What would a socialist America look like?

[danielpalos]

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.

on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.

Then they will refuse the money and remain homeless. You have no understanding of the homeless issue in this country. You need to know your cause if you want a cure.

You can make up any story you want, story teller.

 

[Papageorgio]

And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.

EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.

Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

Why would that be problem? Only the right wing whines about Minimum wages or less.

 

[Papageorgio]

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.

on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.

Then they will refuse the money and remain homeless. You have no understanding of the homeless issue in this country. You need to know your cause if you want a cure.

You can make up any story you want, story teller.

That is true, you keep persisting in a made up story of solving property. No one takes your cure seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

for each one dollar spent, it generates two dollars of economic activity. it helps if you understand the concepts.

 

[Papageorgio]

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.

Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

Why would that be problem? Only the right wing whines about Minimum wages or less.

The right wants a real cure, you provide a death bed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

Your lack of understanding on economics just add to your cure being death.

 

[Papageorgio]

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

for each one dollar spent, it generates two dollars of economic activity. it helps if you understand the concepts.

Still leaves you short of the goal. Why not throw dollars at education?

 

[hadit]

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

for each one dollar spent, it generates two dollars of economic activity. it helps if you understand the concepts.

What's your source for that amount?

And why are you ignoring the opportunity cost of first taking $3 trillion out of the economy, year after year. That money then can't be used to develop new medical treatments, can't be used to develop new, more efficient and less harmful energy sources, can't be used to grow pot for the millions to smoke while they get paid to do nothing.

You're leaving an awful lot out.

 

[danielpalos]

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

for each one dollar spent, it generates two dollars of economic activity. it helps if you understand the concepts.

What's your source for that amount?

And why are you ignoring the opportunity cost of first taking $3 trillion out of the economy, year after year. That money then can't be used to develop new medical treatments, can't be used to develop new, more efficient and less harmful energy sources, can't be used to grow pot for the millions to smoke while they get paid to do nothing.

You're leaving an awful lot out.

a Department of Labor study.

You still don't understand that "grow our economy we must".

 

[WinterBorn]

Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.

on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.

And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.

EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

Ok. There is nothing in the "equal protection of the law" that would require including those who quit the job or those who were fired for cause. So it will remain "those who lost their job through no fault of their own".

 

[Papageorgio]

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

for each one dollar spent, it generates two dollars of economic activity. it helps if you understand the concepts.

What's your source for that amount?

And why are you ignoring the opportunity cost of first taking $3 trillion out of the economy, year after year. That money then can't be used to develop new medical treatments, can't be used to develop new, more efficient and less harmful energy sources, can't be used to grow pot for the millions to smoke while they get paid to do nothing.

You're leaving an awful lot out.

a Department of Labor study.

You still don't understand that "grow our economy we must".

Link the study, that should be a great read.

 

[WinterBorn]

What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?

solve for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Welfare can do that. UC cannot.

how is that?

UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most.

makes some of us wonder, why we even have a "McCarthy era phrase in our pledge".

What does a "McCarth era phrase in our pledge" have to do with my comment of "UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most"??

 

[WinterBorn]

And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.

EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

That is accomplished, according to you, by putting money in people's hands. Welfare does the same thing. There is no need to restructure the Unemployment Compensation system.

 

[WinterBorn]

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.

Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.

it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

You said the multiplier is 2X, that still leaves your program over 2 trillion in debt per year and you have no answer for this fact.

You want to force the homeless to get homes? Another really dumb answer from the naive. Avoiding the problems with your cure is absolutely stupid and that is why no one right or left would take you seriously. You couldn’t answer winterborns questions, it’s obvious you have nothing.

And he, apparently thinks, a monthly check will cure the addiction and/or mental problems so rampant among the homeless.

 

[WinterBorn]

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

No, it is not. Unemployment compensation is paid through additional payroll taxes that businesses pay. So it increases their expenses.

 

[Papageorgio]

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".

A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.

Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.

The biggest problem with his plan is that he wants unemployment compensation for those who quit their job or were fired for cause. And he wants it to be indefinite. In other words, he wants welfare. He wants to turn the unemployment compensation system into welfare. All to avoid the means testing involved in applying for welfare.

Technically, you could quit your job at age 66, get your pensions, get your social security and still make $15 an hour for the rest of your life. That would be a sweet deal for me, my wife and I could retire today, get my pension, start living off off my IRA and 401K and the unemployment, then in a few years my social security would kickin.

How this guy thinks his idea is sustainable is beyond me.

 

[Papageorgio]

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.

being able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is a capital and market friendly option.

No, it is not. Unemployment compensation is paid through additional payroll taxes that businesses pay. So it increases their expenses.

Which is then passed on to the consumer resulting in higher prices.