cutting corporate welfare.

But, I will ask you again, if a mean test disqualifies you from welfare, why should you receive an income from other people's taxes. The means test shows you can live without assistance.

You confuse UC with means tested welfare. Both promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Since our welfare clause is General not common or limited, it means we are free to come up with any solution that promotes the general welfare but not the general malfare.

And still you dodge the question.

Once again, if a means test determines you can live without gov't assistance, why should tax payer funds be given to you?

Not a dodge but a real explanation you refuse to accept. I thought you were for the reality tv guy? The law is the law in an at-will employment State. We can promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner, on an at-will basis.

There is no general malfare clause in our federal Constitution.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[danielpalos]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

Have you been complaining about our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror? There is no general warfare clause in our Constitution. And, the general welfare cannot be confused with the general malfare.

 

[danielpalos]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

What are you referring to? Why do we have a homeless problem.

 

[danielpalos]

But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

Not from that employer but from the State. Employment is at the will of either party. We just need better management of this issue.

The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State? You don't believe in morality?

I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone. If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.

God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.

Greed based? It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live? I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.

 

[WinterBorn]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

What are you referring to? Why do we have a homeless problem.

The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.

 

[danielpalos]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

What are you referring to? Why do we have a homeless problem.

The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.

However did you reach your conclusion? We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.

We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government. It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.

 

[WinterBorn]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

What are you referring to? Why do we have a homeless problem.

The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.

However did you reach your conclusion? We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.

You are simply trying to change the subject. Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.

We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government. It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.

Having money taken by force from the one who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it is reserved for survival. If you want to thrive you have to do something.

 

[danielpalos]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

What are you referring to? Why do we have a homeless problem.

The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.

However did you reach your conclusion? We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.

You are simply trying to change the subject. Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.

Why are they on the street? UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient. Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.

 

[danielpalos]

But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.

We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government. It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.

Having money taken by force from the one who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it is reserved for survival. If you want to thrive you have to do something.

Means nothing. Simply bringing it up is disingenuous.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People to our federal Congress to provide for the general welfare. Any questions?

 

[WinterBorn]

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism. In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.

And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.

Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.

What are you referring to? Why do we have a homeless problem.

The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.

However did you reach your conclusion? We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.

You are simply trying to change the subject. Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.

Why are they on the street? UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient. Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.

We have been through this numerous times. The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.