Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[hadit]

IOW, you want the employer to pay you without you being required to provide him any value for doing so.

Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

You're not solving anything.

Yes, it does. Nothing but repeal solves less.

All it does is turn businesses into welfare distribution centers and hide the true cost of supporting those who could support themselves, but won't.

No, it doesn't. It is simple and more efficient, income redistribution.

Income redistribution is just another term for forcibly taking from those who earned it to give to those who did not.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's assume around twenty-eight thousand per person per year who applies for unemployment compensation.

Why do you believe we would be worse off; with more people spending more money for goods and services?

Automatic Stabilizer

Again, where does $9 trillion in spending come from? Higher taxes? Then you tax rate for all workers would need to be 90%, at a 90% tax rate, anyone making less than $140 an hour would be losing money.

Do you have real numbers to go with your scenario? My numbers maybe off but I wouldn’t know since your plan is vague and now looks totally cost prohibitive.

It wouldn't be new spending; it would be doing more with less. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective than Any form of means tested welfare.

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

No, it won't. It will cost less than what we are paying now for less efficient government.

Then let’s see your numbers, I showed you mine, show me where I am wrong. So far all you have given is pie in the sky BS.

We can work with our current unemployment numbers and welfare numbers. The point about simplification is we would be getting market share from regular welfare rolls. Thus, decreasing the cost of government.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

It really is that simple. Equal protection of the law is all it requires. People spending that money will increase demand and stabilize our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do republic pols and voters want to create them?

Such as this work requirement to receive Medicaid. Studies in Michigan and Ohio have shown that healthier people find and keep work at much higher rates than unhealthy people. But republic shithole thinking wants to remove the healthcare and make poor people even less healthy.

A work requirement in an at-will employment State is unlawful. The right wing has no problem being illegal to the law; and have no problem blaming less fortunate illegals for their being illegal to the law.

 

[hadit]

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

It really is that simple. Equal protection of the law is all it requires. People spending that money will increase demand and stabilize our economy.

You forget about the people from whom it is taken in the first place. They no longer can spend it to increase demand and stabilize our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

It means you should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

A federal doctrine and State laws.

Which ones? Cite the language.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

Nothing but repeal, is worthless, right wingers. Why do you care how much I make or how I make it; should the poor care how much the rich make and how they make it?

If you're trying to take it from what I have legally earned, I have something to say about it.

Like financing tax cuts through public debt?

No. Tax cuts are not expenses.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. Your guys have no balanced budget. It is being financed and being put on the Peoples' tab.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

You're not solving anything.

Yes, it does. Nothing but repeal solves less.

All it does is turn businesses into welfare distribution centers and hide the true cost of supporting those who could support themselves, but won't.

No, it doesn't. It is simple and more efficient, income redistribution.

Income redistribution is just another term for forcibly taking from those who earned it to give to those who did not.

Financing tax cuts and putting it on the Peoples' tab, is Income Redistribution.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

It really is that simple. Equal protection of the law is all it requires. People spending that money will increase demand and stabilize our economy.

You forget about the people from whom it is taken in the first place. They no longer can spend it to increase demand and stabilize our economy.

Yes, they can; and the left is also advocating for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, where does $9 trillion in spending come from? Higher taxes? Then you tax rate for all workers would need to be 90%, at a 90% tax rate, anyone making less than $140 an hour would be losing money.

Do you have real numbers to go with your scenario? My numbers maybe off but I wouldn’t know since your plan is vague and now looks totally cost prohibitive.

It wouldn't be new spending; it would be doing more with less. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective than Any form of means tested welfare.

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

No, it won't. It will cost less than what we are paying now for less efficient government.

Then let’s see your numbers, I showed you mine, show me where I am wrong. So far all you have given is pie in the sky BS.

We can work with our current unemployment numbers and welfare numbers. The point about simplification is we would be getting market share from regular welfare rolls. Thus, decreasing the cost of government.

You have no numbers just your idea with absolutely no proof. Sorry, I would need more info than you are willing to provide. If you got any real numbers I’ll take a look but so far I’m going with my numbers because you refuse to give me any.

 

[Papageorgio]

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

It really is that simple. Equal protection of the law is all it requires. People spending that money will increase demand and stabilize our economy.

Again, you have an idea with absolutely no documentation, when you get the numbers let me know because so far you are all talk and nothing else.

 

[danielpalos]

It wouldn't be new spending; it would be doing more with less. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective than Any form of means tested welfare.

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

No, it won't. It will cost less than what we are paying now for less efficient government.

Then let’s see your numbers, I showed you mine, show me where I am wrong. So far all you have given is pie in the sky BS.

We can work with our current unemployment numbers and welfare numbers. The point about simplification is we would be getting market share from regular welfare rolls. Thus, decreasing the cost of government.

You have no numbers just your idea with absolutely no proof. Sorry, I would need more info than you are willing to provide. If you got any real numbers I’ll take a look but so far I’m going with my numbers because you refuse to give me any.

cheaper than what we have to spend now; and a more efficient economy, to boot.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

It really is that simple. Equal protection of the law is all it requires. People spending that money will increase demand and stabilize our economy.

Again, you have an idea with absolutely no documentation, when you get the numbers let me know because so far you are all talk and nothing else.

Solving simple poverty simplifies the equation. Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour and a minimum wage at fifteen dollars an hour; should work very well in our first world economy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

People who depend on government to survive will vote for ever larger and more intrusive government. The march to total government, the goal of the democrats, is aided by the welfare state.

 

[hadit]

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

A federal doctrine and State laws.

Which ones? Cite the language.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

You are doing EXACTLY what I expected you to do, nothing. You won't cite the language because it isn't there.

 

[Papageorgio]

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

A federal doctrine and State laws.

Which ones? Cite the language.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

There isn’t one.

 

[hadit]

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

Nothing but repeal, is worthless, right wingers. Why do you care how much I make or how I make it; should the poor care how much the rich make and how they make it?

If you're trying to take it from what I have legally earned, I have something to say about it.

Like financing tax cuts through public debt?

No. Tax cuts are not expenses.

This is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. Your guys have no balanced budget. It is being financed and being put on the Peoples' tab.

So cut spending.

 

[Papageorgio]

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

No, it won't. It will cost less than what we are paying now for less efficient government.

Then let’s see your numbers, I showed you mine, show me where I am wrong. So far all you have given is pie in the sky BS.

We can work with our current unemployment numbers and welfare numbers. The point about simplification is we would be getting market share from regular welfare rolls. Thus, decreasing the cost of government.

You have no numbers just your idea with absolutely no proof. Sorry, I would need more info than you are willing to provide. If you got any real numbers I’ll take a look but so far I’m going with my numbers because you refuse to give me any.

cheaper than what we have to spend now; and a more efficient economy, to boot.

You have nothing to back your claim. If you had any real numbers I could discuss but all I have is you saying the same idea over and over with nothing to substantiate your idea. I’m show a $9 trillion program and you have nothing.

 

[hadit]

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

It really is that simple. Equal protection of the law is all it requires. People spending that money will increase demand and stabilize our economy.

You forget about the people from whom it is taken in the first place. They no longer can spend it to increase demand and stabilize our economy.

Yes, they can; and the left is also advocating for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

You're delusional. If I take money from you, you can't spend that money. I can spend it, but it's still the same money, and you don't have it any more.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

People who depend on government to survive will vote for ever larger and more intrusive government. The march to total government, the goal of the democrats, is aided by the welfare state.

Unlike the Warfare-State the right wing loves to profit from.