Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

That is how I know your numbers are wrong.

That's a dumb thing to say.

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

 

[danielpalos]

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

And we have showed you over and over why your stupid equation is dead nuts wrong! Now, if you can’t show me how paying 100 million people $14 an hour is less than half a billion then you are so far off it matters not what the hell you do because you are the dumbest person on this cite.

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

The bottom line remains, you want permanent access to the fruits of others' labor without demonstrating need.

Just be honest and say you want to be on welfare so you can spend your days smoking pot.

dear, capital doesn't care about social ethics, why allege right wingers have any more profit motive to care.

 

[Papageorgio]

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

And we have showed you over and over why your stupid equation is dead nuts wrong! Now, if you can’t show me how paying 100 million people $14 an hour is less than half a billion then you are so far off it matters not what the hell you do because you are the dumbest person on this cite.

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

I never said full employment would be bad, I said learn your subject because it is very obvious that you have no clue.

 

[Papageorgio]

That's a dumb thing to say.

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

 

[danielpalos]

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

And we have showed you over and over why your stupid equation is dead nuts wrong! Now, if you can’t show me how paying 100 million people $14 an hour is less than half a billion then you are so far off it matters not what the hell you do because you are the dumbest person on this cite.

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

I never said full employment would be bad, I said learn your subject because it is very obvious that you have no clue.

I have no fallacies in my arguments.

 

[hadit]

That's a dumb thing to say.

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

The budget is nowhere near large enough to do it. That's been ably shown many times, yet you stubbornly cling to your failed excuses.

 

[Papageorgio]

And we have showed you over and over why your stupid equation is dead nuts wrong! Now, if you can’t show me how paying 100 million people $14 an hour is less than half a billion then you are so far off it matters not what the hell you do because you are the dumbest person on this cite.

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

I never said full employment would be bad, I said learn your subject because it is very obvious that you have no clue.

I have no fallacies in my arguments.

That's because you have no argument.

 

[danielpalos]

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

 

[danielpalos]

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

The budget is nowhere near large enough to do it. That's been ably shown many times, yet you stubbornly cling to your failed excuses.

Sure it is; that is what, money management is for; only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

I never said full employment would be bad, I said learn your subject because it is very obvious that you have no clue.

I have no fallacies in my arguments.

That's because you have no argument.

Why do you believe more people spending more money in any give local economy would be a bad thing?

 

[Papageorgio]

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

Because you are taking money from the working class and giving it to the poor class, both spend money, you aren't creating more money, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is not noble, it is selfish.

 

[hadit]

And we have showed you over and over why your stupid equation is dead nuts wrong! Now, if you can’t show me how paying 100 million people $14 an hour is less than half a billion then you are so far off it matters not what the hell you do because you are the dumbest person on this cite.

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

I never said full employment would be bad, I said learn your subject because it is very obvious that you have no clue.

I have no fallacies in my arguments.

You keep claiming that giving money to people who refuse to work is good because they would spend it, but won't acknowledge the lost opportunity for the people you took the money from, who can't spend it.

In essence, you act like the government just magically earns as much money as you think it needs to let you stay home and smoke pot, but the truth is the government has no money it did not first take from the taxpayers.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

Because you are taking money from the working class and giving it to the poor class, both spend money, you aren't creating more money, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is not noble, it is selfish.

It is not a zero sum game. You simply are clueless and Causeless about economics, positive multiplier effects, and "growing the size of the economic pie".

 

[danielpalos]

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

I never said full employment would be bad, I said learn your subject because it is very obvious that you have no clue.

I have no fallacies in my arguments.

You keep claiming that giving money to people who refuse to work is good because they would spend it, but won't acknowledge the lost opportunity for the people you took the money from, who can't spend it.

In essence, you act like the government just magically earns as much money as you think it needs to let you stay home and smoke pot, but the truth is the government has no money it did not first take from the taxpayers.

Capital merely need be circulated. Social causes are for socialists.

 

[hadit]

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

You might as well take a gallon of water from the deep end of the pool, dump it in the shallow end, then scoop a teaspoon back out of the shallow end and dump it in the middle.

 

[hadit]

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

The budget is nowhere near large enough to do it. That's been ably shown many times, yet you stubbornly cling to your failed excuses.

Sure it is; that is what, money management is for; only the right wing, never gets it.

How do you get $6 trillion out of a $3 trillion budget? And you can't be high when you answer.

 

[Papageorgio]

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

Because you are taking money from the working class and giving it to the poor class, both spend money, you aren't creating more money, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is not noble, it is selfish.

It is not a zero sum game. You simply are clueless and Causeless about economics, positive multiplier effects, and "growing the size of the economic pie".

If I have $5 and I am going to spend it at the grocery store and you take my $5 and spend it at the grocery store, nothing is added to the economy. I worked for the money you took it and spent it. What gain to the economy is there?

Now, if I had a business and hired you and gave you a pay check for helping me produce goods or services that others purchased, then you would have money, there is a cost benefit relationship and we have all improved the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

You might as well take a gallon of water from the deep end of the pool, dump it in the shallow end, then scoop a teaspoon back out of the shallow end and dump it in the middle.

this is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

people spending money creates demand.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

The budget is nowhere near large enough to do it. That's been ably shown many times, yet you stubbornly cling to your failed excuses.

Sure it is; that is what, money management is for; only the right wing, never gets it.

How do you get $6 trillion out of a $3 trillion budget? And you can't be high when you answer.

It would be phased in to grow our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, we do. It would need to be phased in. It would be no worse than QE, but much more noticeable on any given local economy. Why do you have a problem with using capitalism to recirculate money.

"Phased in" how? Because "phased in" or not, it would still mean the doubling of government spending with no real gain. People that have money, work hard for their money will be forced to give more to people that choose not to work hard and sponge of the rest of the country. Nothing noble in taking other people's money for your own needs, that is called being selfish.

What do you mean by, "no real gain"? People would spending that money in local economies and that money would be taxed locally.

Because you are taking money from the working class and giving it to the poor class, both spend money, you aren't creating more money, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is not noble, it is selfish.

It is not a zero sum game. You simply are clueless and Causeless about economics, positive multiplier effects, and "growing the size of the economic pie".

If I have $5 and I am going to spend it at the grocery store and you take my $5 and spend it at the grocery store, nothing is added to the economy. I worked for the money you took it and spent it. What gain to the economy is there?

Now, if I had a business and hired you and gave you a pay check for helping me produce goods or services that others purchased, then you would have money, there is a cost benefit relationship and we have all improved the economy.

That is not how it works. It is not a zero sum game.