What would a socialist America look like?

[danielpalos]

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".

anybody can Talk in Politics.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

find a study yourself. i don't need to convince you now.

 

[danielpalos]

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"??

why not? not enough equal protection of the law to go around, for the Poor.

 

[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.

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.

no, it doesn't. it puts "funny money" in their "hands". Unemployment compensation is convertible to legal tender for all debts public and private.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Exactly. As long as you are unemployed, whether you have a pension, 401k ect, he thinks you should draw unemployment.

And he accuses other of not understanding economics. lol

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

So all you want to do is change who is eligible for UC, how it is paid for, how long you can get it, and how the determination is made for who gets it. Is that all? Just those few "minor" changes? Oh, and to make sure the means test is never applied to those who draw a check, no matter how long the are on the dole. Just that little bit of "adjustment"?

Wouldn't it be simpler to campaign to remove the means testing from welfare?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

You understand nothing except your fantasies of being able to draw a check and still live in your parent's basement.

 

[WinterBorn]

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"??

why not? not enough equal protection of the law to go around, for the Poor.

But the economic policies of the Chinese emperors was stable enough. And the addition of the last 2 stars on the flag were required due to the expansion of the number of states in the Union.

 

[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.

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".

anybody can Talk in Politics.

Indeed they can. That is why you can reply to my posted facts with foolish nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

find a study yourself. i don't need to convince you now.

In other words, you require proof and that people answer questions, but make exceptions for yourself. I believe that fits the definition of the fallacy of Special Pleading.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

no, it doesn't. it puts "funny money" in their "hands". Unemployment compensation is convertible to legal tender for all debts public and private.

Welfare provides the same checks, convertible to legal tender for all debts public & private.

 

[francoHFW]

The rich are the only people that need to be taxed more. We have fallen behind the rest of the world the last 35 years. As well as being the victim of incredible GOP incompetence in foreign policy and security and finances for crying out loud. And we certainly would not get all those benefits at once and don't think they cost that much.

Ask me how I know you're not well-off?

What's wrong with a flat tax rate for everyone? Too fair for you, or what?

There's a reason why tax rates should be progressive, proven over the last hundred years.you end up with a bloated Rich class rolling in money and laughing all the way to the bank, and there is not enough money to invest in the country and you have infrastructure and the non Rich falling apart. Yes I know you are a brainwashed functional moron...

 

[Marion Morrison]

The rich are the only people that need to be taxed more. We have fallen behind the rest of the world the last 35 years. As well as being the victim of incredible GOP incompetence in foreign policy and security and finances for crying out loud. And we certainly would not get all those benefits at once and don't think they cost that much.

Ask me how I know you're not well-off?

What's wrong with a flat tax rate for everyone? Too fair for you, or what?

There's a reason why tax rates should be progressive, proven over the last hundred years.you end up with a bloated Rich class rolling in money and laughing all the way to the bank, and there is not enough money to invest in the country and you have infrastructure and the non Rich falling apart. Yes I know you are a brainwashed functional moron...

Ask me how I know you're jealous of people that have more money than you. Ask me how I know you're a foreign leftist shill who isn't American?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Exactly. As long as you are unemployed, whether you have a pension, 401k ect, he thinks you should draw unemployment.

And he accuses other of not understanding economics. lol

they could work a real job on a part-time basis that pays more.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, it is. It doesn't need to payed the way it is now. A general tax is simpler with a simpler regime.

So all you want to do is change who is eligible for UC, how it is paid for, how long you can get it, and how the determination is made for who gets it. Is that all? Just those few "minor" changes? Oh, and to make sure the means test is never applied to those who draw a check, no matter how long the are on the dole. Just that little bit of "adjustment"?

Wouldn't it be simpler to campaign to remove the means testing from welfare?

no; means testing has a purpose. Unemployment compensation is not that purpose.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I understand economics not right wing fantasy.

You understand nothing except your fantasies of being able to draw a check and still live in your parent's basement.

the law is the law. why deny and disparage equal protection of the law and allege you are not being frivolous.

 

[danielpalos]

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"??

why not? not enough equal protection of the law to go around, for the Poor.

But the economic policies of the Chinese emperors was stable enough. And the addition of the last 2 stars on the flag were required due to the expansion of the number of states in the Union.

Correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the concept.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

find a study yourself. i don't need to convince you now.

In other words, you require proof and that people answer questions, but make exceptions for yourself. I believe that fits the definition of the fallacy of Special Pleading.

the law is the law. that is all the legal proof i need.