Likkmee
Gold Member
Ever been to Calumet City ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes but they have to prove they're looking for work and only for 26 weeks unless it's another Republican recession or depression, or taking education or training... Which should be a hell of a lot cheaper....Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.it has nothing to do with the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
Totally irrelevant to what I said.
Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?
Every other modern country handles it no problem.No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.
But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.
Yes but they have to prove they're looking for work and only for 26 weeks unless it's another Republican recession or depression, or taking education or training... Which should be a hell of a lot cheaper....Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
Totally irrelevant to what I said.
Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?
Mainly Republicans..... Low pay low benefits going to hell in a handbasketEvery other modern country handles it no problem.No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.
But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.
Yep. Some people don't mind being pushed around.
They have great vacations a living wage great health care daycare paid parental leave cheap college and training and they are being pushed around? Illuminate me LOLEvery other modern country handles it no problem.No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.
But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.
Yep. Some people don't mind being pushed around.
work requirements for welfare benefits?We already have unemployment compensation and welfare for the unfortunate. And that's not going anywhere. Now we need, see last post, Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.it has nothing to do with the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
LOL.
".Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism"
Forced upon us by, well you.
Government fixes the goalposts for Capitalism.Awesome! Government everywhere, all the time! It's an authoritarian wet dream.OP.... Exactly like today except with Health Care Day Care Living wage paid parental leave, good vacations and infrastructure, cheap college and training, taxing the rich more like their fair share, an SS ID card to stop illegal work and thus illegal immigration.
We're too stupid to live our own lives. we NEED people like franco to make decisions for us.
Business prefers their own rules for their own private profit.So if the government says you can have a 5 week vacation after a year of work, like basically every other modern country and many others, that makes you a slave to the government?
No, I get it. Government should decide how much vacation we get. They should decide everything for us, because we're just not qualified to lead our own lives.
socialism requires social morals for free. Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government!So no laws are necessary for socialism? I could get behind that.Socialism has never been forced on anybody, brainwashed functional moron. That's communism d u hWe already have unemployment compensation and welfare for the unfortunate. And that's not going anywhere. Now we need, see last post, Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
LOL.
".Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism"
Forced upon us by, well you.
he has to be the truest witness bearer of them all, and resort to the fewest fallacies.You are a total fool lol. One of the 26% insane Americans, from stress. Idiots. You don't have to take your 5 week paid vacation moron LOLSo if the government says you can have a 5 week vacation after a year of work, like basically every other modern country and many others, that makes you a slave to the government?
No, I get it. Government should decide how much vacation we get. They should decide everything for us, because we're just not qualified to lead our own lives.
At least be man enough to admit you think you are superior and that we would ALL be better off allowing you to make decisions for us.
Socialism is Government and governments Cost.No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.
But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.
All of America would look like California, minus the palm trees.George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?
tl;dr - A: About like it does now.
...
What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?
In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.
After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?
Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)
Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)
Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.
Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)
Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)
George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?
tl;dr - A: About like it does now.
...
What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?
In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.
After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?
Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)
Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)
Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.
Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)
Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)
it should be moral to Tax the Rich into Heaven, with "under God" in our pledge.You prefer screwing over the middle class and the working class? Great idea....No, as far as vacations, you don't have to take it.
But you have to pay for it regardless. Socialism isn't voluntary.
An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.it has nothing to do with the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
Totally irrelevant to what I said.
Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?
socialism requires social morals for free. Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government!So no laws are necessary for socialism? I could get behind that.Socialism has never been forced on anybody, brainwashed functional moron. That's communism d u hWe already have unemployment compensation and welfare for the unfortunate. And that's not going anywhere. Now we need, see last post, Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism.And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
LOL.
".Fair intelligent always democratic socialist capitalism"
Forced upon us by, well you.
An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.It has to do with tax dollars being used to pay someone who can support themselves.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
Totally irrelevant to what I said.
Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?
The law is employment at will not for the Cause of morals from the Age of Iron.An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.Providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.
And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
Totally irrelevant to what I said.
Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?
That is not an answer to my question.
The law is employment at will not for the Cause of morals from the Age of Iron.An public policy constitutes an public use. Eminent Domain applies.Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Institutional not individual.And if someone can take care of themselves, they should not expect to be paid additional money from taxes.
Totally irrelevant to what I said.
Answer this question. If a person has the means to support themselves, should the gov't give them a check based on the fact that they are unemployed?
That is not an answer to my question.