The blueprint for prosperity

[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.

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?

No questions that I have not asked you already, and you refused to answer.

The tax dollars given to people is so they can live, not so they do well.

 

[initforme]

All of this leafs to why a declining birthrate only helps a nation.

 

[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.

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

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

 

[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?

No questions that I have not asked you already, and you refused to answer.

The tax dollars given to people is so they can live, not so they do well.

We have poverty guidelines. Any more disingenuity from the morally challenged right wing?

 

[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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?

 

[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.

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

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.

Is that why we still have a homeless problem?

 

[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.

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

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?

When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?

 

[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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.

Is that why we still have a homeless problem?

We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.

 

[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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?

When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?

YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.

 

[P@triot]

How well did Capitalism do in 1929?

Just fine, thanks. Until FDR stepped in and created The Great Depression (as confirmed by left-wing UCLA).

Thank God Ronald Reagan was in charge in 1987 during “Black Monday”. Had it been a Dumbocrat, the US would have experienced two “Great Depressions”.

 

[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.

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

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.

Is that why we still have a homeless problem?

We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.

Maybe in right wing fantasy. We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.

 

[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.

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

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?

When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?

YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.

lol. I believe in equality and equal protection of the laws, why don't You?

 

[danielpalos]

How well did Capitalism do in 1929?

Just fine, thanks. Until FDR stepped in and created The Great Depression (as confirmed by left-wing UCLA).

Thank God Ronald Reagan was in charge in 1987 during “Black Monday”. Had it been a Dumbocrat, the US would have experienced two “Great Depressions”.

Hoover was a Republican and was not as fantastical as modern the modern right wing.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?

When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?

YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.

lol. I believe in equality and equal protection of the laws, why don't You?

Equality of education is good.

 

[danielpalos]

Equality of education is good.

With equal protection of the laws for UC, people could go to school as long as they want and not need to go into debt for it. We need a more educated workforce in our first world economy.

 

[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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.

Is that why we still have a homeless problem?

We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.

Maybe in right wing fantasy. We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.

Pure bullshit.

 

[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.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?

When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?

YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.

lol. I believe in equality and equal protection of the laws, why don't You?

I do. What you believe in is for a select few to be able to get paid out of tax dollars without providing anything for that money. And to not have to prove you need it, you just want it.

 

[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.

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

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads". Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.

And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.

Is that why we still have a homeless problem?

We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.

Maybe in right wing fantasy. We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.

Pure bullshit.

lol. You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations. Ready full of fallacy right winger?

 

[danielpalos]

I do.

lol. A select few is capitalism not the socialism of equality.

If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle